By The European Times | Created at 2026-08-03 20:47:05 | Updated at 2026-08-04 13:00:05
16 hours ago
The final discussions on the controversial possible new Additional protocol to the Oviedo Convention is continuing hot and heavy within the executive body, the Committee of Ministers, of the Council of Europe. The UN CRPD Committee issued an Open letter to the Committee of Minister prior to its last meeting before the summer break. The CRPD Committee urge the Member States of the Council to oppose and withdraw the draft Additional Protocol and to uphold their human rights obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD Committee) pointed to its longstanding concern regarding the possible new Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention. That draft Additional protocol, the UN CRPD Committee noted “retains coercive psychiatric measures that are incompatible with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities adopted on 13 December 2006.”
The Committee pointed out that the UN CRPD “prohibits involuntary placement and involuntary treatment of persons with disabilities on the basis of disability, without exceptions. Involuntary placement and involuntary treatment, whether as measures of last resort or subject to certain safeguards are still incompatible with the human rights model of disability set out in the UN CRPD, which prohibits coercion in mental health services.”
Adopting the Additional Protocol render states in breach of their obligations under the UN CRPD
The draft Additional Protocol, the UN CRPD Committee noted, is “inconsistent with the UN CRPD, and its adoption and implementation will render States parties to the UN CRPD, which are Member States to the Council of Europe in breach of their obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”
“States parties to the UNCRPD are under the general obligation to refrain from engaging in any act or practice that is inconsistent with the Convention (article 4 (1) (f)),” the UN CRPD Committee specified. And it added “States parties cannot derogate from their obligations under the Convention, and even worse in 2026 – 20 years after the adoption of the Convention – by creating exceptions, through a Protocol to a regional treaty, alleging that coercion is compatible with human rights, or pretending that the current text of the draft Additional Protocol is aligned with the UN CRPD.”
The international community unified in demands that services be free from coercion
The World Health Organization’s Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan 2013–2030, emphasizes that mental health services, including for persons with disabilities, must be provided in the community and be free from coercion. The 2023 joint WHO-OHCHR guidance Mental health, human rights and legislation: guidance and practice also call for legislative reform to end coercion in mental health services, replace psychiatric institutions with inclusive community support systems, and enshrine free and informed consent as the basis of all mental health-related interventions.
Likewise, governing bodies of the international community have reaffirmed the need to move away from coercion in mental health, such as the United Nations General Assembly in its Resolution A/RES/77/300 (2023) and the Human Rights Council, in its 2026 Resolution 61/18 on mental health and human rights.
Harm and death caused by involuntary measures
Evidence-based reports, the UN CRPD Committee notes “have concluded widespread violence experienced by persons with disabilities in institutions, along with harm and death caused by involuntary commitment and involuntary treatment. There are no therapeutic benefits and a lack of clinical evidence supporting use of coercion and involuntary institutionalization.”
The UN CRPD Committee further indicated that “the appropriate response to individual crisis should respect the will and preferences of the person, including supported decision-making, peer support, community-based services, individualized crisis planning, access to legal and social support, and non-medical approaches that preserve autonomy and dignity.”
The UN CRPD Committee finally reiterated that “involuntary placement, involuntary treatment, seclusion, restraint and similar practices are not legitimate rights-based responses to distress or crisis, but discriminatory measures that deny legal capacity, undermine liberty, and may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”
