SR CRPD PRESENTATION GORAN KUSTURA

I. GENERAL OBLIGATIONS

The government of the Republic Slovenia has failed to implement many of the most crucial
general obligations, such as those listed below, on a systemic level:

4.1.F
To undertake or promote research and development of universally designed goods,
services, equipment and facilities, as defined in article 2 of the present Convention,
which should require the minimum possible adaptation and the least cost to meet the
specific needs of a person with disabilities, to promote their availability and use, and
to promote universal design in the development of standards and guidelines;

The very concept of universal design hasnt been internalized by the decision makers
yet.

4.1.G
To undertake or promote research and development of, and to promote the
availability and use of new technologies, including information and communications
technologies, mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies, suitable for persons
with disabilities, giving priority to technologies at an affordable cost;

To provide accessible information to persons with disabilities about mobility aids,

devices and assistive technologies, including new technologies, as well as other forms
of assistance, support services and facilities;

The government fails to see the potential that technology advancement have to
improve the quality of life of persons with disabilities. There is no government
funded R&D of tech as per CRPD, no subsidies of assistive technologies developed
the by private sector.

4.2.
With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, each State Party undertakes to
take measures to the maximum of its available resources and, where needed, within
the framework of international cooperation, with a view to achieving progressively
the full realization of these rights, without prejudice to those obligations contained in
the present Convention that are immediately applicable according to international
law.

Failure to fulfill the above general obligations is symptomatic of the governments

lack of a coherent strategy of implementation. There are only sporadic, ad hoc
measures, rather than a thorough analysis of the state of play, setting clear and
measurable goals and devising strategies on achieving the objectives. This also
emphasizes the problem of the absence of an independent monitoring mechanism.
 4.3.
In the development and implementation of legislation and policies to implement the
present Convention, and in other decision-making processes concerning issues
relating to persons with disabilities, States Parties shall closely consult with and
actively involve persons with disabilities, including children with disabilities, through
their representative organizations.

The cases where DPOs have been thoroughly consulted are few and far between and
even in those cases it seems to has been less to actually respect CRPD than to act
under the pretext of doing so as even in those cases subsequent versions of bills
have appeared that not only have DPOs not been thoroughly consulted on, they had
no idea and the content was in opposition with their wishes and principles of CRPD.

This supports our view that huge discrepancies between ratification of the CRPD and
implementation thereof in many Eastern European countries including Slovenia stem
from failure to make the paradigm shift from the medical model to the human rights
based approach and mainstreaming disability.

Question:
When and how will the government assure that an independent and thorough
monitoring mechanism is in place? What will it do to bring about the necessary
changes in the mindset and attitudes in the public sector and especially with
decision-makers?

II Article 9 Accessibility

1. To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects
of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities
access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to
information and communications, including information and communications technologies
and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in
urban and in rural areas. These measures, which shall include the identification and
elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia:
a. Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including
schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces;
b. Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and
emergency services.

2. States Parties shall also take appropriate measures:

a. To develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and
guidelines for the accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the
public;
b. To ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services which are open or
provided to the public take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with
disabilities;
 c. To provide training for stakeholders on accessibility issues facing persons with
disabilities;
d. To provide in buildings and other facilities open to the public signage in Braille and in
easy to read and understand forms;
e. To provide forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and
professional sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to buildings and
other facilities open to the public;
f. To promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with
disabilities to ensure their access to information;
g. To promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and
communications technologies and systems, including the Internet;
h. To promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible
information and communications technologies and systems at an early stage, so that
these technologies and systems become accessible at minimum cost.

Three main areas of concern:

1. Inaccessible polling stations; despite the Constitutional Court having decreed that all
polling stations have to be made accessible within 2 years in 2014. It took more than
that to change the legislature, which the court ordered the state to do right away.
We'd been fighting this case in various courts for years, having always been told that
one accessible polling place or station per municipality is sufficient, until the
Constitutional finally said otherwise. It's a source of frustration and to some extent
of disillusionment with CRPD for persons with disabilities to see the government
drag its feet like that.

2. Inaccessible public transport; while local transport is reasonably accessible, virtually

the entire intercity transport is inaccessible to electric wheelchair users, they only
have 4 or 5 train stations where it's possible for them to board or get off the train,
also a violation of Article 19 or recent General Comment the Committee has made as
well as of the constitutional rights.

3. Digital accessibility; as a member of EDF expert group on electronic accessibility, this

subject-matter is of particular interest to me and for the government it is
additionally important due to EU directives coming up or already being in place.
Regrettably, WCAG 2.0 is very rarely deployed in public sector websites, public
broadcaster demonstrates no progress in terms of introducing new technologies or
increasing the percentage of accessible content. Moreover, despite years of delay,
the Equal Opportunities Act still hasn't been realized so as to prescribe the ratio of
accessible content to the public broadcaster.