The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities today concluded its review of the initial report of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, with Committee Experts welcoming the State’s law to support persons with disabilities, while raising questions on persons with disabilities’ access to emergency services, and the institutionalisation of persons with psychosocial disabilities.
Laverne Jacobs, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said the Committee was pleased that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had enacted a national law to support persons with disabilities: the law of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities.
Muhannad Salah Al-Azzeh, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said there was a full absence in the provisions of the 2023 law about access to emergency services for persons with disabilities. Was there an inclusive national strategy that was consulted with persons with disabilities to ensure access to these services in the situation of emergency or natural disasters? If so, what was the duration of such a strategy?
Amalia Gamio, Vice-Chairperson and Taskforce Member, asked if the so-called “Service 49” was a psychiatric centre where people with psychosocial disabilities were living? She added that the Committee had received information that persons with psychosocial disabilities could be sent to the so-called “Service 83”, which was a bio experimentation unit, with the consent of their families. Was this true? In 2017, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities had received complaints that persons with disabilities were living in isolated facilities. What progress had been made in the implementation of a de-institutionalisation process and the use of community support?
The delegation said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had a national strategy for disaster-risk reduction 2019-2030. The strategy had specific provisions for rescuing and offering medical services to persons with disabilities. When natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes were deemed imminent, the State issued warnings through television and radio and through mobile networks for persons with disabilities. Authorities paid visits to vulnerable families and households, including persons with disabilities, elderly people and children, to ensure they were evacuated or protected.
The delegation said there was no such thing as the “49 homes” in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; there were recuperation homes and prevention facilities for persons with psychosocial disabilities. There were no facilities which detained these persons and treated them inhumanely. According to relevant laws, medical services were offered in those recuperation homes. These homes were intended for long-term stays of people with mental impairments, offering psychotherapy, medicine therapy and occupational therapy, among others.
Introducing the report, Jon Chol Hi, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Korean Federation for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities, head of the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said the law on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities was adopted in 2023 to replace the law on the protection of persons with disabilities which had been in force since 2003, ensuring the socio-political, economic and cultural rights of persons with disabilities at a high level.
The Korean Federation for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities was established in 1998 to represent and advocate for the interests of all persons with disabilities across the country. The State took several actions to ensure the rights of its citizens, however, despite this reality, the United States and the West were persistently conducting anti-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea smear campaigns with falsities and fabrications, trying to create a negative image of the county’s human rights situation.
In closing remarks, Mr. Jon said there had been constructive observations and recommendations made by many Committee members during the interactive dialogue. However, it was regrettable that a series of comments and questions made by some other members were based on misunderstanding and groundless prejudice about the country.
In his closing remarks, Mr. Al-Azzeh said there was a promising legislative framework which the State could build on, which could create a good situation and environment for the country’s disability community. Yet, over the six hours of dialogue, the State party had not stopped accusing the Committee of being prejudiced, biased, and putting unfair doubts on its impartiality. The Committee was not politicising but wanted to see an improvement in the situation of the lives of persons with disabilities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
The delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was comprised of representatives of the Central Committee of the Korean Federation for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Presidium of Supreme People’s Assembly; the Ministry of Public Health; and the Permanent Mission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
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 thirty-third session and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public at 3. p.m. on Wednesday, 13 August, to consider, under article 11 of the Convention, the situation of persons with disabilities affected by war in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Report
The Committee has before it the initial report of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (CRPD/C/PRK/1).
Presentation of Report
JON CHOL HI, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Korean Federation for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities, head of the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had acceded to the Convention in December 2016, and had adopted many preferential measures to ensure persons with disabilities were treated with respect and could take an active part in public and social activities. Specific provisions on the protection of persons with disabilities were contained in the labour law, the Socialist Constitution, and the education law, among others.
The law on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities was adopted in 2023 to replace the law on the protection of persons with disabilities, which had been in force since 2003, ensuring the socio-political, economic and cultural rights of persons with disabilities at a high level. The Korean Federation for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities was established in 1998 to represent and advocate for the interests of all persons with disabilities across the country.
In 2016, the National Committee for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities was created, comprising officials of disability-related ministries, ministry-level institutions, and disability associations. Currently, the national strategy for the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities 2021-2025 was in the final stage of implementation, with a focus on rehabilitation, education, employment, and cultural life, among others. Persons with disabilities fully enjoyed the right to vote and be elected. This was evident in the election of deputies to provincial, city and county People’s Assemblies held in November 2023, where most persons with disabilities participated in person, with some others with severe mobility impairments casting their votes at mobile ballot boxes at their homes, hospitals or sanatoriums.
A new education-aid programme designed for persons with disabilities had recently been launched and measures were also being taken to create conditions for persons with disabilities to learn at vocational schools and make tertiary education accessible. An effective system was put in place for the provision of rehabilitation services for persons with disabilities and for the manufacturing and supply of prostheses, all offered under the universal free medical care system. Highly specialised functional services were provided to persons with disabilities at several hospitals and rehabilitation and research centres.
Under the guarantees of the socialist labour law and the law on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities, those with working abilities engaged, according to the degree of disability, gender, age, physical constitution and their preferences, in work either at mainstream workplaces or at the specialised factories and organizations for persons with disabilities. In addition to their salaries, persons with disabilities were granted disability allowances and their families were paid nursing allowances, while disability care homes, nursing homes and sanatoriums were set up in different parts of the country to provide services tailored to their needs.
Dwellings, public buildings and spaces, roads, holiday resorts and tourism venues were designed, constructed or renovated to ensure full accessibility for persons with disabilities, including new buildings and facilities such as the Wonsan Kalma Coastal Tourist Area, Pyongyang General Hospital, and Pyongyang International Airport, among others.
National tournaments of persons with disabilities and amateurs were held in spring and autumn every year under the Korean Sports Association of Persons with Disabilities in events including table-tennis, tennis, swimming, shooting and archery. It was important to mention the organization of the National Paralympic Committee of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in October 2011; the country’s membership of the International Paralympic Committee in November 2013; and the successful participation of persons with disabilities in the London and Rio Paralympics in 2012 and 2017 respectively.
Cooperation had been actively promoted with disability-related international organizations like the International Federation of Persons with Disabilities and the World Federation of Deaf in the areas of rehabilitation, education, employment and cultural life for persons with disabilities. Efforts had been made to establish and maintain cooperative relations with disability-related international organizations, including the visit to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities in May 2017.
The State took several actions to ensure the rights of its citizens, including by constructing and providing free housing, the daily provision of free dairy products to children in school, and assisting those impacted by natural disasters. Despite this reality, the United States and the West were persistently conducting anti-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea smear campaigns with falsities and fabrications, trying to create a negative image of the country’s human rights situation. These vicious manoeuvres that were aimed at overthrowing the socio-political system of the State posed a serious threat to the enjoyment of human rights. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea believed human rights meant sovereign rights. The State would continue to implement policies and measures for the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities.
Questions by Committee Experts
GEREL DONDOVDORJ, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce, said by ratifying the Convention in 2016, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea undertook the obligation to recognise the human rights-based model of disability as codified in the Convention. Following her visit to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in 2017, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities made some key observations which would be addressed in the dialogue. Although the State party had taken legislative measures, it appeared that some disability-related legislation and policies were still not fully harmonised with the Convention, including the newly revised 2023 law on the promotion and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities. It was noted that children with certain types of impairments, such as autism, cerebral palsy or intellectual disabilities, were often segregated in the Korean Rehabilitation Centre; this issue would be addressed in the dialogue as well as the guardianship system. The Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was encouraged to closely consult and actively involve organizations of diverse persons with disabilities in their reform agenda.
LAVERNE JACOBS, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said the Committee was pleased that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had enacted a national law to support persons with disabilities: the law on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities. Was there a process that allowed for a person with a disability to make a complaint in the court system? Could a person with a disability receive a remedy if their right to be free of discrimination was found to have been violated by a court of law? Could more information be provided on how the State party ensured that persons with disabilities were free from discrimination and maltreatment under the law?
How were laws and policies affecting persons with disabilities informed by the human rights model of disability as opposed to charitable or medical approaches? Was there a mechanism in place that allowed the State party to regularly review its laws and policies to ensure laws and policies conformed to a human rights model? What was the “special treatment” provided to honoured ex-soldiers and battle wounded with disabilities, as outlined in the law?
Could the State party provide more detail on the plans for ratifying the Optional Protocol? What were the State party’s plans to implement its strategic national action at the provincial, district and county levels, including financial resources, throughout the country? What processes or mechanisms had been put in place to ensure persons with disabilities’ involvement in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? What mechanisms existed for regularly reviewing legislative, administrative and other measures to ensure that the human rights of persons with disabilities were mainstreamed in all policies and programmes of the State party?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the shift from the medical to the rights approach was realised in the new law on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities, adopted in 2023. Concrete steps had been taken to ensure laws were effectively implemented and translated into reality. Law information activities were conducted through dissemination systems, which involved all institutions and organizations. Law information work was the responsibility of all leaders of institutions, who were required to conduct this work once a week to ensure that members of the general public were well aware of newly enacted and revised laws. The copies of the full texts of newly adopted laws, including that on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities, were sent to all institutions for conducting law awareness raising activities. Measures were in place to ensure all disability-related institutions reflected disabilities issues in their yearly action plans and properly implemented them.
Strict monitoring and implementation of the law on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities was carried out regularly by inspection departments and through State inspections. These included inspections of documents, visiting workplaces, and interviewing employees. The Korean Federation for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities conducted awareness raising activities in collaboration with the mass media. Significant progress had been made to ensure the full rights of persons with disabilities, and as such the general public had increased enthusiasm for disability-related measures.
Despite the efforts of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under relevant Conventions, anti-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea resolutions were being railroaded annually through the United Nations Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had reflected relevant requirements of Conventions in domestic laws. When conditions were ready, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would accede to the Conventions expected by the international community.
A national strategic plan was formulated through the Korean Federation for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities and other stakeholders. A standing committee was responsible for the formulation and implementation of the national domestic law, in line with the Convention. Through representatives from associations of persons with disabilities, persons with disabilities were involved in all stages of drafting national strategies and their implementation. They also actively participated in the implementation of the Convention.
Providing “special treatment” to ex-soldiers with disabilities did not mean good treatment was not being provided to others with disabilities. Questions of this kind were a deviation from the issue of the rights of persons with disabilities.
Questions by a Committee Expert
MARA CRISTINA GABRILLI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked why the State party’s constitution had not been amended to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on disability and guarantee equality? What national system was responsible for discussing complaints and petitions submitted by persons with disabilities and their related organizations if requests for reasonable accommodation were denied? What was being done to ensure access to reproductive and maternal health services for women with disabilities in urban and rural areas?
Were there gender and disability-sensitive mechanisms to register, protect and support women with disabilities, including survivors of gender-based violence? What mechanisms existed for women and girls with disabilities who faced discrimination, including in detention? What steps had been taken to ensure inclusive education for children with disabilities? How was it ensured that disaggregated data was being collected on children with disabilities? How did the State party plan to extend support services and programmes to children with disabilities?
How did the State party ensure that awareness campaigns included and represented persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities? Were accessible formats such as braille and sign language widely launched beyond the capital? How were disability laws disseminated across the population, especially in rural and remote areas? Was there a national authority responsible for ensuring accessibility and compliance in public infrastructure? How did the State party plan to extend accessible infrastructure beyond Pyongyang, especially in rural and remote areas? Was there a time-bound plan to make existing public infrastructure fully accessible to persons with disabilities? What legal provisions currently protected the right to life of persons with disabilities in the State party?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said all citizens, including persons with disabilities, had the right to lodge complaints against any institution. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had put together an effective complaints’ mechanism involving all institutions. Complaints were considered once a month by institutions at the provincial, municipal and county level. Any person aggrieved by the results of the investigation of a complaint could file it again. Persons with disabilities usually filed their complaints with the Korean Federation for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities. Persons with disabilities who suffered personal injury or property damage were provided with financial compensation or the provision of medical costs. Sanctions and criminal punishments against those responsible could also be applicable depending on each case.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea paid special attention to the protection of the reproductive health of women. A well-developed education system had been implemented to enable access to information on reproductive health and family planning, including for persons with disabilities. The Korean Federation for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities was doing work to enable persons with disabilities to attend training courses on reproductive health. Thousands of copies of leaflets pertaining to the sexual health of persons with disabilities had been published. The forced sterilisation of all persons with disabilities was strictly banned. Medical institutions were required to inform their patients of planned procedures and obtain their consent. Should anyone fail to comply with these obligations, they would be liable for committing illegal medical practices, resulting in punishment.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had always advocated for equal treatment between men and women. Special attention was paid to ensuring that persons with disabilities had equal rights with others. Due attention was also directed to enabling law enforcement officers to have a positive perception towards persons with disabilities so they would fully comply with the law. If they illegally interrogated individuals, the punishment was more than 10 years in prison.
Questions by a Committee Expert
MUHANNAD SALAH AL-AZZEH, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked what tools were used to come up with reliable statistics about persons with disabilities? Did these include the Washington set of questions? Was there disaggregated data related to persons with disabilities in education and those outside of any form of education, as well as cases of violence? What kind of mechanisms did the State party have to prioritise disabilities within national programmes? Why was the Korean Federation for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities the only non-governmental organization related to disability issues? Would the State consider allowing counterparts to be registered to ensure the broad representation of persons with disabilities? Through which mechanism did the State monitor the implementation of the laws and the Convention?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said according to statistics data on recording persons with disabilities, a sample survey had been conducted earlier this year and was currently being analysed in the Central Bureau of Statistics. The final data would be released at the end of the year. Initial data from the sample survey incorporated recommendations made by the Washington Group. The Government encouraged cooperation and exchange with entities and those friendly towards them. However, the State rejected so-called cooperation meant to violate the sovereignty and independent rights of their people. Certain questions were based on allegations made by hostile forces.
As a State party to the Convention, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea believed the orientation was supposed to be technical assistance. The National Committee for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities met twice a year, and there was also the Standing Committee of the Supreme People’s Assembly and the Prosecutor’s Office, which were all involved in the supervision and implementation of policies for the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea felt it would be more profitable to use the existing monitoring mechanism in place, rather than establishing a separate mechanism for every human rights mechanism to which it was a State party. The existing mechanism consisted of inspection departments and State inspections. Inspection authorities were held accountable for the results of the inspection.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert said further concerning the survey, what mechanisms were used to ensure the sample survey captured hard-to-reach adults and children with disabilities? Did it include children and adults with disabilities who were confined to their homes? Were specific islands where persons with disabilities were held in hospitals also included?
Another Expert asked what steps the State party had taken to end discrimination distinction between veterans with disabilities and other persons with disabilities? What was the State party’s approach to gender mainstreaming? What policies and programmes had been implemented to address the specific challenges faced by women and girls with disabilities?
Another Committee Expert asked how accessible public buildings and public transport were for people with disabilities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea?
A Committee Expert asked if only persons who were blind or deaf were represented in the society? How many persons with disabilities were members of the official party of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea?
MARA CRISTINA GABRILLI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked what steps the State party had taken to ensure inclusive education for children with disabilities? What was the current coverage and quality of early childhood education for children with congenital disabilities?
GEREL DONDOVDORJ, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce, asked to what extent the needs and social barriers of persons with disabilities were being considered when assessing the degree of their impairment? How was the denial of reasonable accommodation enforced as a form of disability discrimination within the State party?
A Committee Expert asked if the number of requests for reasonable accommodation were available? How was it ensured that the requests were enforced when there were complaints from persons with disability?
MUHANNAD SALAH AL-AZZEH, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked if there were persons with disabilities who had been executed under the death penalty? If so, what were their crimes and what were the statistics?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the State aimed to convey a positive image of all persons with disabilities, not just as recipients of care, but as rights holders. The State was making the best of the mass media, including television channels, news agencies and the press, and was trying to enhance the public image of persons with disabilities, including those with intellectual disabilities.
To provide accessibility and a barrier-free environment to buildings, a guiding manual for construction had been adopted to ensure that the construction measures for new buildings and facilities were accessible and barrier free for persons with disabilities.
JON CHOL HI, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Korean Federation for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities, head of the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said some of the questions were based on human rights allegations made by forces hostile to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. This ran counter to the mission and purpose of the current dialogue, based on the principles of respect for the sovereignty of the State party. It was regrettable that human rights issues were being politicised and weaponised by special forces in the United Nations human rights arena as a means to apply pressure on independent States. It was hoped that the remainder of the dialogue would contain questions which were aligned with the principles of respect for sovereignty, impartiality and objectivity.
Questions by a Committee Expert
MUHANNAD SALAH AL-AZZEH, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said the questions asked were being based on the law and on the text, to have a better understanding of the legal and practical context of the rights of persons with disabilities. There was a full absence of information on the provisions of the 2023 law about access to emergency services for persons with disabilities. Was there an inclusive national strategy that was consulted with persons with disabilities to ensure access to these services in the situation of emergency or natural disasters? If so, what was the duration of such a strategy? How did the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea ensure full legal capacity for persons with disabilities through supported decision-making? Was the death penalty enacted on persons with disabilities? What mechanisms were in place to ensure all stages of investigations and trials were fully accessible for persons with disabilities?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said under criminal law, criminal penalties were not imposed on persons under the age of 14, and the death penalty was only imposed on persons above the age of 18. The death penalty would not be executed on pregnant women, three months before childbirth and seven months after the birth. These provisions were strictly adhered to. Previously the State had considered substituted decision making as something which helped persons with disabilities, but following the visit of the Special Rapporteur, the State amended the relevant provisions of the family law. In the law of 2023, the guardianship issue was reflected from a new approach and only provided upon the request of the person concerned; it was not imposed. A complaints mechanism, civil remedies and administrative and criminal penalties could be accessed by persons with disabilities.
The law stated that organs, enterprises and associations should take measures for reducing, treating and assisting persons with disabilities on a priority basis, in times of emergencies like natural disasters. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had a national strategy for disaster-risk reduction 2019-2030. The strategy had specific provisions for rescuing and offering medical services to persons with disabilities. There were specific measures for giving priority to persons with disabilities. When natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes were deemed imminent, the State issued warnings through television and radio and through mobile networks for persons with disabilities. Sirens were in place in different districts which would sound out an alarm. Authorities paid visits to vulnerable families and households, including persons with disabilities, elderly people and children, to ensure they were evacuated or protected. These people were provided first aid on a priority basis in the case of a natural disaster.
Questions by Committee Experts
AMALIA GAMIO, Committee Vice-Chairperson and Taskforce Member, said nearly 100 per cent of the Committee’s information came from verified sources. Was the so-called “Service 49” a psychiatric centre where people with psychosocial disabilities were living? What was the total number of persons with disabilities living in detention centres? Did they have access to medical care and rehabilitation? The State party alleged there had been no cases of torture or ill-treatment reported against persons with disabilities. What oversight mechanisms did the State party use to back this statement? Were there independent monitoring mechanisms for persons with disabilities in detention centres?
It was indicated that violence, abuse and exploitation against women and girls, including those with disabilities, was not a social issue, including cases of sexual violence against women and girls with disabilities. In every State party, there was violence against women with disabilities. How was it explained that this was not a problem in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? Had there been complaints of women victims of violence? Overall, how did the State party protect the right to freedom, safety and freedom from torture and violence against persons with disabilities?
The Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities in 2017 received reports of forced abortions and forced sterilisation of women with disabilities. Was there a mechanism for victims to lodge complaints should such a situation arise? The Committee had received information that persons with psychosocial disabilities could be sent to the so-called “Service 83” which was a bio experimentation unit, with the consent of their families. Was this true? In 2017, the Special Rapporteur stated that any travel within the country was strictly monitored, which had a disproportionate impact on persons with disabilities. Had this restriction on movement been lifted? What measures was the State using to monitor compliance with birth registration?
In 2017, the Special Rapporteur had received complaints that persons with disabilities were living in isolated facilities. What progress had been made in the implementation of a de-institutionalisation process and the use of community support? The Committee had information that the lack of support for children with disabilities had resulted in a higher rate of abandoned children with disabilities. Where were these children housed? Was there a surrogate family programme and how did it work? Was the law on the protection of mental health harmonised with the Convention?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said there was no such thing as violence or mistreatment against women. It had never existed, nor would it exist. In accordance with criminal law, punishment was not imposed on an offender for committing a socially dangerous act if they were unable to judge their conduct or control themselves due to a mental disorder. This meant there were no persons with mental disabilities in prison facilities. The offences that persons with disabilities committed were generally ordinary crimes, which were punishable by disciplining through reforms of labour. Generally, a suspension of sentence was taken regarding persons with disabilities who committed violations of law; there was therefore no record of persons with disabilities serving sentences in reform institutions.
Law enforcement officers were under obligation not to illegally interrogate individuals or commit other acts of human rights violations. It was mandatory to conduct an interrogation of the accused in the presence of legal professionals, and the whole process was audio and video recorded. Legislative measures had been taken to ensure inmates in penitentiary institutions exercised their vested rights. Under law, inmates were entitled to lodge complaints.
Could the Committee identify the alleged trustworthy sources of information? In the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, all citizens were entitled to free mobility throughout the country, including persons with disabilities. The State party rejected groundless accusations against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Regarding the so-called travel restriction, it was stipulated under the Socialist Constitution that citizens had freedom of residence and travel. Persons with disabilities could freely choose to live or travel to places favourable for their living and the promotion of their health. It was uncertain where the Committee members had received their information from.
There was no such thing as the “49 homes” in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; there were recuperation homes and prevention facilities for persons with psychosocial disabilities. There were no facilities which detained these persons and treated them inhumanely. According to relevant laws, medical services were offered in those recuperation homes. These homes were intended for long-term stays of people with mental impairments, offering psychotherapy, medicine therapy and occupational therapy, among others. In these facilities, patients had access to information, including television, radio and other media, and they were able to meet with families, relatives and friends on the weekends.
Births were required to be registered no later than 15 days after birth, including for children with disabilities. There was no such thing that families with children with congenital disabilities avoided birth registration. It was untrue that persons with disabilities were killed, isolated in certain facilities, or expelled from urban areas, including the capital city. Members of the delegation were persons with disabilities who enjoyed their rights, including education, employment and development. It was offensive to suggest otherwise, and it was regretful that such questions were being raised during the dialogue.
Regarding the law on the protection of mental health, the Central Committee of the Korean Federation for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities had supervised the implementation of the law.
Questions by a Committee Expert
MUHANNAD SALAH AL-AZZEH, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said the Committee needed more information on how laws were implemented. What kind of mechanisms existed in the State party to provide devices for persons with different types of disabilities? How were relevant trainings organised? What was the role of persons with disabilities and their organizations in developing, delivering and evaluating training?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea did not have a very highly developed airplane system in every province but would aim to enhance all accommodation. There were several means of transport in place for persons with disabilities in remote areas, including buses. There was also a taxi service in place exclusively for persons with disabilities in each county, allowing them to order a taxi via their phone in advance which would take them to their destination free of charge. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had acceded to the Convention to provide more facilities for people with disabilities and was doing its best to upgrade the living standards of persons with disabilities. This was still a work in progress.
Questions by a Committee Expert
A Committee Expert asked about measures taken to ensure the early detection of violations of the right to life of persons with disabilities, such as forced abortion, and measures taken to combat this? Could the delegation tell the Committee about cases of death due to the deliberate killing of persons with disabilities, or through medical negligence?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said it seemed there was a problem regarding public awareness of the issues in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Children in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were regarded as kings and queens of the country and were taken care of. Their upbringing and education were provided exclusively through State expenses. Despite this, these kinds of questions were being asked. It was not possible for the delegation to explain everything in such a short period of time. There were no cases of abandonment or killings of children with congenital birth defects. This was inconceivable and these cases would be liable to heavy penalties, including the death penalty.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert asked if there were equal provisions for women and girls with disabilities in sheltered workshops?
Another Expert asked if the dissuasive effect penalties resulted in no violation of the law and no complaints from persons with disabilities?
MARA CRISTINA GABRILLI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said the Committee respected principles of objectivity and sovereignty and aimed to build a better world for persons with disabilities. The Committee sincerely appreciated the presence of the delegation members and their answers. There was always room for improvement in all States. The Committee members were working to change the reality for persons with disabilities; they were there to help and not be accusatory.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said in every country, there was a gap between rural and urban areas. If local areas were developing, the wellbeing of persons with disabilities would develop in parallel. It was important to study the policy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to have a real interactive dialogue.
Questions by a Committee Expert
GEREL DONDOVDORJ, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce, asked how persons with disabilities were given the right to express freedom of opinion? What measures had been implemented to ensure all persons with disabilities received public information in an accessible manner? What measures had been taken to protect persons with disabilities against violence and censorship for exercising this right? The Committee had received information that persons with disabilities in detention were subjected to invasive hygiene checks, including strip searches. Were there any plans or measures to stop these checks? Did the State party have any measures in place to ensure that the privacy of persons with disabilities was respected?
The State party’s law on the promotion and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities promoted the segregated learning environment and was not in line with the Convention. Were there any plans to review this law and bring it in line with the Convention? Could data be provided on children with disabilities receiving education in special schools and at home? How many children with disabilities were out of education? Was there a concrete plan to phase out special schools, including home schooling, to ensure children with disabilities shifted from a segregated environment to one of inclusive education? Were there measures to promote persons with disabilities to access tertiary education?
The Special Rapporteur had identified that most specialised services were concentrated in the capital city and that there was a shortage of services outside Pyongyang, putting persons with disabilities there at a disadvantage. Could information on this be provided?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said smartphones were being widely used by persons with disabilities, including those with visual impairments who used applications with voice recognition technology, providing access to different sources of information in real time. Persons with hearing difficulties had access to different sources of information through a channel containing captioning subtitles and sign language interpreters. Censorship was not practiced in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; people expressed their views without restrictions to contribute to the development of the country. There were no restrictions regarding the exercise of the freedom of opinion.
All citizens, including those with disabilities, were entitled to the protection of their privacy. The Constitution stated that families should be protected by the State and citizens were granted inviolability of the person, home and correspondence. Sufficient documents needed to be provided to search a person’s home.
Education was a top priority within the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Children with disabilities studied in mainstream schools, and inclusive education was covered in other laws on education. The issue of inclusive education for persons with disabilities had been given priority. Major aid programmes for the education of persons with disabilities were being implemented.
There were some children with disabilities with severe impairments who could not enrol in either primary or secondary schools. They were being educated within their respective families and also receiving tele-education. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was working on rural rejuvenation to bridge the gap between urban and rural areas.
Questions by Committee Experts
LAVERNE JACOBS, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked for more information about who completed the assessment for the so-called labour units for persons with disabilities, and how this was done? Were the workplaces segregated for persons with disabilities? Was it only physical disabilities that they were designed for? What opportunities existed for persons with disabilities to engage in continuing education to improve their work prospects? What measures of universal design had been implemented for accessibility? How were persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities accommodated in the process of elections and polling?
AMALIA GAMIO, Vice-Chairperson and Taskforce Member, asked if there were any statistics on how many persons with disabilities had the opportunity to be biological or adoptive parents? During her visit, the Special Rapporteur had noted that 18 million people were faced with food insecurity in the country. How many people in the country were currently affected by malnutrition and food insecurity? How much was spent to combat food insecurity and improve the standard of living of persons with disabilities? How was financial support provided to persons with disabilities?
A Committee Expert asked about the role of the national human rights institute? What did it do for persons with disabilities?
Another Expert asked what date sign language was officially recognised by the State? Was there a certification process for sign language interpreters? How was emergency information disseminated to deaf sign language users?
MUHANNAD SALAH AL-AZZEH, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked what kind of care was provided by the Government to children of parents with disabilities? Was there a law which ensured that persons with disabilities should provide their informed consent to any medical intervention?
Another Expert asked who looked after persons with a range of severe disabilities? Was support provided by the State? What tools could persons with disabilities use to complete their education? How many persons with disabilities were employed per year?
A Committee Expert asked what social protection mechanisms were available for persons with disabilities who were not able to work? Did they have a monthly allowance? What measures had the Government taken to eliminate the issue of physical fitness requirements for entry into secondary and tertiary education?
Another Committee Expert asked if there were plans to ensure persons with psychosocial disabilities could live in an independent way and not in special centres?
GEREL DONDOVDORJ, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce, asked what steps were being taken to address the limited capacity of rehabilitation centres for persons with disabilities outside the capital city? What measures were in place to ensure persons with disabilities had access to cultural and recreational activities?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said workshops for light workers were small production units organised and managed by the State to improve the likelihood of work for persons with disabilities. They employed persons with disabilities in light work for four to five hours a day. All persons with disabilities were entitled to the right to vote and be elected. There was no barrier to a person with a disability working as a civil servant. The State arranged for necessary facilities to be installed for voters with disabilities. If a voter was unable to come to the polling station by themselves, a member of the election committee could visit with a sealed ballot box.
The delegation had never been informed that the Special Rapporteur had noted the figure of 18 million people facing food insecurity in the country; what was the source of such information? Given that the whole of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea population was over 20 million people, if 18 million were faced with food insecurity, that was a problem. How could the Government conduct its work if this was the case? No one in the country was faced with such severe, serious food insecurity. In every country, persons with disabilities were faced with unfavourable conditions in many aspects, including employment. In the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Government was providing persons with disabilities with benefits aside from their salaries, including pensions and nursing allowances.
A Committee was established in 2015 to coordinate efforts of the line ministries for the implementation of the Convention and other Conventions to which the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a State party
Closing Remarks
JON CHOL HI, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Korean Federation for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities, head of the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was pleased with the sincere and constructive dialogue with the Committee. There had been constructive observations and recommendations made by many committee members during the interactive dialogue. However, it was regrettable that a series of comments and questions made by some other members were based on misunderstanding and groundless prejudice about the country. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would continue to proactively protect and promote the rights of persons with disabilities.
MUHANNAD SALAH AL-AZZEH, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, thanked the delegation for the dialogue. There was a promising legislative framework which the State could build on, which could create a good situation and environment for the country’s disability community. Yet, over the six hours of dialogue, the State party had not stopped accusing the Committee of being prejudiced, biased, and putting unfair doubts on its impartiality. The Committee was not politicising but wanted to see an improvement in the situation of the lives of persons with disabilities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
ABDELMAJID MAKNI, Committee Vice Chairperson, thanked the delegation for the constructive dialogue which had provided further insight into the situation of persons with disabilities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
_______
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.
CRPD25.010E
