残疾人权利委员会审议乌拉圭的首份报告（部分翻译）

日内瓦（2016年8月16日）——残疾人权利委员会今天结束审议乌拉圭有关《残疾人权利公约》落实情况的首份报告。

乌拉圭外交部人权与人道主义法事务负责人阿莱杭德拉•科斯塔（Alejandra Costa）呈交了报告，并表示《公约》的批准证明了乌拉圭令国家法律符合国际义务和标准的承诺。乌拉圭在提升社会中残疾人可见性并确保政策制定者将残疾视为跨领域问题方面取得了进展，并将其融入所有政策和方案之中。乌拉圭已采取了多项积极措施以适当落实《公约》——残疾人获得司法救助与法律保护国家计划的通过就是例子，政府也意识到缺陷所在，如缺乏承认并证明残疾与否以及确保全面数据收集系统可为政策制定提供帮助的专门标准。

在接下来的讨论中，委员会专家对乌拉圭为确保范式转变与《公约》相符所付出的努力致敬，在国内法中制定了关于残疾的新概念，同时对残疾问题采用了社会模式。一系列法律仍有待与国际标准保持一致，其中包括限制残疾人国籍权、限制具有“身体、精神或道德缺陷”的移徙者进入国家的《宪法》。《宪法》中还包含了将残疾人认定为缺乏行为能力的方法，人们的某些权利因残疾遭到剥夺，结婚或离婚问题就是例子。其他问题包括入院收容政策、基于智力或心理残疾将人们收容安置的合法性以及机构中的人权侵犯行为。

专家们询问了关于建立全纳教育系统的进程，并促请乌拉圭与残疾人和民间社会组织开展协商，制定用于承认并证明残疾与否的标准以及公共政策。代表团被问及应如何解决影响到妇女、土著人民和非洲人后裔的互相交织的多重歧视行为、残疾儿童遭到的污名和贫困以及保护残疾妇女和女童免受暴力、践踏和剥削行为伤害等问题。

科斯塔女士在总结发言中表示，对话不仅带来了检验《公约》落实成功与否的机会，更令乌拉圭能够鉴别现存的挑战。乌拉圭应将努力集中投入于无障碍、全纳教育、合理便利和精神卫生方面，委员会关于此方面的建议也颇有帮助。

委员会专家兼乌拉圭国家报告员卡洛斯•阿尔贝托•帕拉•杜桑（Carlos Alberto Parra Dussan）在结束发言中对代表团的坦诚态度表示欢迎，其承认了尚未完成的工作，也并未隐瞒在《公约》落实过程中出现的困难。

委员会主席玛丽•索莱达•西斯特纳斯•雷耶斯（Maria Soledad Cisternas Reyes）对乌拉圭关于委员会结论性意见采取的积极态度表示欣赏，这对落实《公约》条款付出的进一步努力而言十分重要。

乌拉圭代表团成员包括外交部、社会发展部、蒙得维的亚市议会、内政部以及乌拉圭常驻联合国日内瓦办事处代表团的代表们。

关于乌拉圭报告的结论性意见将于2016年9月5日（周一）在此公布。

委员会公开会议将以英语和西班牙语进行网络直播，并提供隐藏字幕和国际手语翻译，观看地址：http://www.treatybodywebcast.org/。

委员会将于今天（8月16日）下午3点公开复会，审议埃塞俄比亚的首份报告（CRPD/C/ETH/1）。

报告

乌拉圭的首份报告可在此访问：CRPD/C/URY/1。

Presentation of the Report

ALEJANDRA COSTA, Director for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, reiterated the commitment of Uruguay to human rights as evidenced by the standing invitation to human rights Special Procedure mandate holders and the acceptance of all but one recommendations received under the Universal Periodic Review process. The ratification of the Convention was testimony to the commitment of Uruguay to harmonizing its domestic laws with international obligations and standards and ensuring that the issue of disabilities cut across all domestic policies and programmes. Uruguay needed to change its fundamental legal and cultural concepts, as well as the way the society and individuals saw persons with disabilities. They were however no longer invisible in Uruguay and this was also due in part to the tireless work of civil society, said Ms. Costa. Uruguay had achieved progress in ensuring that the complicated issue of disabilities was included in policies and that it was indeed seen by policy-makers as a cross-cutting issue. Uruguay was today before the Committee to share its achievements so far and to inform about new projects for the future which would bring progress for persons with disabilities. The legal machinery had greatly improved the protection of people in the country, who enjoyed stronger institutions today.

Uruguay welcomed the recommendations of the Committee and would continue to ensure that the provisions of the Convention were properly implemented. During the dialogue, positive measures taken by Uruguay would be discussed, for example the adoption of the National Plan for Access to Justice and Legal Protection of Persons with Disabilities; also, the shortcomings would be the subject of conversation, such as the lack of unique criteria to recognize and certify disability. Uruguay understood the importance of the inclusion of the disability variability in the national census in 2011; at the same time, it was very aware that a comprehensive data collection system was needed to properly design and implement public policies. In closing, Ms. Costa stressed that Uruguay would reply to Experts’ questions in a transparent, constructive and sincere manner and hoped that their constructive recommendations would be helpful in making greater progress in the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Questions from the Committee Experts

CARLOS ALBERTO PARRA DUSSAN, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Uruguay, paid tribute to the efforts of Uruguay to ensure the paradigm shift in line with the Convention and for the benefit of persons with disabilities, and for its determination to implement this United Nations instrument. Mr. Parra Dussan recognized the challenge of the domestication and implementation of the Convention, and that Uruguay had to change its Disability Law in 2010 to ensure that the new conceptual dispositions related to disability were transposed in domestic legislation. Like many other countries in the region, a number of laws and legal measures in Uruguay were not in line with the provisions of the Convention, including the Constitution which limited the right to citizenship to persons with disabilities in its Article 80, and also limited the entry into the country to persons with disabilities in Article 37. Identifying the starting point of legal harmonization would be a challenge, recognized the Country Rapporteur, who urged Uruguay to consult with civil society organizations in the development of criteria to recognize and certify disability, and in the development of its public policies.

Another Expert asked the delegation to inform the Committee about the complaints relating to discrimination on the basis of disability, the action taken by the State, decisions rendered in processed cases, and the impact on persons with disabilities. What was the accessibility situation in Uruguay for wheelchair users?

Which processes and systems were in place to ensure that persons with disabilities were consulted in decisions that concerned them? What was the impact of awareness-raising campaigns concerning persons with disabilities and how did persons with disabilities and their representative organizations participate in those campaigns? How would Uruguay assess the action to ensure greater accessibility to printed materials for the blind?

A Committee Expert was pleased with the social model of disability that prevailed in Uruguay but was concerned that currently not all policies were in line with the Convention. The prevention of impairment was considered as a measure of successful implementation of the Convention in Uruguay, but the Expert pointed out that this was not a measure of success by the Convention itself, which was concerned about the protection of rights of persons with disabilities and not with the prevention of disability. As far as children with disabilities were concerned, the Expert was aware that institutionalization was the measure of last resort, but inquired about the numbers and situation of children with disabilities in institutions at the moment.

With regard to multiple and intersecting discrimination, the delegation was asked how the legislation addressed this issue, particularly in relation to women with disabilities, indigenous persons with disabilities and people of African descent with disabilities. What progress was being made in addressing stigma against children with disabilities and in reducing levels of poverty among those children; to which extent was the human rights-based approach to disability being translated on the ground for children with disabilities?

Another Expert remarked that the harmonization of laws with international standards was rather slow and asked about the timetable for the necessary changes in the law. Only five complaints had been filed for discrimination against persons with disabilities last year, which indicated that the complaint mechanism was not very well known. What measures were in place to ensure that persons with disabilities knew about this mechanism and what reparations had been granted so far?

The delegation was asked about regulations for the blind and how these complied with international regulations, and the manner in which personal assistants were hired and whether they enjoyed the same rights as any other workers.

With regard to the situation of women with disabilities, an Expert noted that the commitment of the Institute for Women was evidenced by the inclusion of women with disabilities in the legislation, and asked about concrete steps to support women with disabilities, who represented the majority of persons with disabilities, and who supported their movement and representative organizations? The National Plan for Equal Opportunities and Rights looked into numerous positive actions to support women and girls with disabilities, but not many measures addressed the issues of image and self-image. What steps would be taken to increase the inclusion of women with disabilities in decision making on issues that concerned them? How did Uruguay plan to implement a recommendation by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women to include the issue of disability in all studies of women and girls in the country? What legislation was in place to protect the rights of women and girls with disabilities?

The definition of disability in Uruguay was not in line with the Convention – what steps were being taken to change the definition and to ensure that it was aligned with the Convention? The delegation was also asked to inform about measures taken to ensure that disability was included and considered in national development plans and programmes and in poverty reduction strategies; about legal measures to empower organizations of persons with disabilities so that they could meaningfully participate in all aspects of consultations and decision-making; about data to illustrate the effective implementation of anti-discrimination law, for example remedies for violations; and about the aspects and sectors in which the principle of accessibility was included, for example in public procurement policies.

It appeared that meaningful consultations with persons with disabilities in line with article 4 of the Convention had not been put in place in Uruguay in the preparation of a number of laws, including the anti-discrimination law. Could Uruguay commit to ensuring that persons with disabilities were consulted in the process of bringing all of its laws and legislative measures in line with the Convention and with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development?

The institutional framework for disability was an issue of concern, while resources for addressing disabilities sometimes were not sufficient. What were alternative designs in the governing bodies which would give a higher priority to the issue of disability in the country?

MARIA SOLEDAD CISTERNAS REYES, Committee Chairperson, recalled the 2013 recommendations by the Human Rights Committee following the review of Uruguay which concerned a number of cross-cutting issues and asked how Uruguay approached the process of developing and adopting cross-cutting policies that intersected disability with other issues such as gender, poverty, indigenous peoples, etc.

Response by the Delegation

Responding to questions related to the harmonization of legislation, a delegate said that this was the first priority issue for Uruguay that was currently being addressed. The National Plan for Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities had been prepared in consultation and cooperation with persons with disabilities and had been adopted in 2015. The National Plan was based on the provisions of the Convention, and also on the Rules of Brasilia for vulnerable populations seeking justice. It sought to strengthen judicial institutions, provide training of judicial staff on disability issues, and include the issues of access to justice for persons with disabilities in higher education for legal professions. The National Plan for Disabilities had a programme called Uruguay without Barriers, under which teams of experts travelled throughout the country to assess the need for support of persons with disabilities living in rural and most remote areas. There was a specific programme for rural areas in the areas of livestock and agriculture, which also included persons with disabilities as beneficiaries.

In terms of information and communication technology, there was a regulation in Uruguay which required all web portals of public entities to be accessible. A hot line for mobile phones was being put in place which allowed emergency calls by deaf persons: a press on a button would put them in contact with persons they designated as their emergency contact. People in Uruguay were very well connected: children in a kindergarten had a tablet and children in primary school had a laptop; all devices were modified to fit the needs of children with disabilities.

On women with disabilities, a delegate stressed the cooperation and coordination with organizations of women with disabilities to ensure that the issues of concern were adequately addressed by the upcoming legislation. A programme Uruguay Grows with You ensured early childhood services to most vulnerable populations, and those services would be expanded to children with disabilities; Uruguay preferred the approach of putting in place inclusive early childhood centres rather than creating separate services for children with disabilities. The National Programme for Disabilities had considerable resources available for its activities, but Uruguay aimed to ensure that disability was treated as a cross-cutting issue by various ministries, rather than being in the remit of one ministry alone.

As far as accessibility in Montevideo was concerned, a delegate said that although the situation was far from perfect, thanks to changes that had been undertaken, it was possible for a person with disabilities to visit the city. Montevideo was the only city in Uruguay which had adopted laws which forced its public administration to incorporate accessibility in building designs, to ensure that all public transport was fitted appropriately for the needs of persons with disabilities, and since 2010 more than 50 per cent of the public transport fleet had been renewed. The authorities were aware that the situation needed further improvement; in order to receive views of users of public goods and services, a Participation Coordination had been set up to facilitate feedback by those who were not members of any organization. A monitoring system for accessibility had been put in place which was a web-based service in the form of a map, which allowed persons with disabilities to check accessibility of a place that they wished to go to; those web-based accessibility maps were also useful planning tools for authorities. A programme Accessible Neighbourhoods aimed to increase accessibility in all areas of the town and put a human face on accessibility.

Law 18651 had 94 articles which outlined Rules on Comprehensive Protection of Persons with Disabilities. The definition of disability in this law had been resolved. The 2010 awareness-raising campaign on persons with disabilities was very successful and it had made persons with disabilities in Uruguay visible. Out of 30 Senators, nine were women, and 19 out of 99 Members of the Parliament were women. The National Human Rights Institution had received two complaints for discrimination on the basis of disability, one of which pertained to inclusive education. Another body which received discrimination complaints was the Commission on Racism and Xenophobia, which acted on a case-by-case basis. The number of complaints for discrimination on the grounds of disability was rather low, also due to the victims not believing that anything would change with filing a complaint. There was a need to empower persons with disabilities not to remain silent and to file a complaint, which was crucial in ensuring that persons with disabilities were not invisible.

Inclusive education was a complicated issue. The general law on education 18437 recognized education as a public good and ensured that all persons in Uruguay were included. The university provided support to students with hearing disability through the provision of sign language. Uruguay was supporting specific areas in order to promote inclusion in education and the recommendations by the Committee Experts in this regard would be very welcome.

Poverty rates had fallen since 2004. There were no specific public policies targeting children with disabilities living in poverty, rather, national economic policies aimed to improve living standards of the population in general. The measures targeted whole families and provided subsidies to reduce the number of children, including those with disabilities, living below the poverty line. The National Council for Childhood and Adolescence had been set up by the law on children, and it was made up of children representatives, including children with disabilities and children from vulnerable or marginalized groups. There were no specific policies that addressed disability in connection with indigenous peoples or Afro-descendants.

Questions by the Committee Experts

In the second round of questions, Committee Experts took up the issue of legal aid to persons with disabilities and asked the delegation to inform about the system in place in the country, about the results of training provided to officials from various State organizations, and the financial support provided to persons with disabilities to hire personal assistants.

The situation of utmost concern was the incapacity approach to disability in the Constitution, as well as deprivation of some rights on the basis of disability, for example in the matters of marriage or divorce. Furthermore, it was of concern to hear that a director of an institution for persons with intellectual disabilities was declared a legal guardian of those residents who were stripped of their legal capacity. When would those policies and laws be changed and replaced with a rights-based approach? How many persons with disabilities lived in institutions, or were forced to live with their families? Was there a policy to promote persons with disabilities in the legal profession in order to help facilitate access to justice for persons with disabilities by persons with disabilities?

Another issue of concern was the institutionalization policy and the legality of institutionalizing people on the basis of their intellectual or mental disabilities, said an Expert, asking what was being done to put a stop to human rights violations committed in institutions and whether the national human rights institution or the Ombudsmen’s Office had a preventive role to place to stop the prolonged institutionalization of persons with disabilities. Who monitored and protected children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities who were institutionalized and what was being done to ensure their return to their families and communities? It was worrisome that there was a lack of awareness about the specific need to protect persons with disabilities, including the elderly and women with disabilities, from exploitation and abuse – what concrete measures were in place to protect those vulnerable groups of the population? It seemed that the medical approach to disability prevailed in the laws and regulations on caregiving and assistance to persons with disabilities, as evidenced by the greater budget allocated for caregivers than for personal assistants.

On access to justice, Experts expressed concern about defects in the implementation of the principle of equality before the law and discrimination, as the law did not provide adequate protection and remedies to persons with disabilities and the National Human Rights Commission did not have a large enough mandate to deal with complaints for discrimination on the grounds of disability. Was Uruguay ready to commit to a clear timetable of revision of the laws to correct those shortcomings?

How was the matter of reasonable accommodation implemented in the administration of juvenile justice and how did the Code on Children and Adolescents specifically consider disability? When would the draft bill on protection from gender-based violence enter into force and would there be a mechanism established to monitor the implementation of that legislation? What was the situation of forced sterilization and was it possible to forcibly sterilize women with disabilities who did not have their own legal custody? When would Uruguay modify its law on immigration which refused entry to persons with physical, mental or moral defect?

MARIA SOLEDAD CISTERNAS REYES, Committee Chairperson, asked about situations in which a person could be declared unfit to stand for trial, what measures were adopted under the Penal Code in such cases, and about the codification of the crime of torture.

Response by the Delegation

In response to questions raised by the Experts, a delegate recognized that the Convention and international instruments in general were not routinely invoked by the courts, and said that adequate training was provided as part of the continuing education of judges and officials. Uruguay was expected to harmonize its legislation soon, which would also include the incorporation of the terminology of international law; the terminology harmonization project should be ready by the end of the year for the beginning of next year at the latest. The law recognized the equality of foreigners and Uruguayan citizens, and international law in this area was recognized without restriction. Article 37 of the Constitution on the entry ban for foreigners with physical, intellectual or moral defects which might injure the society was in fact not applicable and was not applied.

The national preventive mechanism would begin to visit psychiatric hospitals in 2017; it had so far visited two main psychiatric facilities in 2015 on a pilot basis. There had been specific complaints for torture and ill-treatment filed within the adult penitentiary system in 2014 and 2015, two of which had been prosecuted and sentenced; in 2015 there had been a very publicised case of torture which had seen prosecution and sentencing of 15 staff members of one of the facilities. Torture was clearly defined and criminalized in the law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court, with sentences ranging from 20 months to eight years.

Persons with disabilities were entitled to the right to own property, inherit and to receive credit or loans, to the extent that they were not deemed to be legally incapable. Efforts were being made by the Bank of Uruguay and the Bank of Social Insurance to ensure greater autonomy for blind persons in using their services. Uruguay would be pleased to receive the Committee’s recommendations related to the situation of persons with disabilities in the judicial sector.

The National Disability Programme had an agreement with the Faculty of Law on legal aid for persons with disabilities, and resources were being provided to ensure the access of persons with disabilities to lawyers and legal services. The salary of personal assistants was $372 per month for four hours of work per day, while the minimum salary in Uruguay was $ 300 for eight hours of work per day. Persons with disabilities had the right to choose their carer and were given funds to pay for the carer.

There were 10 institutions for children and adolescents with mental disabilities and three major psychiatric hospitals or colonias with 788 patients. The new health law which was about to be adopted required the closure of those institutions, but it was clear that the patients could not be discharged overnight; some of the patients had been abandoned by their families and had nowhere else to go. Uruguay expected to be able to discharge up to 15 patients per year and transfer them to facilities corresponding to the standards set by the Convention. At the moment, there were four midway houses in the country. As far as forced institutionalization of people with intellectual disabilities was concerned, a delegate said that forced internment was allowed under the law 1936 on health which was still in place; the new health law to be adopted soon would put an end to the institutionalization of persons with disabilities. The national institute for disability was about to start a census of children and adolescents with disability, including intellectual disabilities.

There were no specific regulations promoting or prohibiting access to legal training to persons with disabilities – anyone could study what they wished. In terms of juvenile justice, the 100 Brasilia Regulations Regarding Access to Justice for Vulnerable People were applicable to children and adolescents with disabilities in conflict with the law.

A delegate explained that Uruguay was working actively on the harmonization of its legislation with the provisions of the Convention and stressed that the real challenge was in fostering political and cultural changes in the society which were necessary to ensure the full enjoyment of the rights of persons with disabilities. The law 18651 ensured tax exemptions for the acquisition of different types of equipment used by persons with disabilities; additionally, funds were in place to support individual access to technologies they needed.

Questions by the Committee Experts

In terms of public and government procurement and how it facilitated the promotion of accessibility, Committee Experts asked how accessibility requirements were taken into consideration during tenders and purchase of goods for the use of public, for example buses. What was the legal status of Braille as a reading system? Uruguay maintained both the mainstream and special school system – what was the process and the criteria used to determine which school children with disabilities would attend and what role did special schools have in promoting an inclusive educational system?

Could the delegation inform the Committee about the relocation of the Centre for the Rehabilitation of the Blind, which was being done without consultations with blind persons, and which mitigation measures were being adopted to assist persons with disabilities deal with the impact? There was a need for an independent monitoring of the implementation of the Convention, however, neither the national human rights institution nor any civil society organizations had received such a mandate.

Concerning the right to vote, a Committee Expert encouraged Uruguay to abolish all restrictions on the right to political participation on the basis of disability and asked the delegation whether there were any plans in this regard. Much attention was being paid ensuring accessibility in digital terms but concerns were expressed about lack of accessibility to the physical environment.

In order to understand the direction in which Article 24 on the right to inclusive education was being implemented in Uruguay, the delegation was requested to provide information on resources provided for the provision of reasonable accommodation to students with disabilities in mainstream schools and to compare that to the funds and resources allocated for the special school education. Persons with intellectual disabilities could not express their will freely and this prohibition was not consistent with the provisions of the Convention. The Code of Children and Adolescents stressed their right to live with their families but the State party’s report was silent on this right in relation to children with disabilities. Considering that almost half of persons with disabilities were from low income families, what measures were being taken to tackle poverty among persons with disabilities, particularly those with hearing and intellectual disabilities.

The delegation was asked which concrete steps were being taken to ensure that persons with disabilities without legal capacity could exercise their parental rights; measures taken to address the issue of forced sterilization; how many children with disabilities were out of school; legal, political and capacity building measures and efforts to implement inclusive education; and measures taken to ensure that data on disability was systematically disaggregated across various sectors, including violence, access to justice and others, as a necessary step in making policy on disability.

Experts also asked about concrete steps to implement the Sustainable Development Goals, strategies to develop an independent body to implement the national strategy to ensure the full implementation of the Convention, and the quota system in place for the political participation of women with disabilities.

On Article 24 on the right to inclusive education, a Committee Expert asked about a comprehensive policy for inclusive education, how it was being implemented and how it was linked to the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal N°4 on equal access to all levels of education. How was the policy on inclusion in the workplace being linked with the Sustainable Development Goal N°8, which aimed to achieve full and productive work for all and equal pay for equal work? How were persons with disabilities and their representatives involved in the mainstreaming of disability rights in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals in Uruguay.

How many athletes with disabilities would be participating in the Paralympics in Rio and what measures were in place to promote participation in sports of persons with disabilities?

CARLOS ALBERTO PARRA DUSSAN, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Uruguay, remarked that Uruguay was one of the countries in Latin America with the highest levels of literacy and asked about figures which could describe the quality of inclusive education, such as the number of teachers, number of other staff, and resources provided for reasonable accommodation. How different was the situation between Montevideo and provinces in terms of quality of inclusive education?

MARIA SOLEDAD CISTERNAS REYES, Committee Chairperson, referred to access to justice for persons with disabilities and asked about the categories of persons who were declared to be legally unfit to plea, or those declared to be legally unaccountable. How many such cases were there? What was the percentage of persons with disabilities who had access to rehabilitation programmes, in the specific centres or in communities?

Response by the Delegation

There was no quota-based system for participation in public and political life. There had been a temporary law during the last elections which had set a quota for the inclusion of women in lists of candidates. The Honorary Commission on Disabilities was the monitoring mechanism for the implementation of the Convention; it was not in compliance with the Paris Principles but neither was the national human rights institution, which did not have sufficient resources to ensure its full compliance with the Paris Principles. The quota law in employment was in place which compelled public sector bodies to have persons with disabilities representing four per cent of their staff; in many municipalities and state bodies, persons with disabilities represented more than four per cent, and there were some bodies without any persons with disabilities on their staff.

Uruguay was only taking its first steps in establishing an inclusive education system. There were 10,000 children in public sector schools, and children with disabilities could go to mainstream or special schools. It would be the decision of the teacher whether a child with disabilities who had difficulties in following the programme would be transferred to a special school. Uruguay was opening this year a specialized teacher training school which would train teachers to work with children with hearing disabilities. At the same time, teachers and faculty of special schools received support in order to provide specialist services in mainstream schools and to educate children with disabilities.

A Working Commission had been put in place to work with representatives of persons with disabilities in terms of access to health care services and facilities. In order to support families to care for their members with disabilities, a number of measures had been put in place, including financing of personal assistants, payment of 75,000 disability pensions, financing of specialists services such as physiotherapists or psychologists, sexual and reproductive health services for persons with disabilities, and others.

The Ministry of Tourism had created the Accessibility Commission, which was cooperating with other ministries to improve accessibility of a number of tourist circuits, but universal access had not yet been achieved. Six athletes with disabilities would be competing in the Rio Paralympics. The National Secretariat for Sports, which had been recently created, was working on developing a plan to incentivise sports, but radical change was needed and the recommendations by the Committee in this regard would be very welcome. Uruguay wished to move away from segregation and toward a mainstreamed sports federation, and to adopt the sports and development approach.

The bill on the eradication of gender-based violence was now before the Senate, after having been seen by the Parliament in April 2016. Social dialogue was in place concerning the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, in which persons with disabilities were included. Persons with disabilities could also sign up to actively monitor the implementation of the goals and outcomes of this social dialogue.


Concluding Remarks

ALEJANDRA COSTA, Director for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, said that the dialogue was an opportunity to examine the success of Uruguay in domesticating the Convention, putting in place policies and programmes for its implementation, and setting up the monitoring mechanism. This examination also offered an opportunity to identify the remaining challenges and the direction of future efforts of Uruguay, such as accessibility, inclusive education, reasonable accommodation, and mental health. The Committee’s concluding observations would be significant in making further progress in the implementation of the Convention.

CARLOS ALBERTO PARRA DUSSAN, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Uruguay, thanked the delegation for the sincere and frank dialogue, and the candid approach in acknowledging what remained to be done. Experts appreciated that Uruguay did not try to conceal the difficulties it had come across in implementing the Convention. The Committee would carefully consider its recommendations to support the State party as it sought to fully implement the Convention and its Optional Protocol.

MARIA SOLEDAD CISTERNAS REYES, Committee Chairperson, expressed appreciation for the positive approach of Uruguay to the Committee’s concluding observations, which it considered vital for further efforts in the implementation of the provisions of the Convention.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record