Part II The law: International human rights law and disability Section I Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities However, a reading of the travaux préparatoires reveals that it was indeed the Paris Principles that were intended94 and it is now standard practice for the CRPD Committee to demand that the relevant ‘independent mechanism’ complies with the Paris Principles. In effect, the term “take into account” is usually interpreted as meaning that the States parties must adhere to the Paris Principles. The framework – which can be very broad and inclusive – must contain at least one, if not more, ‘independent mechanisms’. The Note by the Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to the 2014 Conference of States Parties95 suggests that three key requirements need to be given effect in the monitoring framework: • The framework must include one or more independent mechanisms that take into account the Paris Principles. This does not mean that only entities complying with the Paris Principles should be part of the framework; rather, it means that at least one mechanism that is established and functions on the basis of the Paris Principles must be included; • The framework must be capable of adequately promoting, protecting and monitoring the implementation of the Convention. This means that the framework needs to be given an adequate mandate and the institutional capacity required to effectively perform its functions; • Civil society, and persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in particular, need to be involved and fully participate in the monitoring process. Frameworks are generally composed of bodies outside of government. They can – and probably should – include subject-specific bodies like national disability policy advisory authorities. The independent mechanism(s) should be genuinely independent. They need not each individually possess all the functions needed to perform the tasks required by article 33(2) to promote, protect and monitor. However, between them – and especially between all the entities in the framework – these tasks have to be performed. An analysis of the 33 sets of concluding observations of the CRPD Committee96 on article 33(2) from 2014–2015 reveals a number of interesting trends. First, with respect to the majority of State reports examined, the CRPD Committee recommended the formal establishment of a framework and the designation of one or more independent mechanisms. This recommendation was made to: the Cook Islands, Croatia, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Mongolia, Turkmenistan, Ecuador Sweden, Australia, Austria, Paraguay, Argentina, China, Hong Kong, Peru, Spain, Brazil, the European Union, Ukraine, Mauritius and Gabon. The recommendation made to Gabon (para. 62) was typical of that made to other States: “The Committee recommends that the State party designate an independent framework aligned to the Paris Principles, with an allocated budget and ensure the participation of persons with disabilities as required by Article 33(3)”.97 In one instance the Committee recommended rolling back the intrusion of an executive body into the operation of the framework (the European Union).98 94 The travaux préparatoires are available at www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/resources/ad-hoc-committee-on-acomprehensive-and-integral-international-convention-on-the-protection-and-promotion-of-the-rights-and-dignity-of-personswith-disabilities.html. 95 See www.un.org/disabilities/documents/COP/COP7/CRPD.CSP.2014.3.E.pdf. 96 The concluding observations of the CRPD Committee are available at www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/CRPDIndex. aspx. 97 CRPD/C/GAB/CO/1. 98 CRPD/C/EU/CO/1. Chapter 3: Overview of the purpose, content and structure of the Convention | 49