The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities today held an interactive panel discussion to mark the one-year anniversary of the Committee’s Guidelines on deinstitutionalization, including in emergencies. Gertrude Oforiwa Fefoame, Committee Chairperson, in her address marking the anniversary, said that the Guidelines were the result of a two-year long collaborative research project sparked by the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals with disabilities who were residing in institutions. They focused on including the voices of these individuals, who had been silenced for so long. The Committee continued to call on States parties, stakeholders and organisations to initiate or resume dialogue to ensure deinstitutionalisation and include persons with disabilities in the community, Ms. Fefoame said. The days of neglecting the rights of individuals with disabilities had reached their expiration. The institutionalization system needed to be dismantled, and its pieces used to build a new one based on the principles of human dignity, healing and inclusivity. Ms. Fefoame noted that it was not enough to merely close institutions. The harm that they had caused needed to be acknowledged and healing provided. Truth commissions needed to be established to educate society about historical injustices and close the deep wounds of institutionalization. Ms. Fefoame concluded by imploring all persons to rally behind the Guidelines as instruments of change. Working together, a world could be created where the rights of every person with disabilities were upheld, where communities were truly inclusive, and where the scars of institutionalisation were replaced with the power of restoration and empowerment. The first anniversary was not an end; it was just the beginning. The Committee held three panel discussions focusing on transformation of services, reparations, and intersectionality and emergency deinstitutionalisation. In these panels, representatives of civil society, government bodies and survivors of institutionalisation gave statements and responded to questions from the public provided through social media. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Committee’s twenty-ninth session and other documents related to the session can be found here. The Committee will next meet in public on Monday, 18 August at 3 p.m. to consider the Follow-Up to Inquiries reports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. First Panel on Transformation of Services Statements ROBERT MARTIN, Committee Expert and co-chair of the working group on deinstitutionalization, said the Guidelines on Deinstitutionalization, including in emergencies, adopted by the Committee in September 2022, emphasised that support services should be developed in accordance with a human rights model, respecting the will and preferences of persons with disabilities and ensuring their full participation, and that of their broader support network. The Guidelines also highlighted that States parties should ensure that options outside the health-care system, that fully respected the individual’s will and preferences, were made available as primary services without the need for a mental health diagnosis. VICTOR LIZAMA, Survivor, Mexican Mad Movement, said he had received a psychiatric diagnosis and had supported others like him. Coercion occurred through restriction of treatment and support, which led to institutionalisation. The Committee’s Guidelines had been informed by input gathered during the COVID-19 pandemic. During this period, the Disability Rights Movement had spoken out, saying that people who lived in psychiatric facilities needed attention and support, due to the precarious living conditions at the facilities. The Movement clearly identified the biometrical model as the source of various challenges. These persons had challenged the status quo, promoting the Convention and a new understanding of disability rights. Mental health reform in Mexico had been recognised as being of a high standard due to its recognition of the human rights of persons with psychosocial disabilities. States needed to legally recognise the rights of such persons and develop policies and programmes to support them. Persons who condemned people to institutions needed to face legal processes. A care system should be put in place that respected the rights of all persons with psychosocial disabilities. PRISCILA RODRIGUEZ, member of the Disability Rights International and the Latin American Coalition on Deinstitutionalization, said the Coalition had been established in 2022, and was comprised of more than 30 persons with disabilities. The focus of the Coalition was the implementation of the Committee’s Guidelines on deinstitutionalisation in Latin America. It had mapped progress towards deinstitutionalisation in the region. There continued to be a noticeable lack of data on persons with disabilities in institutions. There were over 100,000 persons with disabilities in institutions in the region, facing death, abuse and poor conditions. There was one reported instance of coercive therapy against a member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community in Chile. None of the countries examined had detailed a complex deinstitutionalisation plan, although Chile planned to release one in 2023. There were examples of deinstitutionalisation processes and good practices throughout the region, including the creation of community services. Peru provided financial support for persons with disabilities. In three countries in the region, deinstitutionalisation had been established through the integration of psychiatric services within community services and the closure of institutions. The Coalition would continue to monitor the progress of deinstitutionalisation in the region. BHARGAVI DAVAR, Transforming Communities for Inclusion member, said that for decades, persons with psychosocial disabilities had been exposed to human rights violations within the mental health sector. These people faced restrictions to political participation, were routinely stripped of their legal capacity and were regularly exposed to torture. Psychiatry remained the gatekeeper for the exercise of the rights of persons with psychosocial disabilities, meaning reform needed to begin here. There was a growing global movement to develop alternatives to coercion and promote integrated living. However, bigger steps were needed to promote the full implementation of human rights. A policy commitment to zero coercion was long overdue. Persons with psychosocial disabilities needed equal access to development and mainstream service programmes, including education, work and leisure. Community support would decrease the suffering of people with psychosocial disabilities. Transforming legal services to bring access to justice for persons with psychosocial disabilities was an important first step. The financial independence of persons with psychosocial disabilities needed to be respected. Discrimination and exclusion of these people prevented them from accessing mainstream services, which should be provided by Governments. Services needed to be offered close to the homes of recipients. Electroshock and other harmful therapies needed to be eliminated. Persons with psychosocial disabilities needed to define the social support they could access. TARA FLOOD, member of the Hammersmith and Fulham Council, London, said independent living was developed by persons with disabilities, to challenge the decades of institutionalisation. It was a shift in power to persons with disabilities, giving these people the opportunity to live and participate in communities. The Hammersmith and Fulham Council sought to implement the social model of disability and was committed to independent living, and to addressing barriers to employment, justice and family life. Persons with disabilities had identified 12 pillars of independent living, and the Council was committed to upholding these. Local persons with disabilities were working with decision makers to design disability policies and services, and remove barriers. It was working with residents to promote positive change. Measures in favour of persons with disabilities would benefit the whole community. The Council was the only one in the United Kingdom that offered community services free of charge. Organisations of persons with disabilities were partners in this effort. Persons with disabilities were “co-producing” a transformation of services in the region. An independent living delivery group had been set up to drive forward independent living and build capacity of community workers, to provide disability services. Such training was provided by persons with disabilities. The Council aimed to break down silos and work with persons with disabilities to realise independent living for all persons with disabilities. Every person on the Council was aware of the role they played in ending institutionalisation for persons with disabilities. MARTA VILLANUEVA, Councilor for Health and People with Disabilities at the Municipality of Barcelona, said Barcelona had always considered accessibility and community living to be a priority. It aimed to strengthen the autonomy of persons with disabilities. Personal assistance was a right. The Government of Spain regulated provisions that promoted autonomy regarding personal assistance. Personal assistants allowed for deinstitutionalisation and dignified living. A townhall programme for persons with disabilities had been developed that provided housing to persons with disabilities. The townhall created a model for personal assistance in Barcelona. Different bodies and companies were providing services to persons with disabilities as part of this programme. Persons with disabilities were empowered to make decisions regarding services. The Barcelona administration aimed to promote the right to independent living and the inclusion of persons with disabilities in the community. Local governments needed to promote access to employment for persons with disabilities, which led to financial independence. Independent living was key to ensuring the rights of persons with disabilities. Questions and Feedback from Social Media A member of the Global Coalition on Deinstitutionalization read a comment received on social media, which said there were many people in institutions who had no personal assistance in the community. How could power be shifted from authorities to persons placed in institutions? Responses from Panel Members PRISCILA RODRIGUEZ, member of the Disability Rights International and the Latin American Coalition on Deinstitutionalisation, said groups representing persons with disabilities in institutions and survivors were important, to ensure their voices were heard, and that their perspectives were at the centre of support policies. Second Panel on Reparations Statements LAVERNE JACOBS, Committee Expert and member of the working group on deinstitutionalization, said the Guidelines indicated that States parties “should recognise institutionalization in all its forms as a multiple violation of the rights enshrined in the Convention.” States parties should create a mechanism to identify and raise awareness about the harm caused institutionalization, and to recommend changes in law and policy. States parties should also provide accessible, prompt and participatory pathways to access to justice for persons with disabilities, who wished to seek redress, reparations, and restorative justice. AMALIA GAMIO, Committee Vice-Chairperson, on behalf of CLAUDE HELLER, Chair of the Committee against Torture, said the Special Rapporteurs had recognised the higher risk of torture faced by persons with disabilities, who were placed in institutions. The Committee against Torture had expressed concern regarding torture within institutions in its concluding observations for various States. In Romania, for example, the Committee expressed concern about women and children in institutions, who faced torture and degrading treatment. For its review of Australia, the Committee was concerned about the treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in institutions. For Greece, Lithuania and Romania, the Committee expressed concern regarding a lack of legal redress for persons with disabilities who were victims of torture. In its consideration of Slovenia, the Committee expressed concern about the use of physical and chemical restraints in institutions. The Committee was also concerned about such restraints in in New Zealand and Slovenia. The Committee had urged Slovakia to conclude its investigation into the use of a cage bed, and to adopt measures to prevent the use of cage beds in the future. For Cuba, the Committee expressed concern that officials did not receive consent before subjecting persons to psychiatric treatment. The Committee was also concerned at the lack of channels for issuing complaints in New Zealand and the State of Palestine. For several States, the Committee had recommended that the State party pursue deinstitutionalisation, guaranteeing legal safeguards for those in such institutions. The panel discussion was an important forum for promoting deinstitutionalisation and encouraging cooperation between the two treaty bodies. LORENA BERRIO, member of RedEsferan Latinoamericana de la Diversidad Psicosocial, said there needed to be reparation for victims of institutionalisation. Ms. Berrio said she had been sterilised 16 years ago to prevent her partner from raping her, but her partner’s sexual abuse continued. Reparation needed to be consistent with the damage inflicted. There needed to be guarantees of non-repetition. Medical bodies and health ministries needed to promise non-repetition and immediate closure of psychiatric facilities. Victims of psychiatric violence needed follow-up support. Visits needed to be carried out when complaints of institutional violence were received. Countries that had signed the Convention needed to implement it. It was deplorable that the union system was sometimes used to carry out institutionalisation. Priority groups needed access to housing and independent living. Deinstitutionalisation measures were difficult to implement, but not impossible if there was will from leaders. Ideas and initiatives were needed to overcome challenges and achieve deinstitutionalisation. TINA MINKOWITZ, Survivor Center for the Human Rights of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry, said States’ first priority should be to release people deprived of liberty in institutions and to stop placing people into institutions. Release from psychiatric institutionalisation could not be accomplished though individual access to justice. States needed to accept that institutionalisation violated human rights. States had obligations under the Convention to allow all persons in institutions to live whenever they chose and provide financial assistance to prevent homelessness and poverty. The human rights of persons with disabilities needed to be communicated in understandable formats. The construction of new institutions needed to be halted, and detention on the basis of disability needed to be prohibited. States needed to reverse these human rights violations, for which they were responsible. They needed to fulfil the Guidelines and create a reparations mechanism and pathways for redress. Material and symbolic reparations needed to be offered to individual survivors of torture and arbitrary detention. As early as 1986, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and degrading treatment had listed the use of torturous drugs on people who needed care as a form of torture. States needed to support peer support initiatives and spaces to collect witness testimonies and claims for redress. Some survivors, such as Ms. Minkowitz, only sought the dismantling of the institutionalisation system. HANBYOL CHOI, General Secretary of the Korean Disability Forum, said reparations were not just about financial renumeration but also the recovery of personal integrity and reconnection with society. Survivors of institutionalisation knew best about how to achieve such recovery and reconnection. However, in some States, authorities refused to listen to survivors. Reparations for institutionalisation needed to remove all institutionalisation elements and respect the autonomy of survivors. Survivors had the right to make mistakes. Such mistakes were often used as evidence for re-institutionalisation. Claims that institutionalisation was necessary was a serious challenge, as for some, institutionalisation was a death sentence. One person in the Republic of Korea had died in a fire six months after being released from an institution, due to a lack of care support. States needed to pursue deinstitutionalisation and reparation. Institutionalisation was very common in Asia. The Guidelines were an important tool for promoting deinstitutionalisation in Asia. The Forum would continue to share its achievements with the world. LUZ MARÍA PIÑA, survivor and member of Disability Rights International, said there were three or four deaths at the institution she was placed in, where she had been abused by her carers. Another institution that she was placed in, had forcibly sterilised her. In some instances, Ms. María Piña had been locked in the bathroom in institutions. She had not been able to access employment or work due to her institutionalisation, and was no longer able to become a mother. Questions and Feedback from Social Media A member of the Global Coalition on Deinstitutionalization read comments received on social media, which said the institution in which Ms. María Piña had been placed, had been closed as a result of the Committee’s review of Mexico. The Global Coalition on Deinstitutionalization expressed regret that they were not able to participate in the panel. One commenter said institutionalisation was inherently abusive. Another asked what legal measures should be implemented to promote deinstitutionalisation. Responses by the Panel TINA MINKOWITZ, Survivor Center for the Human Rights of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry, said courts should be made aware of their power to end arbitrary detention in institutions. Legislation needed to encompass all forms of institutionalisation. There were certain pathways through which people were arbitrarily detained against their will, that needed to be closed. Sweeping legal changes needed to be made, to initiate rapid change. HANBYOL CHOI, General Secretary of the Korean Disability Forum, said that in the Republic of Korea, a deinstitutionalisation bill was before the National Assembly. There was backlash against the bill, but it promoted deinstitutionalisation as a fundamental right. After this law was implemented, all laws and legal systems could be adjusted in line with the Convention. Ms. Choi hoped that this law would lead to significant changes in the Republic of Korea. Third panel on Intersectionality and Emergency Deinstitutionalization Statements AMALIA GAMIO, Committee Vice-Chairperson and co-chair of the working group on deinstitutionalization, said that according to the Guidelines on de-institutionalization, including in emergencies, “States parties should adopt an intersectional approach to tackling discrimination, segregation, isolation and other forms of ill-treatment of persons with disabilities living in and leaving institutions.” The Guidelines indicated that “During emergency situations, such as pandemics, natural disasters or conflicts, States parties should continue and accelerate efforts to close institutions.” Targeted efforts were needed to ensure inclusion in evacuation, humanitarian relief and recovery measures and full accessibility in situations of risk and emergency. Plans for accelerated deinstitutionalisation should be included in recovery efforts and be implemented in emergencies. NICOLE LEE, survivor and member of People with Disabilities Australia, said she had a lived experience of forced mental health treatment. Persons with disabilities experienced higher rates of violence and were targets for abuse. The mental health system reinforced this, speaking to carers rather than persons with disabilities directly. Mental care workers colluded with perpetrators of abuse. Survivors needed to be protected from the places that harmed them. Institutions’ records were cited in court rooms as evidence against persons with disabilities. There was a long way to go in ending forced treatment. Patient files needed to be sealed. Many States were introducing new laws on coercive control, that pointed to persons with disabilities as abusers. Mental health services treated persons with disabilities violently and judicial systems misidentified aggressors. Ms. Lee had been restrained by men in protective gear, although she did not pose a risk to anyone. This experience led her to consider taking her life. She called on the Committee to consider how mental health systems harmed the rights of persons with disabilities, especially women with disabilities. The records of persons with disabilities needed to be protected. Ms. Lee implored the world not to leave persons with disabilities behind. FATMA WANGARE, mother of a girl with intellectual disabilities, and member of the Kenyan Association for the Intellectually Handicapped , said that in Africa, many persons with disabilities were hidden from the community by being institutionalised. There were few attempts in Africa to implement the Convention. The Kenyan Association for the Intellectually Handicapped had published a report on the institutionalisation of children, including in orphanages. Some unregistered orphanages in Kenya held children without oversight. In 854 institutions, there were an estimated 2,000 children held. Children were still being admitted to institutions, where they remained detained. There was almost no support for families who wished to keep their children at home; in some cases, there was pressure on families to kill their children who had disabilities, or to place them in institutions. Most children in orphanages were not orphans; poverty and disability had pushed them to orphanages. Some parents had reported that their children had been detained for months without being offered contact with their families. Urgent transformations to the education, medical and employment sectors were needed. The Association was promoting projects that supported persons with disabilities to live in the community and access justice. Family support networks reunited children with disabilities with their families. The Committee needed to continue to pressure State parties to shift investment from segregation to inclusion, review laws that stripped persons with disabilities of their rights, and provide concrete guidelines on the implementation of the Convention. NÚRIA COMA, Self-advocate from Spain, said that she had not received support in school, including in that accessibility had not been considered in school outings. Ms. Coma had enlisted the support of the home attention service for domestic tasks, but the support provided was not sufficient. Her mother and aunt had made countless sacrifices to support her. The Government had not informed Ms. Coma of the support services she could access. Transport to university was not accessible. Ms. Coma had been threatened with dismissal in her workplace for not working, despite having a pinched nerve and not being able to breathe. She had also experienced hardship in finding an accessible place to live. Recently, Ms. Coma had been able to access personal assistance. Many people were experiencing the same hardships as Ms. Coma, whose future was uncertain. She hoped that persons with disabilities and authorities could work to develop a more accessible, inclusive society. ANHELINA CHENDAROVA, survivor, DRI Ukraine board member, said she was born in an institutional setting and had spent the first 19 years of her life in institutions. She found out who her mother and father were after leaving the institution. She was told in the institution that her parents did not love her. The staff of the institution violated her rights. Only children who were able to walk received an education. Bed-ridden children were not educated, or given opportunities to play or socialise. The institution had ruined her personality and world view. When she left the institution at 19, she did not know how to buy food and was financially illiterate. Today, Ms. Chendarova was a civil society activist who taught children in institutions how to be financially literate. Her school was occupied by Russian forces after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Deinstitutionalisation in conflict and pandemic situations needed to be considered by the Committee and State parties. Situations where hundreds of children were forced to evacuate institutions and were left homeless, needed to be avoided. JUAN IGNACIO PEREZ, member of the International Disability Alliance , said the International Disability Alliance had supported regional consultations on the Guidelines and had disseminated the Guidelines once adopted. The Alliance called on State parties to initiate deinstitutionalisation processes as a priority. Personal identities of persons with disabilities were multi-faceted. These identities needed to be considered in deinstitutionalisation processes and community care services. Overlooking intersectionality led to discrimination. Conflicts, natural disasters and pandemics disproportionately affected persons with disabilities. Women and girls with disabilities were at a higher risk of sexual and gender-based violence and institutionalisation. Civil society organizations were working to investigate cases of discrimination and to promote deinstitutionalisation. States needed to accelerate deinstitutionalisation efforts during emergencies. Persons with disabilities needed to be identified within asylum centres to avoid institutionalisation. There were documented cases of mothers with children with disabilities from Ukraine not being offered support in countries they had fled to after the conflict, being offered only institutionalisation. Persons with disabilities needed States to combat institutionalisation and strengthen support and community care systems. If they did not, persons with disabilities would keep falling through the cracks and facing institutionalisation. The reference of the Guidelines in recent State party reviews was welcomed. The International Disability Alliance called for prompt implementation of the Guidelines and promotion of the rights of institutionalised persons with disabilities. Questions and Feedback from Social Media A member of the Global Coalition on Deinstitutionalization read a comment received on social media, which said that medical records should be handed over to persons concerned. Another commentor mentioned grave violations against persons with disabilities in Italy, including a case of death in an institution and the deprival of medical supplies for persons with disabilities in institutions. One commentor asked what could be done about States that refused to pursue deinstitutionalisation policies or take accountability for abuses occurring in institutions. Responses by the Panel JUAN IGNACIO PEREZ, member of the International Disability Alliance, said that international fora such as the Committee could be utilised to seek reparations in such cases. Closing Statements DRAGANA CIRIC MILOVANOVIC, representative of Disability Rights International and the Global Coalition on Deinstitutionalization, congratulated the Committee for putting together the session. The testimonies shared today were deeply moving. The survivors of institutionalisation had been a driving force in disseminating the guidelines. The Coalition welcomed the establishment of coalitions in the Latin American and Asia Pacific regions. Greater focus needed to be placed on deinstitutionalisation in the Global South. There needed to be greater awareness of the Guidelines. In some States, retrogressive steps were being taken. Law reforms remained slow. Even where there was progress, deinstitutionalisation was treated as a renaming exercise, where segregated services were renamed as “integrated living”. Emergencies showed that institutions would never be safe for persons with disabilities. Governments needed to support integrated, independent living. Meaningful participation of persons with disabilities and their families in deinstitutionalisation policy development was needed. There were some outdated views within the treaty bodies system that needed to be updated. Today’s session could have been made more accessible. Ms. Milovanovic closed by calling for increased efforts to promote deinstitutionalisation from all stakeholders. AMALIA GAMIO, Committee Vice-Chairperson and co-chair of the working group on deinstitutionalization, said there had been resistance in changing the medical model over the last 15 years. States were denying the right to equality. They continued to use resources to maintain institutions, rather than redirecting these to community support. Persons with disabilities suffered from numerous forms of discrimination. States needed to move from a medical model to a human rights-based model. Institutionalisation had been recognised internationally as torture. No person with disabilities deserved to be excluded from society. ROBERT MARTIN, Committee Expert and co-chair of the working group on deinstitutionalization, said the deinstitutionalisation guidelines were now one year old, and it was great to see that they were making a difference. Mr. Martin was a survivor of an institution, and had spent his life speaking out on the harms of institutions. Institutions took away the right to family, well-being, health, and to live in the community. No person should live in one. Mr. Martin called for continued promotion of deinstitutionalisation on behalf of persons with disabilities across the world. GERTRUDE OFORIWA FEFOAME, Committee Chairperson, said the Guidelines were crafted to complement the essence of General Comment 5 on Article 19, which pertained to the right to live independently and be included in the community, as well as the Guidelines on Article 14, focusing on the right to liberty and security of the person. They were the result of a two-year long collaborative research project sparked by the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals with disabilities who were residing in institutions. They focused on including the voices of these individuals, who had been silenced for so long. The Guidelines were the result of a participatory process, which included seven regional consultations organized by the Committee, and over 500 participants who courageously shared their stories. The Committee engaged in expansive consultation with both individuals with psychosocial disabilities and individuals with intellectual disabilities in 2021. On the first anniversary of the Guidelines, the Committee was reminded of the transformative journey on which it had embarked to uphold the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. The Guidelines held within them the power to reshape societies and create a more just and inclusive world for all. In its inaugural year alone, the Guidelines had already proven to be a ground-breaking tool, igniting a profound and far-reaching impact that had set the stage for transformative change across nations and communities alike. Article 22 and 75 of the Guidelines urged States parties to develop a range of high-quality, individualised support and inclusive mainstream services in the community. This transformation needed to be embraced without delay. Personalised support services needed to encompass a wide spectrum, from personal assistance to assistive technology, from housing to healthcare. States Parties had a pivotal role to play as catalysts for change, driving the vision of inclusive communities to fruition. Article 115 of the Guidelines underlined the violation of rights inherent in institutionalization. The Committee called for commitments to recognition, redress, and reparation. It was not enough to merely close institutions; the harm that they had caused needed to be acknowledged and healing provided. Reparations should encompass restitution and rehabilitation. State parties should legislate against disability-based detention and institutionalisation, while establishing mechanisms that empowered survivors, with a voice free from perpetrators" influence. Truth commissions needed to be established to educate society about historical injustices and close the deep wounds of institutionalization. The identities of persons with disabilities were multifaceted and interconnected. True deinstitutionalisation could not be achieved without addressing intersectionality. All States needed to promote inclusive practices that accounted for diverse characteristics such as race, gender and age. An intersectional approach would ensure that measures were comprehensive and all-encompassing. The Committee continued to call on States parties, stakeholders and organisations to initiate or resume dialogue to ensure deinstitutionalisation and include persons with disabilities in the community. Swift engagement and diligently monitoring were needed to realise the Guidelines. The days of neglecting the rights of individuals with disabilities had reached their expiration. All needed to work to create a future where the principles enshrined within the Guidelines could take root and flourish, and where no one was left behind. The system needed to be dismantled, and its pieces used to build a new one based on the principles of human dignity, healing and inclusivity. Ms. Fefoame concluded the panel by imploring all persons to rally behind the Guidelines as instruments of change, as tools that demand unwavering attention and action. By working together, a world could be created where the rights of every person with disabilities were upheld, where communities were truly inclusive, and where the scars of institutionalisation were replaced with the power of restoration and empowerment. The first anniversary was not an end; it was just the beginning. Link: https://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/meeting-summary/2023/08/committee-rights-persons-disabilities-holds-panel-discussion ___________ Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.