Human Rights and Disability A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions For example, in the 15th session of the Committee (March-April 2016), seven State reports were considered and NHRIs submitted parallel reports in relation to six of these (Chile, Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, Thailand and Uganda).126 With respect to Chile, the excellent 15-page ‘complementary report’ of the National Institute of Human Rights of Chile focused on accessibility, legal capacity, torture, freedom of expression, inclusive education, health, work and employment.127 There was also a particularly interesting analysis on sterilisations and forced treatment. With respect to Portugal, the Ombudsman of Portugal also submitted a 15-page report. It focused on a wide range of topics including equality, violence against women and girls with disabilities, accessibility, inclusive education and participation. Its main concerns focused on the lack of inclusion, specifically in employment, the lack of accessibility, the lack of support for carers, domestic violence against persons with disabilities and the low levels of political participation by persons with disabilities.128 With respect to Serbia, the Serbian Protector of Citizens (Ombudsman) submitted a seven-page ‘selected list of issues’. It covered accessibility, the right to live independently and be included in the community, personal mobility and work and employment. The section dealing with the right to live independently was particularly telling. The lack of progress on deinstitutionalisation is well documented and the Ombudsman put forward many practical recommendations that could be extremely useful to the Committee (e.g. a recommendation calling for “development of action plans defining the short-term and long-term steps that need to be taken, with clearly indicated deadlines and resources, and a clear evaluation plan providing for an assessment and prompt reacting when necessary”).129 With respect to Slovakia, the Slovak Centre for Human Rights submitted a 14-page set of observations on the State report. It touched on issues such as legal capacity, the appointment of a dedicated Commissioner on human rights and disability, accessibility, education, employment and designation of a focal point under article 33. It also, usefully, contained a set of recommendations, including welcoming law reform to narrow down the institution of guardianship.130 With respect to Thailand, the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand submitted a 20page report on implementation of the Convention. Its submission also contained many practical recommendations for the Committee to ponder. The report focused on the lack of emphasis on implementing existing laws, on participation, and on awareness raising. Particularly impressive was its close attention to health and rehabilitation and several practical recommendations to tackle existing barriers.131 With respect to Uganda, the Uganda Human Rights Commission prepared an 11-page submission that addressed issues relating to accessibility, discrimination, education, health, political participation, employment and incorporation of the Convention into Ugandan law. Each heading was followed by succinct and practical recommendations for consideration by the Committee. One recommendation concerned making the denial of ‘reasonable accommodation’ a form of discrimination under Ugandan law. A particularly impressive section considered disability in the Ugandan prison system and the phenomenon of indefinite duration of incarceration on the ground of disability. Another extremely useful section examined mental health law and policy in Uganda, highlighting the need to move toward a community-based recovery model. 58 126 http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/SessionDetails1.aspx?SessionID=1050&Lang=en. 127 Ibid; see under ‘Chile’. 128 Ibid; see under ‘Portugal’. 129 Ibid; see under ‘Serbia’. 130 Ibid; see under ‘Slovakia’. 131 Ibid; see under ‘Thailand’.