The document discusses the need for a Disability Rights Tribunal for Asia and the Pacific (DRTAP) to address the lack of enforcement of disability rights protections in the region. It outlines proposals for the DRTAP to initially operate as a commission and eventually become a court to hear cases involving violations of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The document also describes New York Law School's efforts to establish an online Disability Rights Information Center for Asia and the Pacific (DRICAP) and offer distance learning courses on disability law to help build support for the DRTAP.

1. The Need for a Regional Disability Rights
Tribunal in Asia: What Can We Learn
from the Inter-American Experience?
Prof. Heather Cucolo
New York Law School
57 Worth St.
New York, NY 10013
212-431-2183
Heather.cucolo@nyls.edu

2. The presenting problem
 The lack of a regional human rights court or
commission in the Asia/Pacific region
Problem more critical since ratification of Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
Steps to begin to remedy the shortcomings in disability
rights protections

3. Solutions
DRTAP
 The DRTAP project seeks to create a sub-regional body (first as a
Commission, and eventually as a Court) to hear cases involving
violations of the UN’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (CRPD)
 A Disability Rights Tribunal for Asia and the Pacific (DRTAP) aims
at opening the door to the world that “recognize the inherent
dignity and worth and the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family
Universal education -NYLS
 DRICAP
 Online pedagogy

4. Introduction
 The creation of a DRTAP would be a bold,
innovative, progressive and important step on the path
towards realization of the rights of persons with mental
disabilities
 It would also be – ultimately – a likely inspiration for a full
regional human rights tribunal in this area of the world.
 In all regions of the world, persons with mental
disabilities – especially those institutionalized because
of such disabilities – are uniformly deprived of their civil
and human rights.
 The creation of a DRTAP would be the first necessary step
leading to amelioration of this deprivation.

5. Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities CRPD
 The United Nations has adopted many human rights treaties so far, the
most important of which (for the purposes of persons with disabilities) is
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
 The Disability Convention furthers the human rights approach to disability
and recognizes the right of people with disabilities to equality in most every
aspect of life
 Calls for "respect for inherent dignity“ and "non-discrimination,“
declares a "freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment” "freedom from exploitation, violence and
abuse,“ and a right to protection of the "integrity of the person."
 However, still very open question as to whether or not these will actually be
given life, or whether they will remain little more than "paper victories.

6. A key factor
The new United Nations Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities obligates all
state parties “[t]o adopt all appropriate
legislative, administrative and other measures
for the implementation of the rights recognised
in the present Convention”.
The extent to which this obligation is honored
will reveal much about the Convention’s
ultimate “real world” impact.

7. Examples of disability rights
elsewhere
There is often no mental health law at all in other
nations.
There is often no counsel provided to persons
facing institutionalization.
Conditions in psychiatric institutions around the
word “shock the conscience” and “violate the
“decencies of civilized conduct.”
Virtually all nations are deficient in providing
community services.
Conditions in forensic facilities are even more
abysmal than in civil facilities.

8. The Disability Rights Tribunal for
Asia and the Pacific
 DRTAP will be a quasi-judicial body that adjudicates individual cases involved with
disability rights and is composed of persons with disabilities, lawyers and
representatives of the general public.
 First, it is not a conventional court but a tribunal to better insure the presence of
persons with disabilities (who will likely be more familiar with the underlying
issues than might many judges).
 Second, it deals with just disability rights issues. It does not deal with human
rights issues at large.
 Third, persons with disabilities must be core a member of its mechanism to give
life to the slogan -- “ Nothing about us without us” – that motivated advocates
to seek ratification of the CRPD.
 Fourth, because of the geographic vastness of the Asia/Pacific area, it will be
necessary to launch the DRTAP as a subregional body, but optimally, it will
eventually extend to all nations in the region. Its initial functions will be
investigation and adjudication, and when the necessary regional treaty is signed,
there will then be a regional judiciary with binding power.

9. Core issues for DR-TAP
drafters
 Scope of Tribunal’s jurisdiction
Relationship between CRPD signers and non-signers
Scope of remedies
Sanctions if defendant refuses to comply
Standing of NGOs
How will counsel be appointed

10. Why the creation of a DRTAP would be
the single best way to insure that the
CRPD be given authentic life
1. Experiences in other regions show that similarly-
situated courts and commissions have been powerful
forces in mandating the practical implementation both of
other UN Conventions and treaties, and even of “soft
law.”

11. Why the creation, 2
2. A DRTAP that spans multiple nations (in diverse
geographic regions, with diverse populations comprised
of diverse ethnicities, races, religions and cultures) will
make the enforcement of these human rights far more
likely than reliance on state-by-state enforcement.

12. Why the creation, 3
 3. The language of the Convention compels this
conclusion.
 4. No other meaningful way to enforce the rights of
persons with disabilities.
 5. From an economic perspective, timing is right.

13. Other issues that still must be considered
How many nations will be involved?
Coordination with other regional tribunals?
Coordination with other Asia-Pacific bodies?
Funding?
Different operations in monist and dualist nations?
Different operations in civil/common law nations?
Selection of judges?
Reporting mechanisms?

14. How to Begin
Distance Learning
 Distance learning is generally defined as “communication which connects
instructors and students who are separated by geography and, often, by
time,” or as “the electronic connection of multiple classrooms.”
 Distance learning courses enable students to share different perspectives,
and provide an new environment for teaching law students to collaborate
with other types of professionals, a characteristic “increasingly essential to
the effective practice of law.
 Self-evidently, distance learning has great implications for international legal
education as well as for domestic legal education.
 A report in the Fletcher Forum of World Affairs concluded: “[T]here is
no doubt that ICTs [Information and Communication Technologies], if
properly adopted and implemented, can bring economic and cultural
opportunities to developing countries. Education facilities may be greatly
improved through distance learning and Internet access.”

15. How to Begin
 NYLS currently offers thirteen courses
 Survey of Mental Disability Law,
 The Americans with Disabilities Act: Law, Policy and Practice
 International Human Rights Law and Mental Disability Law,
 Advocacy Skills in Cases Involving Persons with Mental Disabilities: The Role of
Lawyers and Expert Witnesses;
 Mental Health Issues in Jails and Prisons;
 Custody Evaluations, Juvenile and Family Law and Mental Disability,
 Criminal Law and Mental Disability;
 Sex Offenders;
 Race, Gender, Class, Culture and Mental Disability
 Mental Illness, Dangerousness, Risk Assessment and the Police Power,
 Therapeutic Jurisprudence, and
 Trauma and Mental Disability Law.

16. DRICAP
 A document repository for each of 8 nations (see future expansion point 1)
 Japan
 Thailand
 South Korea
 Taiwan
 China
 Australia
 New Zealand
 Philippines
 Purpose is to categorize and index that nation’s disability law information:
 Statutes
 Regulations
 Case law
 Scholarly Articles
 Advocacy tools (including local news, conferences)

17. DRICAP
Future Expansion
Involvement of 2 additional nations to be determined shortly
Possible development of a blog in the future; this blog will only
be open for posting to pre-approved participants
Full integration into the Disability Rights Tribunal for Asia and
the Pacific, when that is launched.
Method to generate further enrollment in NYLS OMDL
courses (and Masters and Advanced Certificate programs) by
international participants

18. How to Begin
 The Toyota Foundation granted an initial subsidy to organize the DRTAP
project in 2008.
 Local meetings to discuss DRTAP were held in Tokyo, Bangkok, Seoul and
Melbourne from 2009 to 2010, as well as a” side-event” as a luncheon session
of Social Development Committee at UNESCAP in 2010.
 The concluding international conference for the project’s first stage was held in
Bangkok in 2010. UNESCAP has expressed interest in DRTAP, pointing
 The Project is at its second stage now. A Disability Rights Information Center
for Asia and the Pacific (DRICAP) has been established, and is being housed at
New York Law School, and more organizational meetings have been scehduled

19. Roadmap
 General Structure:
 Hybrid tribunal benefits
 Collaboration among nation states
 Composition – number of nations to be involved
 Rules of procedure and pleading
 Voluntariness of tribunal
 Language – all languages of each Asia-Pacific country
 Official language(s)
 Location
 Competency – jurisdiction to hear any matter relating to a State
 Coordination with other international and regional bodies
 Coordination with other Asian bodies
 Relationship between nations that have signed the CRPD and those that have not
 Legitimacy – independence from national oversight
 General sense of accountability, respect
 Fair procedures

20. Roadmap
 Judges
Designated seats for specific nations
Designated seats for persons with disabilities
 Backgrounds – lawyers, advocates, judges
Known and respected by national judges
Awareness of audience
Autonomy from political interests, impartial
Expertise in disability law
Lawyers trained in disability rights
Court appointed if client is indigent

21. Roadmap
 Funding – government
 UN funding
 Voluntary contributions
 NGOs
 Standing
 Members should not serve on tribunals
 Ability to bring claims before tribunal
 Ability to request advisory opinions
 Ability to file amicus briefs
 Reporting – precedent from other transnational tribunals
 Use of advisory opinions
 Free access to cases online
 Remedies – sanctions, reparations, injunctions
 Enforcing compliance – binding authority not necessary
 The role of mediation
 Inclusion of persons with physical disabilities.

22. Roadmap
This proposal raises many related, still unresolved issues. Some of the
most contentious will most likely be:
 What will the impact of voluntariness be on the ultimate success of
such a tribunal?
 Will the judges be independent?
 How will the tribunal be funded?
 How many nations will be involved (initially and eventually)?
 Will the tribunal’s jurisdiction extend to private and public cases?

23. Roadmap
Will there be co-ordination with other international bodies?
Will there be coordination with other Asian/Pacific tribunals?
 What will the relationship be between those nations that have
signed the CRPD and those that have not?
What will the standing be of NGOs before the tribunal?
What is the expected scope of the remedies available to the
tribunal?
Will there be a difference in the way such a tribunal would
operate in monist and dualist nations?

24. My conclusion
 There is no question in my mind that the creation of
this Tribunal is the single most important step we can
take in the realization of the human rights of persons
with disabilities in Asia and the Pacific region.