Quo Vadis Komisi Nasional Disabilitas?

Pengesahan Peraturan Presiden Nomor 68 Tahun 2020 tentang Komisi Nasional Disabilitas telah menimbulkan kekhawatiran di kalangan pegiat disabilitas secara nasional. Penempatan Sekretariat Komisi Nasional Disabilitas di bawah Kementerian Sosial ini memunculkan kembali pertentangan tentang konsep disabilitas sebagai urusan sosial terhadap konsep disabilitas sebagai urusan hak asasi manusia. Makalah ini menggunakan tinjauan yuridis normatif yang menerapkan pendekatan deduktif dalam menganalisis data dan peraturan perundang-undangan terkait. Makalah ini menguraikan pendekatan berbasis hak asasi manusia dalam menelaah pembentukan Komisi Nasional Disabilitas sebagaimana diamanatkan Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2016 tentang Penyandang Disabilitas. Selain itu, telaah ini juga merujuk pada konsep yang terbaru dan komprehensif dari United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) serta Prinsip-prinsip Paris (Paris Principles) sebagai ‘soft law’ yang secara khusus berisi ketentuan pembentukan Lembaga Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia. Studi ini menemukan bahwa Peraturan Presiden Nomor 68 Tahun 2020 tentang Komisi Nasional Disabilitas (KND) kurang sejalan dengan tujuan keseluruhan pendekatan disabilitas berbasis hak asasi manusia. Selain itu, makalah ini menyarankan untuk memperkuat KND melalui mandat yang luas yang menetapkan komposisi dan lingkup kompetensinya, dengan mempertimbangkan disabilitas sebagai urusan lintas bidang, bukan hanya urusan sosial semata. Lembaga nasional ini harus memiliki kompetensi untuk memajukan dan melindungi hak asasi manusia.

Monitoring: The Role of Independent Mechanisms

This chapter concerns the role of independent mechanisms. It explains what national human rights institutions (NHRIs) are as well as the fundamental principles that should guide these institutions as set out in the Paris Principles. It then examines the requirement to set up a ‘framework including one or more independent mechanism’ in accordance with the CRPD as well as the way in which such mechanisms relate to the said Principles and all the possibilities open to States Parties regarding this framework. It finishes by exploring what the reference to the Paris Principles has come to mean for NHRIs and what the Convention reveals in the field of international human rights law through its elaborate monitoring system.

NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PARIS PRINCIPLES, ENGAGED INTO THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE SYSTEM OF INTERNAL MEANS OF SECURITY

The purpose of the article is to clarify the place of national institutions engaged in the promotion and protection of human rights in the system of domestic means created in accordance with the Paris Principles. Research methods is the general methods of scientific cognitivism as well as concerning those used in legal science: methods of analysis and synthesis, formal logic, comparative law etc. The concept of understanding of the organizational and legal guarantees of human and citizen's rights has been improved in the constitutional law science, namely: the classification criterion for division into groups is the possibility/non possibility of exercising any kind of state coercion in the course of jurisdictional/ non jurisdictional activity; representative body (body responsible for ensuring Ukraine's representation in the European Court of Human Rights and coordinating the implementation of its decisions), bodies of the state executive service, private executors are the elements of the system of organizational and legal guarantees of human and citizen's rights; by classification criterion – the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms is the primary function of the authority-guarantor or similar body of some other kinds of functions – it is substantiated that national institutions engaged into the promotion and protection of human rights belong to the group of authority-guarantor of special competence established specifically to provide guarantees, human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is proposed within the group of authority-guarantor of special competence established specifically to ensure the guarantees of human rights and fundamental freedoms, to distinguish a sub-group of national institutions engaged into the promotion and protection of human rights: 1) human rights commissions; 2) human rights ombudsmen; 3) anti-discrimination ombudsmen (commissions); 4) human rights institutes (centers); 5) human rights advisory committees; 6) comprehensive human rights institutes.

Current Challenges to Human Rights and Freedoms and the Ombudsman Institution

The article examines the genesis of the institution of the Ombudsman of Ukraine – the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights. The role of the Ombudsman is shown both in protecting the rights of individuals as well as in overcoming the systemic violations of human rights. The essence of modern challenges to human rights and freedoms is revealed: poverty, migration, human trafficking, modern terrorism, sea piracy, armed conflicts, wars, humanitarian disasters, dehumanization of society. The activity of the First Ombudsman of Ukraine on bringing the legislation of Ukraine and law enforcement practice in line with European and international human rights standards is analyzed. The need to form a modern legal culture based on international standards in the field of human rights and freedoms and the rule of law is analyzed. The article investigates monitoring mechanism of the national human rights institution performed through the Annual and Special Reports to the national Parliament. It also reveals forms of cooperation of the Ombudsman of Ukraine with national, international and European structures in the field of human rights. It is shown that not only the institution of the Ombudsman, in terms of its legal status, should be independent in the spirit of the Paris Principles, but the person in this post should also have personal independence. There are shown ways to establishing peace through the search for compromises and a trustful dialogue between the authorities and society. The innovation of the article is the analysis of the Ombudsman institution as a mechanism for the extrajudicial protection of human rights in the context of modern challenges to human rights and freedoms. A new term is introduced into scientific circulation – “the case law of the Ombudsman”.

3 The Approaches (1955)

This chapter describes the various approaches adopted by the Commission on Human Rights—and later by the Human Rights Council—to support implementation processes, starting with the introduction of Advisory Services in 1955. These were to serve as a support for the Commission’s work in implementing its programme of work, notably the follow-up to its work on the International Bill of Human Rights. These services were to be provided at the request of Governments and to consist of: ‘(i) Advisory services of experts, (ii) Fellowships and scholarships, (iii) Seminars’. In 1956, the Commission opened up yet another approach. The Yearbook on Human Rights had introduced a system of ‘Annual Reports on human Rights’ whereby governments shared information on measures taken at the domestic level. The chapter traces the development of other approaches by the Commission including investigations, regional commissions, national institutions (including the Paris Principles) and voluntary funds. It also looks at the emergence of international (or hybrid) criminal tribunals, all of which included crimes against humanity (or human rights crimes) in their jurisdiction.