Government Implementation of the Standard Rules
As Seen By Member Organizations of
World Blind Union - WBU

---

© Dimitris Michailakis 1997

General Policy

Table 1 (Question No. 1)
Number of WBU organizations reporting an officially recognized disability policy:

Disability policy expressed in:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Having an officially recognized policy	26	81,3
Not having an officially recognized policy	6	18,8
Law	16	50,0
Guidelines adopted by the Government	15	46,9
Guidelines adopted by a disability council	13	40,6
Policy adopted by political parties	6	18,8
Policy adopted by NGO's	11	34,4

Total 32, No answer 1

As Table 1 shows, the majority of WBU organizations are reporting that the country in question has an officially recognized disability policy. The majority of WBU organizations are reporting that disability policy is expressed in law and in guidelines adopted by the government. The replies from the NGOs in general exhibit the same pattern. There are, however, clear differences regarding the percentage of countries with an officially policy recognized in law: the percentage reported by WBU organizations is lower than for the NGOs in general. When compared with the government responses, WBU organizations report a lower percentage regarding disability policy expressed in law and in guidelines, adopted by the governments.

Table 2 (Question No. 2)
The emphasis of disability policy

Emphasis in national policy	Number of WBU org. indicating respective emphasis
	1	2	3	4	5
Prevention	6	4	3	6	2
Rehabilitation	7	6	6	3	-
Individual support	4	7	5	3	1
Accessibility measures	3	4	2	4	6
Anti-discrimination law	4	2	4	2	6

1 = very strong emphasis, 5 = very weak emphasis

According to WBU organizations the strongest emphasis is on rehabilitation, while the weakest emphasis is on anti-discrimination law and accessibility measures. Thus the same pattern prevails as with the NGOs in general. WBU organizations, however, are reporting a quite strong emphasis regarding prevention. The same pattern, as NGOs in general can be discerned, when compared with the government responses.

Table 3 (Question No. 3)
Government action to convey the message of full participation

Conveying the message of full participation	Frequency	Valid Percent
WBU organizations reporting Gvt. action	14	43,8
WBU organizations reporting no Gvt. action	18	56,3

Total 32, No answer 1

As Table 3 shows, there are 18 organizations out of 32 providing information on this issue, reporting that the government has not done anything to initiate or support information campaigns conveying the message of full participation, since the adoption of the Rules. There are no great differences in percentages reported, when compared with the NGOs in general. But, the percentage is considerably lower among WBU organizations compared with government responses. There are 81% of the governments reporting that action has been taken to convey the message of full participation, but only 44% of the WBU organizations.

Legislation

Table 4 (Question No. 4)
Types of legislation to protect the rights of persons with disabilities

Types of legislation	Frequency	Valid Percent
Special legislation	10	30,3
General legislation	12	36,4
Special and general legislation	11	33,3

Total 33, No answer 0

As Table 4 shows, the most common type of legislation is general legislation. The second most frequent type of legislation is to use a combination of general legislation, applicable to all citizens, and special legislation specifically referring to disabled persons¥ rights, while the least common type is special legislation. There is, however, a high percentage of countries, where the rights of persons with disabilities are protected by special legislation. The pattern is not the same, compared with the NGOs in general. For the NGOs in general the most frequent type is to use a combination of special and general legislation. There are also great differences, when compared with government responses. WBU organizations report a higher percentage in case of only special legislation or only general legislation, but a lower percentage for the combination of special and general legislation.

Table 5 (Question No. 5)
Mechanisms to protect citizenship rights

Judicial/no-judicial mechanisms	Frequency	Valid Percent
Due process	23	79,3
Recourse procedure	2	6,9
Ombudsman	7	24,1
Governmental body (administrative)	16	55,2
Expert bodies	4	13,8
Arbitration/conciliation body	0	0,0

Total 29, No answer 4

As Table 5 shows, the majority of WBU organizations are reporting that mechanisms have been adopted to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. The most frequent judicial mechanism adopted is legal remedy through the courts, while the most frequent non-judicial mechanism is a governmental body (administrative). It is interesting to note that only 7 countries out of 29 providing information on this issue, report that there is an Ombudsman. There is a clear difference as regards the percentage of governments reporting that they have an ombudsman as well as an arbitration/conciliation body, and recourse procedure. The reported percentage from WBU on these mechanisms are considerably lower than those reported by NGOs in general. When compared with the percentages reported by the governments there is a clear difference only regarding the existence of an arbitration/conciliation body.


Table 6 (Question 6)
Civil and political rights of persons with disabilities

WBU organizations reporting that general legislation does not apply with respect to:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Education	2	7,4
Employment	2	7,4
The right to marriage	6	22,2
The right to parenthood/family	6	22,2
Political rights	6	22,2
Access to court-of-law	4	14,8
Right to privacy	3	11,1
Property rights	8	29,6

Total 27, No answer 6

As Table 6 shows, it is a considerable number of WBU organizations reporting that general legislation does not apply to persons with disabilities with respect to the right to parenthood/family, the right to marriage and to political rights. General legislation applies in almost all countries with respect to the right of education. It is also interesting to note that, according to WBU, general legislation applies with respect to the right of employment in more than 90% of the countries. The pattern is the same as with the NGOs in general, but with some differences in the percentages reported. The percentages reported by WBU organizations are considerably lower. When compared with the percentages reported by the governments, WBU organizations report a lower percentage only regarding the right to privacy.

Table 7 (Question No. 7)
Economic and social rights of persons with disabilities

WBU organizations reporting that the following benefits are not guaranteed by law:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Health/medical care	9	32,1
Rehabilitation	10	35,7
Financial security	12	42,9
Employment	11	39,3
Independent living	14	50,0
Participation in decisions affecting themselves	15	53,6

Total 28, No answer 5

According to WBU organizations, the following rights are less often guaranteed by law to persons with disabilities: participation in decisions affecting themselves; independent living and financial security. The economic and social right being most frequently guaranteed by law is the right to health and medical care, although, according to the WBU, in almost 32% of the countries this is not the case. Regarding the right to employment, when compared with question no. 6, it can be concluded that general legislation is not a sufficient guarantee for the rights of disabled persons. Though, in ca 90% of the countries, there are no legal hindrances for disabled persons with regard to the right to employment, only in 60% of the countries this right is guaranteed by law. Compared with the NGOs in general there are clear differences regarding the rights to participation in decisions affecting themselves, health and medical care and rehabilitation, where the percentages reported by WBU organizations are much higher. On the other hand, regarding the right to employment and to independent living, the percentages reported by WBU organizations are considerably lower than by NGOs in general. Compared with government responses, the WBU organizations report considerably higher percentages on the following benefits that are not guaranteed by law: health and medical care, rehabilitation, financial security and participation in decisions affecting themselves.

Table 8 (Question No. 8)
New legislation concerning disability since the adoption of the Rules

Legislation on disability	Frequency	Valid Percent
WBU reporting enactment of new legislation	9	30,0
WBU reporting no enactment of new legislation	21	70,0

Total 30, No answer 3

As Table 8 shows, the majority of WBU organizations are reporting that no new legislation concerning disability has been enacted, since the adoption of the Rules. Only in 30% of the countries is enactment of new legislation reported by WBU. There are no clear differences, compared with the percentages reported by the NGOs in general. Compared with the percentages reported by the government, WBU organizations are reporting a lower percentage regarding enactment of new legislation.

---

Contents of the WBU Report