Government Implementation of the Standard Rules
As Seen By Member Organizations of
Rehabilitation International - RI

---

© Dimitris Michailakis 1997

General Policy

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

Disability policy expressed in:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Having an officially recognized policy	12	92,3
Not having an officially recognized policy	1	7,7
Law	8	61,5
Guidelines adopted by the Government	7	53,8
Guidelines adopted by a disability council	7	53,8
Policy adopted by political parties	4	30,8
Policy adopted by NGO's	6	46,2

Total 13, No answer 2

As Table 1 shows the majority of RI organizations are reporting that there is an officially recognized disability policy. The majority of RI organizations are reporting that the disability policy is expressed in law and in guidelines, adopted by the government. The replies from the NGOs generally exhibit the same pattern. There are no clear differences regarding the percentages, except for the guidelines adopted by the National Disability Council, the percentages reported by RI organizations being higher when compared with the percent reported by NGOs in general. There are great differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. RI organizations report a lower percentage regarding the disability policy expressed in law, but a higher percentage regarding the policy expressed in guidelines adopted by a disability council, the policy adopted by political parties and the policy adopted by NGOs.

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

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

1 = very strong emphasis, 5 = very weak emphasis

According to RI organizations, the strongest emphasis is on rehabilitation, while the weakest emphasis is on anti-discrimination law and accessibility measures. The same pattern prevails as with the NGOs in general. The same pattern also emerges, when compared with 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
RI organizations reporting Gvt. action	7	58,3
RI organizations reporting no Gvt. action	5	41,7

Total 12, No answer 3

As Table 3 shows, almost 42% of the organizations are reporting that the governments have not done anything to initiate or support information campaigns conveying the message of full participation, since the adoption of the Rules. More RI organizations report a government action than NGOs generally do. There are clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. RI organizations report a lower percentage regarding government action for conveying the message of full participation than the governments themselves.

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	1	6,7
General legislation	6	40,0
Special and general legislation	8	53,3

Total 15, No answer 0

As Table 4 shows, the most common type of legislation, according to RI organizations is to use a combination of special legislation and general legislation. The second most frequent type of legislation is general legislation, applicable to all citizens, while the least common type is special legislation, specifically referring to disabled persons¥ rights. There is, however, a high percentage of countries, where the rights of persons with disabilities are protected only by general legislation. Though the pattern is the same compared with the NGOs in general, there is a clear difference regarding the percentage of countries having only special legislation. The valid percentage for the NGOs in general is 23,6%. There are clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. RI organizations report a higher percentage concerning countries using only general legislation and a lower percentage for countries using a 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	7	58,3
Recourse procedure	3	25,0
Ombudsman	4	33,3
Governmental body (administrative)	10	83,3
Expert bodies	3	25,0
Arbitration/conciliation body	2	16,7

Total 12, No answer 3

As Table 5 shows, the majority of RI 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). There is a clear difference, compared with the NGOís in general, as regards the percentage of countries reporting due process and a governmental body (administrative). The percentages reported by RI organizations concerning due process are lower but the percentage concerning the existence of a governmental body (administrative) is much higher than the percentage reported by NGOs in general. There are also clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. RI organizations report a lower percentage of countries, where disabled persons can defend their rights through courts, but a higher percentage of countries using recourse procedure by a special agency as well as a government body (administrative), than the governments.


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

RI organizations reporting that general legislation does not apply with respect to:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Education	0	00,0
Employment	0	00,0
The right to marriage	4	30,8
The right to parenthood/family	4	30,8
Political rights	3	23,1
Access to court-of-law	4	30,8
Right to privacy	4	30,8
Property rights	4	30,8

Total 13, No answer 2

As Table 6 shows, there is a considerable number of RI organizations reporting that general legislation does not apply to persons with disabilities with respect to: the right to marriage; parenthood/family; political rights; access to court-of-law; the right to privacy and property rights. General legislation is in all countries applicable with respect to the right to education and the right to employment. It is interesting to note that general legislation applies with respect to the right of employment in all countries. The same pattern prevails as with the NGOs in general, but with differences in the percentages reported, concerning the right to parenthood/family and political rights where the percentages reported by RI organizations are lower than the NGOís in general. When compared with the percentages reported by governments there are clear differences only regarding two of the rights listed above, namely r the right to education and the right to employment. The governments do not have as low a percentage as the RI organizations (0%).

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

RI organizations reporting that the following benefits are not guaranteed by law:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Health/medical care	5	33,3
Rehabilitation	3	20,0
Financial security	5	33,3
Employment	9	60,0
Independent living	10	66,7
Participation in decisions affecting themselves	9	60,0

Total 15, No answer 0

According to RI organizations, the following rights are less often guaranteed by law to persons with disabilities: independent living; employment and participation in decisions affecting themselves. The right most frequently guaranteed by law is the right to rehabilitation. Regarding the right to employment, it is interesting to make a comparison with question no. 6, enabling an inference that general legislation is not a sufficient guarantee for disabled personsí rights. For instance, though there are no legal hindrances for disabled persons in any of the countries with regard to the right to employment, only in 40% of the countries this right is guaranteed by law. Obviously, this makes a difference. Compared with the NGOs in general, there are no clear differences, except regarding the right to financial security. The percentage reported by the NGOs in general is 60%, to be compared with the 33%, reported by RI organizations. There are clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. RI organizations report a higher percentage of countries where the following benefits are not guaranteed by law: health/medical care, employment, independent living 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
RI reporting enactment of new legislation	7	50,0
RI reporting no enactment of new legislation	7	50,0

Total 14, No answer 1

As Table 8 shows, 50% of RI organizations are reporting that no new legislation concerning disability has been enacted, since the adoption of the Rules. There are clear differences, compared with the percentages reported by the NGOs in general, the enactment of new legislation reported being 37%. There are no clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments.

---

Contents of the RI Report