Acknowledgements

Many thanks to DRPI for believing in this pilot project on psychosocial disability and making the invisible visible and to SIDA for making this possible.

To Marcia Rioux in Canada and Paula Pinto in Portugal for providing the guidelines for this process, together with José Viera from Córdoba, Argentina, who provided unconditional support and adapted to our pace and needs.

To all the members of the participating organizations of persons with disabilities such as scholars and key stakeholders in the collection of information, for making this possibility come true; Emmis, Ricardo, Omar, Miguel, Alex, Luis, Jaime, Patricia, Janeth, Alirio, Sofía

To the participating persons with disabilities who reside outside of the city for their vast work in the regions, especially to Mónica Betancur and Alexandra Mejía (Medellin), Luz Dineicy Rico (Armenia), Sandra Montoya (Pereira), Genith Garrido (Choco), Luz Angela Reyes, and Henry Guarnizo (Ibague).

To the whole team of Fundamental Colombia, for their commitment and devotion to the development of this proposal, for the invaluable lessons learnt together in all the stages of the Project, for their contributions in the development of this Fundamental footprint; especially to Madyury Medina, Francy Gutiérrez, Ivonne Romero, Johanna Sánchez and Leandro Arenas.

To the Director of Fundamental Colombia, Salam Gómez, for his hard work in the coordination of the project in Colombia, for his constant collaboration and advice, and for writing this report.

And to all the persons who participated by sharing their life experiences and anecdotes, for making visible the reality faced by the persons with disabilities in Colombia.

Executive Summary

In the field of human rights, particularly of the rights of persons with disabilities, Colombia is internationally known for being the 100th country to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). But it is also known for being a State that still has the unfinished business of promoting and enforcing the acknowledgement and actual enjoyment of the rights of persons with disabilities.

This report deals with the growing issue of the rights of persons with disabilities, but not from a basic standpoint, nor by identifying the CRPD as a political tool and as a potential for change which does not move beyond discourse. Rather, it seeks to provide the reader with an experience-based picture of the current status of the rights of persons with disabilities, scientifically and empirically proven through specific monitoring in this area. In other words, this report shows evidence of today’s huge pre-existing gap between the government’s promises and the reality of the lives of people with disabilities.

At the same time, this report innovates in giving a prominent role to a group of people with disabilities who had been invisible up to now, or who were not protagonists within the community, not even within the very sector of people with disabilities, simply due to lack of awareness, of self-representation, or of self-acknowledgement, among others. Thus, this project has included people with psychosocial disabilities into the process of adaptation, training on the methodology, and implementation of the monitoring system, trying, for the first time, to listen to their voices and reflect their feelings about how they live their human rights every day. Although we acknowledge the need of a comprehensive view of disability and its related issues, it is equally important to point out specific claims and distinctive situations in relation to specific groups. Therefore, and as this is an integral initiative, special attention has been paid to this group of people to show their realities.

That having been said, this work has two central focal points constituting the basic pillars of this process of analysis and observation: the reader will find detailed information revealed by the monitoring of the rights of persons with disabilities, as well as specific mention of the main lessons that people with psychosocial disabilities denote and intend to transmit.

With the purpose of achieving these goals, we propose the following journey; it intends to be deep and dynamic, practical and transcendental, all at the same time. But above all, it aims at being faithful to the local reality of our country and our disabled citizens.

Firstly, in order to understand what we mean when referring to disabilities in Colombia and how people with disabilities of any kind live in our country, we will devote a section to two key aspects. The first one has to do with the types of predominant paradigms or approaches in our country, and how much of the human rights paradigm is actually instilled in our society. At the same time, we will discuss the macro context of our nation and how the political, economic, and social variables among others exert an influence when it comes to speaking about disabilities.

Secondly, we will stop to explain clearly the methodology used to achieve the results and the analysis detailed on this document. Undoubtedly, the method used throughout this initiative allows its empirically proven objective verification. But it also intends to provide the reader with an understanding of how and why the different stages were carried out, and what their related conclusions are.

Next, the main topics that people with disabilities have focused on will be outlined and described. Thus, issues like employment, education, healthcare, housing, social participation, among others, will be approached with the goal of understanding what have been, and still are, the most important affairs.

Finally, and so this thorough work is not merely expository or descriptive, we intend to contribute some recommendations and, at least an idea of, what should be the issues demanding urgent and all-encompassing attention on the part of the responsible stakeholders.

2. Antecedents

This report is the result of a research process conducted within the framework of the project to monitor the rights of persons with disabilities in Colombia, which included a pilot project on psychosocial disability. The initiative was led by Fundamental Colombia, with the technical and financial support of: Disability Rights Promotion International (DRPI); York University, Toronto (Canada); and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) in association with the Latin American Network of Non-Governmental Organizations of Persons with Disabilities and their Families (RIADIS).

The purpose of this project is to build and strengthen the capacities of persons with disabilities, and to create an organization of disabled people for the surveillance and enforcement of the human rights of these people. It intends to do so by collecting and analyzing data based on a holistic approach to the rights of persons with disabilities, which includes:

1. The individual experiences of persons with disabilities;
2. Systematic measures adopted to protect and improve the rights of persons with disabilities (laws, policies, programs).

This part of the holistic approach allows to see the rights of persons with disabilities in various ways and contexts –providing a better understanding of the realities facing people with disabilities in their everyday lives–, as well as the relation of these rights with some laws, policies, and programs oriented to people with social disabilities.

To implement this initiative, Fundamental Colombia, with the support of the DRPI Latin America Regional Centre (Buenos Aires, Argentina), organized an open call for participation in this project about the monitoring of human rights, proposed by DRPI and implemented in different countries worldwide (Kenya, Cameroon, India, Bolivia, Philippines, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina, and Honduras). Over 450 people with disabilities from all over the country responded to this call. Among these, there were selected 40 men and women with physical, hearing, visual, cognitive, psychosocial, and multiple disabilities, members of organizations such as: Fundación Ejemplos de Vida, Asociación Afásicos, ARTEBOCA, Asociación Colombiana de Bipolares, Bipolares Eje Cafetero, Asociación Colombiana de Personas con Esquizofrenia (ACPEF), Asociación Colombiana de Conciliadores en Equidad (ACCE), FUNDAAFECTIVOS, Fundación Ángeles de Amor, Coordinadora Nacional de Limitados Visuales (CONALIVI), Centro de Rehabilitación de Adultos Ciegos (CRAC), Liga de Visuales Bogotá, JENADISCOLOMBIA, and Fundamental Colombia. There were also selected some local disability advisers acting as representatives of the people with disabilities from different localities of Bogota, to carry out a theoretical and practical training program in topics related to human rights, United Nations conventions, and the implementation of the monitoring methodology.

The participants were empowered and their technical skills were developed, to implement an integral system to follow-up on the human rights of persons with disabilities in Colombia. Once the training was finished, work teams were defined to conduct interviews about individual experiences. Additionally, another group was devoted to the analysis of laws, policies, and programs within the framework of the learned methodology.

In the context of this monitoring project, Colombia was divided into three areas to conduct the individual interviews, as follows: the Central Area, including central cities of the country, Bogotá, Ibague, and some rural areas of Cundinamarca such as La Mesa and Las Mesitas; the Coffee Triangle Area, including cities like Medellin, Pereira, and Armenia; and the Pacific Area, including the city of Quibdó in El Choco.

Colombian Context of Disability

It is important to highlight the Colombian demographic context. National statistics revealed, after the 2005 census to collect data on disability, that there are over 2.6 million disabled persons; that is, approximately 6.5% of the total national population.

According to the data from the National Administrative Department of Statistics (Dane) ¹, it can be inferred that: 43.5% of the identified population with disabilities are people with visual disabilities; 44% are people with physical disabilities; 30% are people with hearing disabilities; 12% have cognitive disabilities, 10% have psychosocial disabilities; and 19% are people with other types of disabilities.

Note #1

National Department of Statistics of Colombia.

Return

The Colombian demography divides the country into different regions. The Western Region has the greatest rate of people with disabilities: 44.5% of the total national population. The protagonists within this region are: Antioquia with 17.1% of people with disabilities over the total national population, Valle with 10.49%, Nariño with 5.12%, and Cauca with 3.89%.

The Eastern Central Region has 33.44% of the population with disabilities over the total national population. The protagonists in this region are Bogotá D.C. with 10.68%, Cundinamarca with 4.80%, and Santander with 4.55%. It is worth mentioning that Boyacá, Huila, Tolima, and the North of Santander are above the limit of 3%.

The Pacific Region was not included in a national census valid for the statistical process. However, according to the data gathered from the technical records of the National Planning Department (Dnp), it is the region with the greatest amount of unsatisfied basic needs.

Then there is the Atlantic Region, with 18.5%, whose protagonists are Atlántico with 4.2% of the population, and Bolívar with 3.82%. La Orinoquía and Amazonia show a lower rate of people with disabilities: 2.26% and 1.30%.

For the purposes of this project, three areas were established to monitor the individual experiences: the Central Area, the Coffee Triangle Area, and the Pacific Area. This is because the departments with the greatest number of people with disabilities are located in these areas. The most relevant information gathered from the cities that participated in the study is condensed below, to provide further background. The data were drawn from the reports and applications of the National Planning Department.

2.1.1 Central Area

Bogotá, Capital City

With an area of 24,210 km² (9,348 sq mi), a total municipal population of 7,467,804 by the year 2011, a population in the capital of 7,451,718, 48.2%, 51.8%, the percentage of people with unsatisfied basic needs (UBN) is 9.2%. 47.75% are men, and 52.3% are women, according to 2010 figures. Displaced people in Bogotá are 291,121, according to a report from December, 2010. According to ethnicity, the indigenous population is 15,032; the black population is 96,523; the gypsy population is 523; the Raizal population is 1,357; and the Palenquera population is 7. The rate of median gross coverage in education by 2010 was 86.8%, and the total investment in education in Bogotá is 1,985,560 million pesos annually (per 2010 figures). In regards to healthcare, the members of the subsidy plan in Bogotá are 1,355,934, and the members of the contribution plan are 4,948.089. The State invested 1,619,749 million pesos in healthcare in 2010. The city’s aqueduct network covers 98.7%, and the sewage network covers 98.1%. The total investment in drinking water and basic sanitation was 106,357 million pesos.

Tolima (Ibague)

With an area of 23,562 km² (9,097 sq mi), the total population in its capital, Ibague, is 532,034 (per 2011 figures): 38.2% of the total departmental population. 48.6% of the population are men, 51.4% are women. The population with UBN, per 2011 figures, is 3%. According to ethnicity, the indigenous population is 3,408; the black population is 5,683; the gypsy population shows no records; and the Raizal population is 35. The rate of median gross coverage in education by 2010 was 86%, and the total investment in education from Bogotá is 141.261 million pesos annually (per 2010 figures). In regards to healthcare, the members of the subsidy plan in Tolima are 150,227, and the members of the contribution plan are 285,896. The State invested 70,911 million pesos in healthcare in 2010. The city’s aqueduct network covers 96.2%, and the sewage network covers 94.5%. The total investment in drinking water and basic sanitation was 18,836 million pesos.

2.1.2 Coffee Triangle Area

Medellin (Antioquia)

The municipality has an area of 387 km² (150 sq mi), and the department has an area of 63,612 km² (24,561 sq mi). Per 2011 figures, the total population in the municipality is 2,368,282, and the department’s population is 6,143,709. The municipal seat has most of the population 2,335,568, whereas within the department, the population in urban areas is 4,761,383. The percentage of people with UBN is 12.4% in the municipal seats, and 15.9% throughout the department. According to ethnicity, Medellin has an indigenous population of 2,984, which is within the average for municipal seats, and the black and mulatto population are, altogether, 137,715.

The scant Rom (gypsy) population is 1, and the Raizal population is 248. The rate of median gross coverage in education, per 2010 figures, is 104.5%, and the total investment in education at the municipal level is 657,786 million pesos annually (per 2010 figures). In regards to healthcare, the members of the subsidy plan in Medellin are 642,096. The State invested 400,170 million pesos in healthcare in 2010. The sewage network in Medellin covers 37.4% (per 2010 figures), and the annual investment by 2010 was 113,761 million pesos.

Armenia (Antioquia)

It has an area of 111 km² (43 sq mi), and the total municipal population is 4,578 (per 2011 figures). The municipal seat has a small percentage of the total population: 1,653 people. The percentage of people with UBN is 39.8% in the municipal seats. According to ethnicity, Armenia does not have indigenous population; the black population is 2,984, and the mulatto population is 199. There is no Rom (gypsy) or Raizal population. The rate of median gross coverage in education, per 2010 figures, is 58%, and the total investment in education at the municipal level is 416 million pesos annually (per 2010 figures). In regards to healthcare, the members of the subsidy plan in Armenia are 3,313, and the members of the contribution plan are 1,321. The State invested 1,321 million pesos in healthcare in 2011. The sewage network in Armenia covers 72.2% (per 2010 figures), and the annual investment by 2010 was 113,761 million pesos.

Pereira (Risaralda)

The municipality has an area of 702 km² (272 sq mi), and the department has an area of 4,140 km² (1,599 sq mi). Per 2011 figures, the total population in the municipality is 459,690, and the department’s population is 930,523. The municipal seat has most of the population: 386,120 people. The percentage of people with UBN is 13.4% in the municipal seats, and 17.5% throughout the department. Per 2010 figures, 47.75% are men and 52.3% are women. According to ethnicity, Pereira has an indigenous population of 3,115, which is within the average for municipal seats, and the black and mulatto population are, altogether, 24,317.

There is no Rom (gypsy) population, and the Raizal population is 36. The rate of median gross coverage in education, per 2010 figures, is 112.3%, and the total investment in education at the municipal level is 152,861 million pesos annually (per 2010 figures).

In regards to healthcare, the members of the subsidy plan in Pereira are 148,107, and the members of the contribution plan are 286,069. The State invested 52,579 million pesos in healthcare in 2010. The sewage network in Pereira covers 94.7% (per 2010 figures), and the annual investment by 2010 was 6,297 million pesos.

2.1.3 Pacific Area

Choco Quibdo

It has an area of 3,075 km² (1,182 sq mi) with a total municipal population of 130,176 by 2011. The population in the Municipal seat is 105,405: 49.6% are men, and 50.4% are women. The population with UBN, per 2011 figures, is 80.9%. According to ethnicity, the indigenous population is 1,504; the black, mulatto, and Afro-Colombian population is, altogether, 99,986; the gypsy population is 1; and the Raizal population is 21.

The rate of median gross coverage in education, per 2010 figures, is 104.9%, and the total investment in education in Quibdó is 72,506 million pesos annually (per 2010 figures). In regards to healthcare, the members of the subsidy plan in Tolima are 150,227, and the members of the contribution plan are 285,896. The State invested 70,911 million pesos in healthcare in 2010. The city’s aqueduct network covers 96.2%, and the sewage network covers 94.5%. The total investment in drinking water and basic sanitation was 18,836 million pesos.

2.2 Predominant Approach to Disability

Even when there are great advancements in internal regulations which promote a social approach based on rights, it is clear that, in Colombia, the handout mentality and a medical rehabilitation approach are the predominant views. In practice, there is a close relationship between the concepts of disease and disability underlying the existing and implemented programs and actions across the country. These still have the intention of “normalizing” disabled people, instead of developing a set of specific adjustments to the environment which are necessary for people with disabilities to be included and have actual participation. This is also evidenced through practices such as Teletón and other similar actions carried out across the country, which stick to the classic approach based on charity that seeks to obtain resources, out of pity, to be used for health, rehabilitation, and habilitation purposes exclusively.

In terms of organizations of persons with disability, those with hearing, physical, and visual disabilities had been the more recognized, historically and up to less than a decade ago. After the CRPD process, some post-convention organizations related to cognitive and psychosocial disabilities have emerged and developed in Colombia. This has strengthened the motto “Nothing About Us Without Us”, while including all types of disabilities.

Methodology

As was previously mentioned, this methodology was created by York University in Canada, sponsored by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency and a series of experts. Its goal is, basically, to prove the existing gap between what governments claim and promise through their policies, legislation, or speeches, and what actually happens on the field. This project intends to provide an objective perspective of the current and tangible situation of people with disabilities in Colombia. Moreover, given its very goal and nature, the DRPI methodology emphasizes full participation of these disabled persons, not only as recipients but also as key and active participants of this process.

With the purpose of measuring the importance of this methodology and its actual application on the field, this scientific method includes three major areas: an individual view, a systemic view, and a view from the mass media.

By individual view we refer to the method by which a snowball-sampled group of 100 people share some of their personal experiences of the last 5 years in open semi-structured interviews. The purpose of such interviews is that these personal declarations account for the main aspects and areas where general basic human rights, and particularly the rights of persons with disabilities, are respected or violated.

Finally, the information gathered from the interviews is audio-recorded and transcribed into digital text documents for its later systematization. Once the information has been digitalized, both through audio records and in written, the Nvivo 10 software is used to structure the testimonies on the basis of the 5 principles established by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The resulting data serves as a basis for later partial conclusions on how it is that people with disabilities actually live and experience their rights.

The holistic and integral view underlying this report also includes the analysis of public policies and regulations, as well as the analysis of governmental programs. For this purpose, there has been designed a matrix. It is a double-entry chart that allows executioners to record what the instrument to be analyzed is, and whether or not it provides for the principles and key elements that should guarantee the effective enforcement of the rights of persons with disabilities.

Although the individual accounts and the systemic analysis are evidence enough of the brutal reality of people with disabilities, in order to make an integral report it is necessary to understand what the social attitude toward disabled people is, and how people with disabilities are perceived and assessed by society in general. In this respect, the mass media is a key element for us to understand how, as a result of their use of vocabulary or their imaginary social constructs, the community portrays people with disabilities.

Once these three views have been clearly identified, a final integral report is made which accounts for reality and actual experiences in terms of human rights and a fair social inclusion.

For the purposes of this monitoring report on the human rights of persons with disabilities in Colombia, which is based on the methodology previously described, only the individual and the systemic view shall be approached.

This work has been structured in such a way as to portray, as faithfully as possible, the life situation and the context of people with disabilities in the areas mentioned earlier, and where the present study was conducted. That is: the Central Area, including central cities of the country, Bogotá, Ibague, and some rural areas of Cundinamarca such as La Mesa and Las Mesitas; the Coffee Triangle Area, including cities like Medellin, Pereira, and Armenia; and the Pacific Area, including the city of Quibdó in El Choco.

3.1 Socio-Demographic Context of the Interviewed People

The following chart displays the socio-demographic characteristics of the 100 people who participated with their stories. The data is structured according to the guidelines and the methodology set for the collection of information about the individual experiences within the framework of the project to monitor the human rights of persons with disabilities. The chart shows the quantitative distribution of the participants, their level of education, type of disability, source of the disability, employment status, type of housing, their area within the country, and the age ranges.

Table 1: Socio-Demographic Characteristics Of the Sample. Colombia 2013

Gender		Source of The Disability
Concept	No. of Participants	Concept	No. of Participants
Men	57	Congenital	28
Women	43	Acquired	72
Total No. Of Participants	100	Total No. Of Participants	100
Educational Background		Employment Status
Concept	No. Of Participants	Concept	No. Of Participants
Elementary School	3	Employed	32
High School	26	Unemployed	47
Technician	38	Freelancer	17
University Student	7	Pensioner	4
University	19	Total No. Of Participants	100
No Background Education	1
Post Graduate	6
Total No. Of Participants	100
Country Area		Type Of Housing
Concept	No. Of Participants	Concept	No. Of Participants
Central Area	70	Owned Or Family House	79
Coffee Triangle Area	20	Rental	21
Pacific Area	10	Total No. Of Participants	100
Total No. Of Participants	100
Type Of Disability		Age Ranges
Concept	No. Of Participants	Concept	No. Of Participants
Hearing	10	18-28	30
Cognitive	3	29-39	38
Communicative	2	40-50	20
Physical	37	51-61	9
Multiple	8	Older Than 62	3
Psychosocial	23	Total No. Of Participants	100
Visual	17
Total No. Of Participants	100

As table 1 shows, the sample is balanced in terms of gender distribution, since men constitute 57% of the people interviewed, and women are 43% of the total number of participants. The age range is between 18 and 62 years of age, 68% of which are in working or in schooling age (18-39 years old). Regarding the source of the disability, 72% acquired it through life and the causes differ, violence or domestic conflicts being the most relevant causes. 28% of the sample was born with their disabilities, especially in the case of physical or sensory disabilities.

People with all types of disabilities were thus included, allowing us to learn about the different obstacles that the interviewees have to deal with. 37% of these persons have physical disabilities, 29% have sensory disabilities, 23% have psychosocial disabilities. In regards to the latter group, it is important to mention that this report is the first one to include the voices and experiences of users and survivors of psychiatry ² from our country. People with cognitive disabilities were also included: 3%.

Note #2

Users and Survivors of Psychiatry are the people who use mental health services, survivors of inadequate practices related to mental health such as excess of medication, forced hospitalization, isolation and segregation, stigmatization due to the so-called mental diseases, persons with psychosocial disabilities. Read more about Users and Survivors of Psychiatry here.

Return

As regards educational background of the disabled people interviewed, 34% had access to education applicable to the labor market, having finished high school and some technical training. 7% managed to enter college but were unable to finish their studies due to economic difficulties, health problems, or lack of curricular adjustments, among others. 19% finished their college studies, 6% took up graduate studies, 3% finished elementary school only, and only 1% had no access to education, whether formal or informal, due to multiple disabilities or to lack of access to the education system. People in this group are always under the care of their families and at home.

As for employment, 47% of the interviewees are unemployed, which shows little labor inclusion for the disabled people in the country. The employed 32% have mostly short-term or temporary jobs; 17% are self-employed, usually in informal sales activities; and only 4% receive a pension: 2% have an old-age pension, and the other 2% have a disability pension.

Taking these two aspects into consideration, it is evident that, in spite of their access to basic education or, at least, to some work-related training, the initiatives for labor inclusion are not sufficient to meet the demands of the disabled population in the country. There are still great obstacles to the labor inclusion of people with disabilities, as the focus is on deficiency rather than on individual abilities. This situation has a direct impact on their access to financial resources, which is evidenced by the fact that 21% of the interviewees live on rented properties, and 79% live in their family homes. The percentage of people who own a house is minimal.

7 couples of supervisors were assigned to the Central Area, and conducted 70% of the individual interviews; 2 couples of supervisors were assigned to the Coffee Triangle Area, and conducted 20% of the interviews; and one couple of supervisors were assigned to the Pacific Area, and conducted the remaining 10% of the interviews. This distribution was established according to the different characteristics of the people who joined the training process; it caused the methodology to have different regional impacts. A total of 25 persons with disabilities were included among the supervisors, coordinators, and logistic support teams, and implemented the learned procedures during their training for the collection of the individual experiences. Such training included: project information, the acquisition of informed consents to conduct the interviews, audio recording, text transcriptions, the process of data systematization and the corresponding coding, and the implementation of the Nvivo 10 software. All these actions took place between June and September 2013.

Gender, type of disability, source of the disability, age ranges, educational background, employment status, and areas of the country where the methodology was implemented, are the variables of the demographic, social, and economical context that were analyzed. Through this differential approach, our diverse sample allows us to objectively understand the feelings of the disabled participants of this monitoring project as a result of the situations they face on a daily basis in Colombia. The results obtained are discussed in depth below in relation to their impact on the human rights of persons with disabilities. Taking the CRPD principles as a departing point, the results focus on the following aspects: the systematic roots of discrimination; the reasons not to report abuse; response to abuse; the relation between gender and disability, social class and disability, and ethnicity and disability; and a series of recommendations taken from the interviews conducted.

3.2 Systemic Follow-Up

The purpose of the systematic monitoring and analysis is to identify and highlight the existing gaps and deficiencies of our national legislation, and the policies pertaining to the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities. This would be achieved through the analysis of the following principles: dignity, individual autonomy, participation, inclusion and accessibility, non-discrimination and equality, and respect for difference.

The analysis was based on the systemic monitoring parameters published in the context of the DRPI methodology. The departing point was the vast legislative framework developed in Colombia on the matter, with particular emphasis on the five most relevant laws related to disabilities in Colombia: law 1405 of 2007; law 1346 of 2009; law 1306 of 2009; law 1616 of 2013; and law 1618 of 2013. The work of analysis and compilation was carried out between June and September 2013.

 

Key Issues for People with Disabilities

4.1 Overview

This section of the report discusses the different spheres of the everyday life of people with disabilities. In particular, the following spheres are considered: social participation, privacy and family life, education, employment, information and communication, access to justice, guaranteed income and services, access to healthcare, and habilitation and rehabilitation. These are studied in relation with the five fundamental CRPD principles on the rights of persons with disabilities: autonomy; dignity; participation, inclusion, and accessibility; non-discrimination and equality; and respect for difference, allowing us to get an experience-based picture on the way in which people with disabilities experience their human rights.

The abovementioned aspects are related in table 2 below. As a result of the methodology applied in the 100 interviews conducted, and of the use of the Nvivo 10 software, it was possible to obtain the results discussed below. They include the spheres and the data gathered through the reports, as well as the contributions of the interviewees.

Table 2. Impact On Human Rights

Spheres	% Of Interviews
Access To Justice	30%
Education	42%
Guaranteed Income And Support Services	67%
Information And Communication	37%
Social Participation	84%
Privacy And Family Life	65%
Health, Rehabilitation, And Habilitation	42%
Employment	70%

The table above reveals that social participation is the most relevant issue for people with disabilities. The percentages correspond to the individual interviews in relation to each of the spheres, and social participation is the higher-ranked variable: 84%.

Employment comes second in importance with regard to rights infringement: 70%. This figure is similar to the ones for guaranteed income and support services, and for privacy and family life: 67% and 65%, respectively.

Education comes fifth with 42%, followed by health, rehabilitation, and habilitation, with 42% as well. Matters of information and communication are in seventh place with 37%, and access to justice is the least valued of all spheres, with 30%. It is important to mention that these percentages result from the sum of all the individual experiences collected, both positive and negative, where there was predominance of negative experiences in each of the spheres and their respective principles. These are analyzed in full later.

The following data relates the analyzed spheres.

Chart 1. Analyzed Spheres Totals

Lack of Autonomy

30%

Does not feel valued and respected

42%

Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction

67%

Experiences segregation and isolation

37%

Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability

84%

Considering the results on table 2, and as we can see in the graphic representation of the analyzed spheres totals, it is clear that the priority for people with disabilities are not matters of health, rehabilitation, and habilitation, as sustained by the medical rehabilitation approach. Rather, the individual experiences reveal these persons as rights-bearing people who are aware of the violation of their right to social participation as the result of the multiple existing physical, attitudinal, or communicative barriers.

The discrimination and segregation of people with disabilities in our country is undeniable. They have no guaranteed income and support services, which are necessary for their effective inclusion in the areas of employment, education, information, and communication, and even for their access to healthcare services.

There was also revealed the great impact that family has on the lives of people with disabilities. They affect their independence, providing evidence of how the family’s “protection” or “overprotection” results in the flagrant violation of the CRPD principles.

Lack of awareness about the existing legislation on disability, and the significant obstacles to their access to the legal system, are the most relevant factors influencing access to justice. This is evidenced by the few or limited reports of abuse and violation of the rights of people with disabilities, and by the poor enforcement of the acknowledgement and full and effective enjoyment of these rights.

Each of the spheres will be reviewed below from two specific perspectives. The first one has to do with individual experience and its relationship with each of the CRPD principles, transcribing the very words of persons with disabilities. The second one refers to the legal aspect in relation with the sphere analyzed.

5. Social Participation

In this section we will review the results obtained with regard to social participation experiences in its broader sense. This includes the social, cultural, and political life, as well as the sports, recreational, or amusement activities referenced by the interviewees.

Table 3 relates the sphere of social participation with the CRPD principles.

Table 3. Social Participation

Principle	No. Of People	Percentage3
Total	84	84%
Autonomy
Lack of Autonomy	20	20%
Decision-making Capacity	34	34%
Dignity
Does not feel valued and respected	41	41%
Feels valued and respected	38	38%
Non-Discrimination And Equality
Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction	50	50%
Has equality rights guaranteed	14	14%
Participation, Inclusion, And Accessibility
Experiences segregation and isolation	49	49%
Is acknowledged as a participant equal to others	33	33%
Respect For Difference
Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability	45	45%
Is respected regardless of her/his own experiences	14	14%

Note #3

These categories are not experiences, since each participant could have reported three different situations, and each reported situation could have referred to both positive and negative experiences. The percentages are calculated on the basis of 100 interviewees. Every cell indicates the total number of participants who reported experiences related to a specific area within the study. This clarification applies for all tables in this report.

Return

5.1 Individual Experiences

With regard to social participation, 84% out of the 100% of the interviewees reported a direct impact related to negative effects on the CRPD principles. 50% has been discriminated against and denied effective enjoyment of the fundamental rights related to this sphere. 49% of the people with disabilities mentioned that they are not acknowledged on an equal footing with other citizens, experiencing segregation and isolation based on their disabilities. This includes lack of accessibility and independence for them to actively participate in different scenarios. 45% of the people claimed to have been stigmatized, offended, or simply stereotyped when they participated in social, cultural, and political activities. This is closely related to the 41% stating that they do not feel valued or respected. 20% mentioned that their freedom to make their own choices is violated when they wish to have social participation.

The following data relates the data collected from the individual experiences as regards social participation.

Chart 2. Social Participation

Lack of Autonomy

33%

Does not feel valued and respected

68%

Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction

83%

Experiences segregation and isolation

82%

Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability

75%

As the above shows, the violation of the rights of social participation of people with disabilities is conditioned by stigma and by the predominance of the classic handout mentality. People with disabilities are considered not to have the capacity to participate in the public scenario whether in social, political, or cultural issues. Another reason for this exclusion from social participation is the high cost involved in making the accommodations and adaptations necessary to ensure the inclusion of disabled people. Moreover, the little access to financial resources confirms the existing relationship between poverty and disability. This is evidenced by the hundreds of testimonies collected through the individual interviews to people with disabilities, who shared situations like the following:

…I arrived in 2011, when the Antioquia league offered to change me to another sports league. To do this, I needed a letter from my league attesting my freedom to change leagues. The president of my league refused to give me this permission and document at that time. Even after this inconvenience, the Antioquia league said: “if they did not give you that letter, then come with us anyway!!” I did not want to do it like that, because there is a rule stating that, if I leave my league without this freedom letter and become part of a different sports league, I am subject to penalties and I may lose the sports rights I had acquired.

47-year-old man with physical disabilities. Choco, Quibdó.

Well, excluded as such, yes. Because I did not even get a reply from a person whom I politely asked for a favor. In fact, it is not really a favor because one is to use a service in a public facility. You’d think that you are entitled to go and have the same options as everybody else does… but not in this case.

22-year-old man with visual disabilities. Bogotá.

…Yes, so that they help me enter with my wheelchair; I have to go with somebody because I cannot maneuver the wheelchair on my own. I go because I want to eat something, and I want to enter that place…

20-year-old woman with physical disabilities. Bogotá.

5.2 Legal Aspects

As for the social participation of people with disabilities, it is provided for by the following Colombian laws: Political Constitution: Article 16. Article 40. Article 47. Law number 1145 of 2007: Article 1. Article 12 Law number 361 of 1997: It establishes mechanisms of social integration for impaired persons, as well as other provisions. Law number 1306 of 2009. Article 1. Article 5 Numeral 6. Article 11.Law number 1346 of 2009. Article 4c) article 8.a) i) ii) article 17. Law number 1618 of 2013. Article 5. Article 17. Article 18. Article 22 Law number 1616 of 2013 Article 8. Article 27. Article 34. Law number 1346 of 2009. Article 4c) article 8.a) i) ii) article 17 Law number 762 of 2002. Article 2. Article 3. Article 5. The last two laws refer to the ratification of the international conventions on disability: United Nations and OAS conventions, respectively. As we can see, there is a vast legal framework to guarantee the social participation of persons with disabilities. However, these are not enforced in reality since many disabled people are being deprived of social participation. The reason is that there is little awareness of the existence of these norms, especially in territories far away from the big cities. And this is the case even when the country is carrying out a characterization of persons with disabilities. The purpose is to set the basis for the implementation of different inclusion programs, plans, and policies in cultural, sports, and recreation activities, among others. These would make a great impact on the social contexts of each disabled person and their families. We should keep pursuing the transformation of the social paradigms. In particular, the ones within the very population with disabilities and their closest circle: their community, schools, college, sports and recreation centers, stores, nearby supermarkets, etc., as they constitute the first axis of social participation and inclusion. To attain this goal, participation campaigns should continue to be promoted in locations of easy access for disabled people. This would further enforce equality of opportunities as provided by the law and by all regulations pertaining to social development under the CRPD principles and their relation with social participation.

6. Employment

In this section we will review the results obtained from the experiences related to job or employment, access to the labor market, and processes of labor inclusion, as described by the individually interviewed people with disabilities. Table 4 relates the sphere of employment with the CRPD principles. Table 4. Employment

Table 4. Employment

Principle	No. Of People	Percentage3
Total	70	70%
Autonomy
Lack of Autonomy	30	30%
Decision-making Capacity	20	20%
Dignity
Does not feel valued and respected	30	30%
Feels valued and respected	5	5%
Non-Discrimination And Equality
Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction	41	41%
Has equality rights guaranteed	6	6%
Participation, Inclusion, And Accessibility
Experiences segregation and isolation	56	56%
Is acknowledged as a participant equal to others	22	22%
Respect For Difference
Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability	38	38%
Is respected regardless of her/his own experiences	6	6%

6.1 Individual Experiences

70% of the interviewees reported a direct impact on the process of labor inclusion, related to negative effects on the CRPD principles. 56% claimed not to be acknowledged on an equal footing with other citizens, experiencing segregation and isolation because of their disabilities. This happens both during staffing and selection processes and in the workplace in case they were able to get a job. 41% has been excluded, discriminated against and denied effective enjoyment of the fundamental rights related to this sphere. 38% of the people claimed to have been stigmatized, offended, or simply stereotyped, especially when they participated in staffing and selection processes. This is closely related to the 30% stating that they do not feel valued or respected. 30% of the disabled people state that their freedom to make their own choices has been infringed in job-related matters: they are assigned less challenging tasks in which their opinion and suggestions are not taken into consideration. The following bar chart relates the data collected from the individual experiences as regards violations in the context of employment.

Chart 3. Employment

Lack of Autonomy

30%

Does not feel valued and respected

30%

Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction

41%

Experiences segregation and isolation

56%

Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability

38%

As the graphic shows, when it comes to infringements in terms of employment, the predominant issue is the exclusion and lack of accessibility to enter and stay in the labor market. There are multiple barriers: adjustments to the psycho-technical tests to access a job, lack of profile positions suitable for persons with disabilities, and lack of accommodations to the workplace that meet the needs of each disability. A relevant situation among people with psychosocial disabilities is their hiding their condition for fear of losing a job once they have got it. They may even resign before they get fired, so as not to be stigmatized as crazy people and affect their reputation or employment records, as this may hinder their possibilities of getting a new job (attitudinal barriers). There are also some architectural and communication barriers, such as the unavailability of sign language interpreters to assist in processes of staff selection to enter the labor market. Job offers for people with disabilities are scarce, as the reasonable accommodations in the workplace are believed to be highly expensive. Many companies refrain from hiring disabled people, due to the imaginary argument that they are not productive because of their special characteristics. This is evidenced by the hundreds of testimonies collected through the individual interviews to people with disabilities, who shared, verbatim, situations like the following:

…It was truly disappointing for me to realize that I had passed all of the tests of the application, but when I had to attend the interview I requested a sign language interpreter, mentioning that I am deaf, and they only replied that I should look forward to their call. I am still waiting for that call, and it’s been 3 years…

38-year-old man with a hearing disability. Bogotá.

…Frustrated, angry, I could not believe that I was not getting a job because of my motor impairment; it was terrible even since the interview, how people stared at me…

21-year-old man with physical disabilities. Bogotá.

…They wouldn’t talk to me that much; they wouldn’t approach me, that was almost total rejection. And I was rude to the ones who actually spoke to me. In the office I used to assist people, and at first my boss, to help me, moved me to another position where I only had to handle paperwork and had no direct contact with the public. But that did not help either; he got desperate, I was affecting people because they did not even know how to react. Nobody understood why I acted so weird, why I was late all the time, why I would not pay attention to my appearance, and stuff like that…

26-year-old woman with psychosocial disabilities. Bogotá.

…The administrator over there asked me why I had glasses, how come somebody even thinks of attending an interview with glasses. I said I’m sorry miss, I have a visual impairment. She said no, don’t say anything else, finish this interview, we don’t need blind people here. That’s what she said. I felt it was sad, actually disappointing, because one is just another ordinary person

24-year-old man with visual disabilities. Medellin.

6.2 Legal Aspects

As regards Colombia’s legislation to guarantee access to employment to people with disabilities, the following laws and articles can be mentioned. Political Constitution of Colombia: Article 25. Article 54, Law number 994 of 2004. These regulate public employment and administrative careers. Its article 52 protects people with disabilities.Law number 1306 of 2009: Article 13. Article 51. Law number 1618 of 2013: Article 5. Law number 1616 of 2013: Title Ii. Law Article 9. Law number 1346 of 2009: iii) Article 4, Article 27. Law Number 762 Of 2002: Article 111. The laws and policies passed by the government, guarantee theoretically the access of disabled people to the labor market. However, it is the private initiatives which enforce them, such as the one called Productivity Pact (Pacto por la Productividad). It began its actions in September 2009, and it is being implemented simultaneously in the cities of Bogotá, Medellin, and Cali. It works together with disabled people, the private sector, and entrepreneurs to promote the labor inclusion of people with disabilities in companies. Some control mechanisms have been created at the corporate level which allow for the labor inclusion of people with disabilities according to this private initiative. However, and despite the existing policies providing for their access to the labor market, many people are still rejected. There have been cases in which, if the disability was acquired under any circumstance, companies dismiss their employees without a cause. Many disabled people do not have easy access to a job especially because of the type of disability they have. Many companies do not have the accommodations for physical access required by law to ensure labor inclusion. The government provides different work-related training programs, but access to employment for people with disabilities is not guaranteed by the corporate offer. In most cases, the requirements of certain positions are out of reach; they do not fit the actual conditions and capacities of disabled people, resulting in high levels of frustration on the part of their families. It is worth mentioning that there are no existing programs to create jobs for people with psychosocial disabilities in particular. This is due to the lack of information on this area, which is still growing. As regards payment to disabled people, their salaries are lower compared to other positions with the same degree of responsibility. Frequently, they are offered lower-ranked jobs due to imaginary reasons related to the condition of the disability.

7. Guaranteed Income And Support Services.

In this section we will review the results obtained from the experiences related to access or denial of guaranteed income and support services. These include: sign language interpreters, discounts, pensions, among others, as referenced by the disabled people during the individual interviews. Table 5 relates the sphere of guaranteed income and support services with the CRPD principles.

Table 5. Guaranteed Income and Support Services

Principle	No. Of People	Percentage
Total	67	67%
Autonomy
Lack of Autonomy	19	19%
Decision-making Capacity	12	12%
Dignity
Does not feel valued and respected	32	32%
Feels valued and respected	8	8%
Non-Discrimination And Equality
Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction	9	9%
Has equality rights guaranteed	39	39%
Participation, Inclusion, And Accessibility
Experiences segregation and isolation	55	55%
Is acknowledged as a participant equal to others	18	18%
Respect For Difference
Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability	30	30%
Is respected regardless of her/his own experiences	6	6%

7.1 Individual Experiences

67% of the interviewees reported infringements regarding guaranteed income and support services, related to negative effects or non-compliance with the CRPD principles. 55% has been excluded, discriminated against and denied effective enjoyment of the fundamental rights related to this sphere. 32% did not feel valued or were disrespected when they requested support services in different contexts. 30% of the people claimed to have been stigmatized, offended, or simply stereotyped. 19% reported lack of autonomy to make decisions pertaining to their access to disability support, devices, or assistance. Finally, 9% experienced discrimination and inequality regarding the guarantee of this right. The following bar chart relates the data collected from the individual experiences as regards violations in terms of guaranteed income and support services.

Chart 4. Guaranteed Income And Support Services

Lack of Autonomy

19%

Does not feel valued and respected

32%

Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction

9%

Experiences segregation and isolation

55%

Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability

30%

As the graphic shows, when it comes to infringements in terms of guaranteed income and support services, the predominant issue is exclusion and lack of accessibility at all levels. The experiences include situations involving public transportation, moving around the city, access to sign language interpreters in various contexts, and screen readers or guides for people with visual disabilities. There are also great administrative obstacles to accessing benefits like subsidies, discounts, or pensions. This is evidenced by the hundreds of testimonies collected through the individual interviews to people with disabilities, who shared, verbatim, situations like the following:

When I called for a taxi and it arrived at my place, the taxi driver, after seeing me, said he was stranded, that he was unable to drive me. I asked a policeman who was passing by for help, and he said: that is not right! You will please take this lady

 

40-year-old woman with physical disabilities. Bogotá.

As an adviser in local disability-related matters, sometimes it happens that I am in one of those meetings, I and have no interpreter. Then it’s like three hours trying to understand what they are discussing, but I actually don’t know what they’re talking about…

 

51-year-old man with a hearing disability. Bogotá.

…I’ve been trying to complete this process, I’ve submitted the pension papers, and by the end of June they said they would give me information. Then they tell me that there is another paper missing, a receipt, or some proof. In the end they say I am entitled to a pension which does not even cover my basic expenses. I have spent so much money in this process, that if I finally get my pension it would not even constitute a minimum salary. And that is only a part, because I have not fulfilled all the weeks required by the system, so I have to keep fulfilling until I reach the number of weeks that the law requires for me to have at least the right to a fair pension

 

50-year-old woman with physical disabilities. Bogotá.

7.2 Legal Aspects

With respect to the legal framework on guaranteed income and support services, Colombia has the following regulations:Law number 982 of 2005, ensuring equal opportunities for the deaf and for the deaf and blind, among other provisions.Law number 1145 of 2007: Article 5, Article 12. Law number 1306 of 2009: Article 3. A, b, c, d, e, f, g. Law number 1346 of 2009: Article 4i), Article 9 1. A, Article 20a) b). Decree number 19 of 2012: Duty of the State Bodies to guarantee the mechanisms of preferential attention to people with disabilities. Law number 1618 of 2013: Accessibility, transportation, and reasonable accommodations. Article 5. 4. Article 9. Article 12. Article 15. Law number 1616 of 2013: Title 2. Law number 762 of 2002: Article Iii No. C, Article Iv.Political Constitution: Article 47. Article 93. Technical Standards of the Colombian Institute for Technical Standards and Certification (ICONTEC): Technical Standard No. 4595: Technical Standard No. 4596. Technical Standards No. 4732 and 4733. The guaranteed income and support services for persons with disabilities should be provided by the State as the primary grantor. To this end, accessibility, inclusion, and communication should be specially guaranteed as the fundamental basis for participation on an equal footing with others. We have already seen that there are laws and policies promoting access to transportation and other reasonable accommodations (access to systems of communication such as sign language interpreters, technologies for blind people, orthopedic devices and state-of-the-art technologies, among others). However, in practice, there are multiple administrative and bureaucratic barriers which limit the effective enjoyment of this right. In order to access any kind of support services, devices, or benefits, it is necessary to take legal actions such as injunctions to enforce compliance. The conditions of public transportation are not suitable for people with disabilities, whether they have to do with physical access or with waiting times. Even when there are some subsidies and discounts to have access to some mass transportation systems, such discounts only apply if a person with disabilities meets a series of requirements, among them the purchase of a minimum number of tickets per month. Many people do not benefit from these discounts, as they only use the transportation system very few times. Thus, these so-called benefits for disabled people are not actually applicable in practice due to their income capacity.

8. Privacy And Family Life

In this section we will review the results obtained from family-life and family relationship experiences, as well as the disabled people’s right to privacy as referenced by them during the individual interviews. Table 6 relates the sphere of privacy and family life with the CRPD principles.

Table 6. Privacy And Family Life

Principle	No. Of People	Percentage
Total	65	65%
Autonomy
Lack of Autonomy	35	35%
Decision-making Capacity	21	21%
Dignity
Does not feel valued and respected	33	33%
Feels valued and respected	17	17%
Non-Discrimination And Equality
Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction	22	22%
Has equality rights guaranteed	7	7%
Participation, Inclusion, And Accessibility
Experiences segregation and isolation	21	21%
Is acknowledged as a participant equal to others	19	19%
Respect For Difference
Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability	18	18%
Is respected regardless of her/his own experiences	6	6%

8.1 Individual Experiences

65% of the interviewees reported infringements regarding privacy and family life, related to negative effects or violation of the CRPD principles. 35% reported lack of autonomy to make decisions. 33% stated that they do not feel valued or respected within the family environment, and that their will and wishes are not taken into consideration. 22% feel discriminated against by their own families, and 21% experiences isolation and segregation from the family activities and relationship. Only 18% claim to be stigmatized, offended or stereotyped within the family environment due to their disabilities. The following bar chart relates the data collected from the individual experiences as regards violations in the context of privacy and family life.

Chart 5. Privacy And Family Life

Lack of Autonomy

35%

Does not feel valued and respected

33%

Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction

22%

Experiences segregation and isolation

21%

Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability

18%

As the graphic on privacy and family life shows, the autonomy of people with disabilities is the most violated principle. This confirms that the protection, help, and support given by the family still work under a patronizing structure which strips disabled people of their dignity and limits their participation in society. In many cases, the family is the first and, why not, the main obstacle to full social participation. It is also evident that unawareness of the disability process creates more stigmas. This is especially true in cases of psychosocial disabilities: life situations first affect the family circle lacking the knowledge and the basic support and accompaniment strategies. The only choice they seem to have in most cases is forced hospitalization in psychiatric facilities. Another important point to highlight about this sphere has to do with the sex and reproductive rights of people with disability. They are not autonomous to make decisions in this respect, since they require the full consent and support of the family or their life partner. The voices of some of the interviewees are shared below. These are some extracted verbatim comments and phrases about their personal experiences. The violation of their rights in this sphere and on each of the principles described, is evident.

…My partner, my wife whom I trusted decided, while I was hospitalized, to request my interdiction and seize the goods we had acquired together…

47-year-old man with psychosocial disabilities. Bogotá.

…I have felt sad, because one wants to love and be loved. Loving on your own is sad, because of my visual disability, because one cannot do what other people can…

 

24-year-old man with visual disabilities. Medellin.

…My family is very important and I am so glad that they’re always there for me. But it’s hard not to be independent. Many times I’d like to be left alone, that nobody bothers me or talks to me. But I need them all, and they all love me. Sometimes I believe my family will get tired of me…

 

34-year-old man with multiple (physical and social) disabilities. Quibdó.

8.2 Legal Aspects

The issues of privacy and family life are covered by the following regulations in Colombia: Political Constitution of Colombia: Article 13, Article 15, Article 42. Law number 1259 of 2008: it dictates norms of awareness, prevention, and punishment of any form of violence and discrimination against women. It amends the Penal Code, the Code of Penal Procedures, Law number 294 of 1996, and other provisions are included. Article 20, 30, 31. Law number 1306 of 2009: Principles Article 6 a). b). c). d). Law number 1346 of 2009: Article 7 a) Article 22, Article 7 a), Article 23. 1. Law number 1618 of 2013: Article 10, Article 18. Law number 1616 of 2013: Title Ii. People with disabilities and their families have the right that someone eliminates or minimizes the disproportionate burdens that hinder their full integration in society. But they also have the duty of participating, of not excluding themselves, of believing that they are an active part of society, and of overcoming the imaginary belief that disability only means demanding benefits and help from the State. The family, as acknowledged by the law, is one of the departing points of personal development; thus, the CRPD principles begin with the family. This is why it is so important to relate disabled people with their families during the processes of training and constant support provided by the government. These are made available through programs whose purpose is not only to create autonomy, but also to eliminate all forms of discrimination, and modify stigmas and language. The initial result: inherent dignity. In spite of this, the forced sterilization of people with cognitive and psychosocial disabilities is still carried out if a court so decides, disregarding the will and wishes of the disabled person. This proves that the sexual and reproductive rights of persons with disabilities are being violated in Colombia.

9. Health, Rehabilitation, And Habilitation

In this section we will review the results obtained from the experiences related to access or lack of access to services of health, habilitation, and rehabilitation, as described by the individually interviewed people with disabilities. Table 7 relates the sphere of health, habilitation, and rehabilitation with the CRPD principles.

Table 7. Health, Rehabilitation, And Habilitation

Principle	No. Of People	Percentage
Total	42	42%
Autonomy
Lack of Autonomy	20	20%
Decision-making Capacity	10	10%
Dignity
Does not feel valued and respected	18	18%
Feels valued and respected	7	7%
Non-Discrimination And Equality
Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction	17	17%
Has equality rights guaranteed	3	3%
Participation, Inclusion, And Accessibility
Experiences segregation and isolation	28	28%
Is acknowledged as a participant equal to others	15	15%
Respect For Difference
Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability	17	17%
Is respected regardless of her/his own experiences	3	3%

9.1 Individual Experiences

42% of the interviewees reported compliance or non-compliance of the guarantee to access and full and effective enjoyment of health, habilitation, and rehabilitation, related to negative effects or non-compliance with the CRPD principles. 28% experienced exclusion and barriers to access health, habilitation, and rehabilitation processes. 20% had their autonomy compromised. 18% claimed not to have been treated with dignity both when accessing health services and during the process of attention and intervention. 17% were discriminated against based on their disabilities, and 17% was disrespected or offended when they requested or received healthcare. The following bar chart relates the data collected from the individual experiences as regards violations of the right to health, habilitation, and rehabilitation.

Chart 6. Health, Rehabilitation, And Habilitation

Lack of Autonomy

20%

Does not feel valued and respected

18%

Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction

17%

Experiences segregation and isolation

28%

Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability

17%

Even when the handout mentality is the predominant approach in the country, this right is being flagrantly violated, as the graphic above shows. There are delays in attention, or hospitals and healthcare facilities have no physical accessibility, no communication services like a sign language interpreter, and no guides to help disabled people access the facilities. In spite of having health coverage, the quality of this service is rather poor. It may also take months to be given an appointment with a specialist, and medication and treatment not covered under the compulsory plan frequently have to be requested by injunctions, whose effective implementation is delayed by the health-promoting entities (Eps). It is also evident that healthcare employees are not trained on how to address the specific demands of people with disabilities, or how to provide fair attention in compliance with the abovementioned principles. The voices of some of the interviewees are shared below. These are some extracted verbatim comments and phrases about their personal experiences. The violation of their rights in this sphere and on each of the principles described, is evident.

…In medical and clinical psychiatric-wise processes, when one is hospitalized, one has no choice, no information, no rights to anything… the more one fights it and objects to it, the more medication one gets. So that’s it, stay quiet if you want to get over it quickly

 

63-year-old man with psychosocial disabilities. Bogotá.

…The fact that they won’t value me. The queues, those long queues. Even if I get there early, the chill of the early morning. How is it possible that I have to sleep on that tiny chair I take, until 10 am that they finally receive me

 

55-year-old woman with physical disabilities. Bogotá.

…I have a really hard time getting upstairs, and one of the greatest barriers I face is the lack of accommodations in many (even) healthcare institutions. One goes to some institutions, for example, the dentist’s, where there are stairs. And this difficulty makes you demand, almost rudely, that somebody helps you…

60-year-old woman with physical disabilities. Medellin.

9.2 Legal Aspects

In regards to the legal aspect applied to health, rehabilitation, and habilitation or people with disabilities, the following laws and regulations are in force in Colombia: Political Constitution: Article 49, Article 47. Law number 100 of 1993: the purpose of the Integral Social Security System is to guarantee the inalienable rights of the person and the community, for them to have a quality of life in harmony with human dignity. It also provides for special benefits to people with disabilities. Resolution number 3165 of 1996: It establishes healthcare guidelines for the attention of people with deficiencies, disabilities, and impairments. Law number 643 of 2001: It establishes that the taxation system affecting gaming and gambling shall destine a percentage of the collected resources to the subsidy plans of disabled persons, visually impaired, and mental health. Law number 1145 of 2007, Habilitation and rehabilitation: It is a set of measures whose purpose is to provide for full individual autonomy and the development of social and cultural competencies for persons with disabilities. Article 12. Function of the National Disability Council (Cnd) 6. Law number 1306 of 2009: Article 11, Article 12, Article 16 No. 4. Article 25. Article 26. Law number 1618 of 2013: Article 8. Article 9. Article 10. Every person with disabilities has the right to health care. Law number 1616 of 2009. Article 4, Title Iv, chapter I. Ministry of Health and Social Protection. Law number 762 of 2002: Article Iii. No. 2 b, Article Iv. In addition to this vast legal framework, a project for the reformation of healthcare in Colombia is currently in process. It is advancing with difficulties, as it does not yet make clear what benefits it will offer for the disabled population in our country. It refers to increasing coverage by 100% in our country, but it does not specify under what quality standards it will do so. The healthcare system, by law, does not discriminate against any person with disabilities, and guarantees access to it by the subsidy or the contribution plan, which favors the entire disabled community. However, when the moment comes to have access to health services, there arise difficulties. For example, long waits to get an appointment, or lack of attention –when a disabled person goes to the doctor, due to their impairment, the health system pays more attention to their care giver than to the patient. The policy of priority attention is not complied with in full. The priority queues are sometimes longer, when the system should be less bureaucratic and speed up the admission process in all the levels of attention. There are hospitals for each level of attention: first, second, and third. Many disabled people, according to the healthcare plan they have, can access one of these three levels. The rehabilitation services are provided by second and third level facilities, that is, by high-complexity hospitals or clinics, where access to the different programs is rather slow, given the referral and counter-referral system. Therefore, access to the service implies disabled people to move to different facilities, which is an obstacle given the socio economic conditions, the difficulty to access transportation systems, or the appointment in locations far away from their homes.

10. Education

In this section we will analyze the results obtained regarding the inclusion or non-inclusion of persons with disabilities in education, according to the information provided in the individual interviews. Table 8 relates the sphere of education with the principles of the CRPD.

Table 8. Education

Principle	No. Of People	Percentage
Total	42	42%
Autonomy
Lack of Autonomy	14	14%
Decision-making Capacity	12	12%
Dignity
Does not feel valued and respected	15	15%
Feels valued and respected	7	7%
Non-Discrimination And Equality
Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction	27	27%
Has equality rights guaranteed	5	5%
Participation, Inclusion, And Accessibility
Experiences segregation and isolation	28	28%
Is acknowledged as a participant equal to others	25	25%
Respect For Difference
Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability	21	21%
Is respected regardless of her/his own experiences	7	7%

10.1 Individual Experiences

Like the previous sphere, 42% of the interviews carried out mentioned compliance or lack of compliance of the guarantee to access education, related to its negative impact, or lack of compliance regarding the CRPD’s principles in terms of education inclusion; 28% mentioned having been excluded and not being able to access education processes. 27% experienced discrimination and inequity conditions regarding the lack of adjustments to the curricula according to individual abilities, 21% was disrespected when accessing the regular education system and even once they were inside, due to their disabilities, 15% mentioned not feeling appreciated, and 14% had no autonomy when deciding for instance, what they would like to study. The following bar chart relates the data collected from the individual experiences regarding the violation of the right to education.

Chart 7. Education

Lack of Autonomy

14%

Does not feel valued and respected

15%

Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction

27%

Experiences segregation and isolation

28%

Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability

21%

As can be seen in the chart on violation of education and its relationship with the CRPD‘s principles, there are great barriers in Colombia that limit education inclusion in regular classrooms: lack of sign language interpreters, guide interpreters, and assistants are some of the accommodations required for persons with disabilities to be able to not only enroll, but also stay in and finish school; without even taking into account the adjustments to the academic curricula and the low to zero training that teachers have for handling different disabilities in the classroom. Another big obstacle or barrier to access education is the high costs of registration in private institutions. Something worth noting from the sample is that women with disabilities have greater desires of studying and excelling themselves academically. In Colombia very few persons with disabilities access higher education. This study had the opportunity to interview, as an exception, people who have managed to finish their university or technical studies, many of whom cannot apply them in work environments due to lack of job opportunities and barriers in work inclusion mentioned before. Taking into account the interviewees’ voices we transcribed some comments of individual experiences where the violation of rights in this sphere and in each one of the principles described is evident:

“…In college when I was going to graduate there were some inconveniences with a teacher that was opposed to me receiving my degree as a Social Worker since she thought that I was not capable of that job because of my disability…”

 

27-year-old woman with Communication and Language disabilities. Bogotá.

“…Now, with education inclusion, for example, the subject called Radio, is normally oral. But we are deaf and we had to take it, the professor was very flexible, but truth is, he never had those strategies, stuff such as videos in sign language, where we could start the class well, also at least, the English class would be like my third language, since written language is my second language and English is difficult for me. The other subject that I had to take, Radio— well we never heard, and we have to mix in the same society and it’s different and hard, but we want to graduate but it’s complicated, even more so when we have to pay for the interpreter ourselves since the University does not give us that possibility…”

 

25-year-old woman with hearing disability. Ibague.

“…I felt pressured in this education institution, as I was saying before, the person who carried out the admission interview closed the doors to me, even though I explained to him that I could move, that I could move around freely, he kept saying that it was an issue of stairs, hallways, entrances, that they would have to invest too much…and make a lot of modifications if I studied there! Besides that, something that made me somehow sad was that he said that if I was accepted, then they would have to open their doors to all the other blind people that wanted to study there…”

 

49-year-old man with visual disabilities. Medellin

10.2 Legal Aspects

Colombia has developed great advances regarding legislation favoring the inclusion of persons with disabilities in education, which is reflected in the following laws: Law number 115 of 1994: It provides for the education of people with limitations and exceptional capabilities, stating that the education of these groups is a mandatory public service for the State. Law number 119 of 1994: The National Learning Service (Sena) is restructured and the goal of “organizing programs of professional readaptation for people with disabilities” is set. Decree 2082 of 1996: Parameters and criteria for the provision of education services for the population with special education needs. Decree 2369 of 1997: It establishes recommendations for the care of people with hearing limitations. It regulates law 324 of 1996. Decree 672 of 1998: Education of deaf children and sign language, as part of the right to education. Resolution 2565 of 2003: It establishes basic criteria for the care of people with disabilities and special education needs. National Ten-Year Education Plan, 2006-2016: It defines policies and strategies to achieve quality education in the future, including the population with disabilities. Decree 366 of 2009: It regulates the organization of the service of pedagogical support for the care of students with disabilities or with exceptional abilities or talents, in the frame of inclusive education. Law number 1306 of 2009, Article 11 Law number 1346 of 2009: Article 8b, article 24. a), b), c) Law number 1618 of 2013: Article 11. Law number 1616 of 2013: Title Ii. The right to receive psychological education on their mental disorder and forms of self-care at the individual and the family levels. Article 8 Chapter I. Article 10. Article 24. Law number 762 of 2002: Article Iii N 2. c Political Constitution: Article 27. Article 67, Article 68, Article 70. In spite of counting with this ample legal frame and other strategies developed by the National Ministry of Education, inclusion policies have been developed at schools and universities, and also programs for continual training. It is important to point out that the actual access to the facilities for persons with disabilities is very often denied, or impossible, since they do not count with the proper entrances, or systems of support of sign language and other reasonable accommodations for the permanence of a person with disabilities in their facilities. On many occasions the person is accepted, but the level of permanence in the academic environment is minimal, since all the support measures are not provided, and the curricular adaptations and/or accommodations do not comply with all the standards for appropriate learning. It is worth mentioning that public schools and universities have more favorable entrances for people with disabilities; however, the number of people that they can include in their systems is too low if compared with the demand for education for persons with disabilities. The lack of willingness of some education institutions is obvious, since they deny or restrict the access of persons with disabilities, demanding that the families provide the support systems in the classrooms as interpreters, guides and additional therapists, even as healthcare professionals, so that they attend to the basic needs and requirements of the persons with disabilities during their stay in the school or college.

11. Information And Communication

In this section we will analyze the results obtained regarding the experiences related to the systems of information and communication that people with disabilities described in the individual interviews. Table 9 relates the information and communication aspect with the principles of the CRPD.

Table 9. Information And Communication

Principle	No. Of People	Percentage
Total	37	37%
Autonomy
Lack of Autonomy	12	12%
Decision-making Capacity	5	5%
Dignity
Does not feel valued and respected	10	10%
Feels valued and respected	3	3%
Non-Discrimination And Equality
Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction	14	14%
Has equality rights guaranteed	2	2%
Participation, Inclusion, And Accessibility
Experiences segregation and isolation	19	19%
Is acknowledged as a participant equal to others	10	10%
Respect For Difference
Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability	12	12%
Is respected regardless of her/his own experiences	2	2%

11.1 Individual Experiences.

37% of the total of interviews carried out mentioned compliance or lack of compliance of the right to information and communications. If we take into account only the component of violation or non-compliance with respect to the principles described in the CRPD, it can be observed that 19% has been excluded or isolated due to inability to communicate, ratifying the 14% that mentioned being discriminated against or being in inequality on this aspect. 12% was stereotyped in some way for this reason, same as the 12% that mentioned that their autonomy was violated because of the lack of access to communication and information. Only 10% felt disrespected and unappreciated, affecting the principle of dignity. The following bar chart relates the data gathered from the individual experiences regarding the violation of the right to information and communications.

Chart 8. Information And Communication

Lack of Autonomy

12%

Does not feel valued and respected

10%

Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction

14%

Experiences segregation and isolation

19%

Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability

12%

Regarding the violation of the right to information and the principles established by the CRPD, we can say that people with disabilities in general face great barriers in relation to the access to technologies and support, especially guides and interpreters for people with sensory disabilities. The violation of this right directly affects the other spheres analyzed in this study since it marginalizes and restricts the involvement of persons with disabilities in the different social scenes. On the other hand, the way in which the massive media strengthen images based on disabilities, through the use of terms such as “the handicapped,” “the crippled,” “the crazy,” “poor thing,” among others, greatly affects the dignity of people with disabilities. Taking into account the interviewees’ voices we transcribed some comments of individual experiences where the violation of rights in this sphere and in each one of the principles described is evident:

“…We can’t explain how we feel or what we want to say because they (anybody) won’t understand, on the contrary… I’d better not say anything.”

22-year-old man with hearing disability. Bogotá.

“…I felt offended, especially because my sister told me that the police officer said that I was crazy, that I should go to a town away from the city where there are crazy people, that I had disrespected authority, I don’t know how he can say that if nobody understood me, and it was clear that I was freaked out and that the only thing that I wanted was to explain what was going on with me, but everybody had seen that, I’m sure, but they hide things from people like me…”

 

33-year-old man with hearing disability. Bogotá.

“…It has happened to me when they give out information or communications at the meetings that I attend, when they hand in the copy to me they say ‘It’s such a shame that we don’t have it in Braille, we will e-mail it to you later,’ and I never receive the information, so I feel left out of the discussion, it happens a lot…”

 

24-year-old woman with visual disability. Medellin.

11.2 Legal Aspects.

Regarding the legislation related to information and communication, Colombia has Law 1346 of 2009 “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,” adopted by the United Nations’ General Assembly on December 13, 2006. Article 2, Article 4 g). Article 21, Law number 762 of 2002 “Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities,” signed in the city of Guatemala, Guatemala, on June seven (7), nineteen ninety-nine (1999). Article Vi. Law number 1145 of 2007: “By means of this law a National System of Disabilities is organized and other regulations are dictated.” Law number 1618 of 2013: “By means of this law regulations are established to guarantee the full exercise of the rights of persons with disabilities”, Article 16, Article 5 No. 5, Article. 6, Law number 1616 of 2013: “By means of this law the Mental Health Law is issued and other regulations are dictated” Title Ii, Political Constitution of Colombia: Article 20. Law number 1581 of 2012: General frame for protection of personal information in Colombia, among them, electronic databases. The compliance of this policy by the entities that handle information systems is mandatory. On this matter it is important to mention that nowadays in the national territory, systems for the gathering of information related to people with disabilities are being implemented. This record for the location and characterization of the population with disabilities requires the articulation of efforts of the territorial bodies of the over 1000 townships that make up the country; however, the delays in the gathering of this information have not allowed to build a current picture of people with disabilities in the country. On this same line of thought there exists the possibility of carrying out interaction and communication processes about different disability topics both on-site and off-site, simultaneously involving the whole country through virtual classrooms and technologies. Despite the dissemination and invitations, these meetings, called “territory nation” do not reach all the population with disabilities. Participation is minimal, with contractors and technicians of the different territorial bodies being the ones who participate in every meeting. This shows the great difficulties that exist in the communication between persons with disabilities, the government bodies and the community itself. The access to technologies that enhance communication, such as the Internet and devices is minimal due to the high costs, even though the government has eliminated tariffs to facilitate the access to TICs for the population in general.

12. Access To Justice

In this section we will analyze the results obtained regarding the experiences that involve access to justice in its ample sense, including status before the law, access to the judicial system, the freedom and security of persons with disabilities, as well as protection or lack of it from any way of torture and any other way of abuse that persons with disabilities described in the individual interviews.

Table 10 relates the information and communication aspect with the principles of the CRPD.

Table 10. Access To Justice

Principle	No. Of People	Percentage
Total	30	30%
Autonomy
Lack of Autonomy	10	10%
Decision-making Capacity	6	6%
Dignity
Does not feel valued and respected	7	7%
Feels valued and respected	0	0%
Non-Discrimination And Equality
Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction	2	2%
Has equality rights guaranteed	6	6%
Participation, Inclusion, And Accessibility
Experiences segregation and isolation	12	12%
Is acknowledged as a participant equal to others	4	4%
Respect For Difference
Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability	9	9%
Is respected regardless of her/his own experiences	2	2%

12.1 Individual Experiences.

30% of the people interviewed mentioned compliance or non-compliance at the time of accessing justice. If we gather only the experiences of violation or non-compliance of this sphere according to the principles of the CRPD, we find that: 12% experienced exclusion and difficulties when accessing the judicial system at the time of filing any kind of complaint, 10% mentioned feeling that their autonomy was violated at the moment of making decisions, 9% mentioned being disrespected due to their disability, 7% expressed feeling disrespected and mistreated when trying to access the judicial system, and only 2% said that they were discriminated against and they did not count with the guarantees of equality in the judicial processes. The following bar chart relates the data gathered from the individual experiences regarding the violation of the right to access justice.

Chart 9. Access To Justice

Lack of Autonomy

10%

Does not feel valued and respected

7%

Experiences any kind of distinction or restriction

2%

Experiences segregation and isolation

12%

Is offended or stereotyped based on the disability

9%

Analyzing the chart of the violation of the access to justice and its relation to the principles of the CRPD, we can interpret that persons with disabilities are not yet recognized as subjects of rights, as citizens. There are great administrative barriers to accessing the judicial system that directly violate the exposed principles, especially the exclusion and lack of accessibility generated by the inadequate attention provided by judicial workers. Making decisions in an autonomous way is the result of not knowing the roads to accessing justice, besides the fact that there is an idea that concepts such as law, judicial system, rights, among others, are exclusively for lawyers and justice workers and only apply to people who commit a crime, ignoring the fact that the access to justice is the right that allows for the other rights to become a reality as a tool of enforcement and compliance.

Taking into account the interviewees’ voices we transcribed some comments of individual experiences where the violation of rights in this sphere and in each one of the principles described is evident:

“…I felt violated because I had to go from window to window gathering documents at the court to file a complaint, among so many people I didn’t feel good, the noise was exasperating, the lights in the offices… I went to the special line for people with disabilities so that they could see me as a priority and the person in the window did not assist me because they said I didn’t have any disabilities…”

50-year-old woman with physical disabilities. Bogotá.

It was an odyssey to file a complaint and the petition rights to apply for a driver’s license, because I am a person with a disability I had to take a practical driving test to make up for the audio test

38-year-old man with hearing disability. Bogotá.

“…This has happened in many parts, especially people who analyze petition rights, analyze the disability studies, you go to any body and you see that someone with a hearing disability cannot be taken care of because there’s no interpreter so they can barely communicate with them and they ask them to come back some other time. The same happens with the issue of disability rights, you can’t be taken care of because there’s no interpreter, so no communication, and that limits in many ways my access to justice…”

36 – year-old man with hearing disability. Bogotá.

12.2 Legal Aspects.

Regarding access to justice for persons with disabilities, Colombia has the following laws: Law number 1309 of 2009: Article 2, Article 5 Number 7, Article 15, Law number 1145 of 2009: Article 12, Law number 1618 of 2013: Article 21,Law number 1346 of 2009. Article 4 b), Article 4 No. 3, Article 5. 1. Article 12. Law number 1616 of 2013. Title Ii. Political Constitution: Article 14, Article 29, Article 86,

Taking into account that access to justice has recently gained great importance in persons with disabilities, it is an issue post CRPD, these new laws should be in harmony with the international treaty. Paradoxically, though, in the same year that the ratification of the CRPD was signed, almost simultaneously in Colombia through Law 1346 of 2009, the recognition of persons with disabilities as legal entities was annulled. In this way, the figure of interdiction as a protective measure annuls autonomous decision-making, declaring the civil death of persons with disabilities that are victims of this measure. This will affect two sectors of disabilities almost directly: people with psychosocial disabilities and people with cognitive disabilities.

It is also worth pointing out that the delay in judicial processes and the lack of access to many facilities of the legal system are the reasons why many persons with disabilities do not denounce this abuse or violation of rights. In this line of thought, access to justice has become a way of obtaining goods and services that the natural process cannot or does not allow to grant.

13. Main Aspects Related To Psychosocial Disability

As we mentioned at the beginning of the report, this process of monitoring human rights emphasizes psychosocial disability, linking and visualizing persons with psychosocial disability as the characters, both in the integral execution of the proposal and in their experiential participation by expressing the way they face their day-to-day themselves. This is the first time we carry out this type of study, and from the experiences shared by men and women with this kind of disability we can point out the following:

Regarding the experiences related to privacy and family life, there is a great violation of the CRPD‘s principles, especially to autonomy because individual decision making is restricted. The family, care providers, or partners are all factors that can favor the process of social inclusion, or on the contrary, factors that can trigger a process of crisis and exclusion.

The great majority of persons with psychosocial disabilities that participated in the project entered the world of disabilities, simply put, in the stage of school, which greatly limited or affected their academic performance, postponing school years or college semesters, losing scholarships on low performance due to not having adjustments on time and curricula according to their disabilities.

Many people with psychosocial disabilities have lost their jobs when they mentioned being in a clinic or psychiatric institution, or have not been able to enter the labor market due to their special characteristics; as soon as they mention having a psychiatric diagnosis they are not hired.

In the matter of social participation of persons with psychosocial disabilities, this is affected by the social stigma there is regarding mental illnesses, which causes the circle of friends to be minimal or reduced, they are usually loners with no active social life.

Some persons with psychosocial disabilities communicate easily, but on the other hand, some others, the majority, have trouble relating directly, so here the use of TICs in a way facilitates the interaction with other people and the access to information of personal and collective interest.

Regarding healthcare, institutionalization is the most common answer for handling psychosocial disability, proving that the medical approach that predominates is that of trying to “heal the insanity”, situation that presents itself in a cyclic manner between periods of emotional crisis – stability. Persons with psychosocial disability are often exposed to mental health crises due to the delay in appointments with specialists and delivery of medicine, among others. Not to mention that many people experienced forced admission, overmedication and experimentation with medication, besides abuse when being institutionalized.

The support and assistance systems after entering the mental health world that guarantee the reestablishment of the principles alluded to in this report are minimal.

At the level of access to justice, there are no appropriate service protocols for the entry of persons with psychosocial disabilities into the judicial system that allow to receive complaints, support and assistance strategies that facilitate the decision-making in legal aspects, and for this reason the persons with psychosocial disabilities do not denounce abuse or violation to their human rights, under the premise, “who would trust a crazy person?” This reflects the lack of recognition as legal persons before the law and society, which is the main cause for violation of the Crdp’s principles and the main barrier that prevents the enjoyment of the other human rights considered in the Convention.

14. Other Matters Of Interest Considered In The Monitoring

In the collection of data from the individual and particular experiences we considered and systematized matters related to the actions that persons with disabilities took in the face of abuse and discrimination and the reasons for not informing the situation of discrimination and we could determine which were the systematic roots for discrimination, gather recommendations and establish relations between gender and disability, ethnicity and disability, and social class and disability. Next we will describe these aspects in detail:

14.1 Responses To Abuse And Discrimination

Table 11 includes data related to the number of persons with disability and the response that they had when faced with abuse and discrimination:

Table 11. Responses To Abuse And Discrimination

	No. Of People	Percentage
Distancing	27	27%
Other	37	37%
Report Legal Action	54	54%
Resisting	25	25%

Of the total of people interviewed, 54% informed and denounced the situation to the authorities, civil servants, police, religious leaders, Ombudsman’s Office, among others. On the contrary, 27% distanced themselves and did not take any action in the face of violation of their rights, 25% tried to change the situation and the context in which abuse and discrimination were present, 37% mentioned having taken other actions.

Taking into account the previous information, we can say that persons with disabilities respond to abuse and discrimination in spite of the difficulties in the access to justice, they file complaints in the judicial system so that the recognition and effective enjoyment of their rights is guaranteed. On the other hand, a large number of the people interviewed do not report the abuse, they take other roads as a response to the abuse that is closely related to choosing not to take action and distancing themselves from the situation, or simply staying in the phase of assistance to denounce the abuse and discrimination. Some people just get used to or try to change the situation of abuse in order to be able to take part, making suggestions on improvements to the people and contexts where the violation of their rights is present.

14.2 Reasons For Not Reporting.

Table 12 below shows the reasons why persons with disabilities do not denounce or report the abuse:

12 Reasons For Not Reporting.

	No. Of People	Percentage
Corruption	1	1%
Fear	3	3%
Lack Of Access	5	5%
Lack Of Financial Means	0	0%
Nothing Would Have Happened	31	31%
Other	10	10%
Self-Blame	5	5%

As it was observed in the previous table there is a high rate of persons with disabilities that did not report the situations of violations, the main reason is the lack of response to legal action, “why denounce if nothing happens.” This is reflected in 31% of the sample. Feelings of self-blame (5%), lack of access to the judicial system (5%), fear (3%), having to pay third parties to file a complaint (1%) and others (10%) are the reasons for not reporting that the persons with disabilities mentioned in general.

This proves once more the weakness of the judicial system in the face of the needs of persons with disabilities, the slow and inexistent response to the complaints that are filed allow in a way for the naturalization of abuse and discrimination. The lack of knowledge about human rights on the part of people with disabilities is also a great reason that we see in this section, how can you denounce something that you do not know about?

14.3 Systematic roots of discrimination

Table 13 condenses the data obtained regarding the systematic origin of discrimination:

Table 13. Systematic Roots Of Discrimination

	No. Of People	Percentage
Economic	15	15%
Legislative	13	13%
Social	35	35%

In the interviews and data collection of the monitoring process we also determined social, political and economic factors that generate discrimination experienced by persons with disabilities. We found that it is social activities and relationships that create the most discrimination (35%), and together with economic factors (15%) and lack of actual implementation of laws and policies in force (13%) are the three main causes that systematically develop and increase discrimination.

This is related to the prevailing approach towards persons with disabilities in the country, who are still seen as subjects of assistance and not as subjects of rights. The change of paradigms is one of the greatest challenges to decrease these causes of discrimination, since changing the concepts related to inability and lack of ability and autonomy of persons with disabilities would facilitate the actual implementation of the CRPD with an impact on the enhancement of living conditions of the population with disabilities and their families and surroundings.

 

Recommendations

Table 14 systematizes suggestions and recommendations for the situation of persons with disabilities derived from the interviews carried out:

Table 14. Recommendations

	No. Of People	Percentage
Economic Supports	15	15%
Legislation	4	4%
Other	36	36%
Peer Support	9	9%
Raise Awareness	51	51%
Representation	9	9%
Respect	20	20%
Social Supports	15	15%

The most relevant recommendation (51%) suggested by the interviewees is to raise awareness and educate society on matters related to disability. 20% of people mentioned that the government should show more respect and attention to the needs of persons with disabilities. It is also mentioned that the government should generate support and improve the strategies for labor inclusion (15%), which is along the same lines of improving living conditions and incomes of persons with disabilities and their families on the part of the government (15%). Only 9% thinks that the organizations of persons with disabilities have to be strengthened and also need to improve their representation and should be able to participate in the government; only 4% recommends that they develop and implement new laws and policies for the protection and guarantee of the rights of persons with disabilities. 36% give other recommendations.

As can be observed, the great majority of recommendations gathered make reference to the compliance of responsibilities on the part of the government for the persons with disabilities, guaranteeing the necessary resources and support that facilitate the full participation of persons with disabilities in society. However, there is also a call to assume joint responsibility in the demand for these rights, where persons with disabilities are key stakeholders in the change of classic concepts about disability, empowering and strengthening leaderships, guaranteeing also active political participation among other things. With this dynamic it is possible to implement a social approach based on rights that complies with the principles proposed by the CRPD.

14.5 Gender And Disability

Table 15 below includes the information about the perception between gender and disability expressed by the interviewees.

Table 15. Gender And Disability

	No. Of People	Percentage
Better for Females	17	17%
Same for Females	56	56%
Worse for Females	36	36%

Taking into account the way in which the interviewees described this relationship, we determined that 56% considered that there are no differences in the treatment, that women and persons with disabilities are treated in the same way. 36% considered that persons with disabilities are treated worse and 17% expressed that persons with disabilities are treated better.

These results only took the female gender as the reference point, people from the Lgtb community, who are also exposed to exclusion and discrimination were not taken into account. When the interviewees state that the treatment for women and persons with disabilities is the same, these shows that their rights are violated in the same way. They state that persons with disabilities are treated better than women in situations of accessibility and access to certain services; on the other hand they state that persons with disabilities are treated worse than women mainly when it comes to rights related to privacy and family life, sexual and reproductive rights, among others.

14.6 Ethnicity And Disability

Table 16 below includes the information about the perception between ethnicity and disability expressed by the interviewees.

Table 16. Ethnicity And Disability

	No. Of People	Percentage
Better than People of Different Ethnicities	23	23%
Same as People of Different Ethnicities	70	70%
Worse than People of Different Ethnicities	34	34%

Taking into account the way in which the interviewees described ethnicity issues and its relation to disability, we determined that 70% considers that there are no differences in treatment, that persons of different ethnicities and persons with disabilities are treated in the same way. 34% consider that persons with disabilities are treated worse and 23% stated that persons with disabilities are treated better.

It is important to mention that these results do not refer to a particular ethnicity. When the interviewees state that the treatment for ethnicity and persons with disabilities is the same, these shows that their rights are violated in the same way. They stated that persons with disabilities are treated better than persons from other ethnicities, they mentioned the situations of extreme poverty that indigenous groups go through, who are displaced by violence. On the other hand, when they stated that persons with disabilities are treated worse than certain ethnic groups they mentioned groups of African descent who have great work abilities and can access the labor market more easily and have better guarantee in the income and support services that they may need.

14.7 Social Class And Disability

Table 17 below includes the information about the perception between social class and disability expressed by the interviewees.

Table 17. Social Class And Disability

	No. Of People	Percentage
Better than low income	34	34%
Same as low income	97	97%
Worse than low income	35	35%

Taking into account the way in which the interviewees described the difference in treatment between persons of low income and persons with disabilities, we determined that 97% consider that there is no difference in treatment, people of low income and people with disabilities are treated the same way. 35% consider that people with disabilities are treated worse and another 35% expressed that people with disabilities are treated better.

These results show the undeniable relationship between poverty and disability. When the interviewees stated that the treatment for low income people and persons with disabilities is the same, this shows that their rights are violated in the same way. When they said that persons with disability are treated better than low income people (with no disabilities), they mentioned situations where people with disabilities can have access to benefits. On the other hand, when they said that persons with disabilities are treated worse than low income people (with no disabilities) they mentioned how easy it is to enter the labor market, they also make reference to issues of communication and information and social participation in general.

General Conclusions & Final Recommendations

This report and monitoring processes shows that in spite of the advancements in policies, laws and programs related to disabilities in Colombia, there is a huge gap for the persons with disabilities to be acknowledged and to fully and effectively enjoy the principles and human rights proposed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

This gap is evident by the high level of abuse and discrimination daily faced by people with disabilities, whose rights to social participation, guaranteed income and support services, privacy and family life, health, habilitation and rehabilitation, education, information and communication and access to justice, as well as their core principles are systematically violated.

In this respect, social participation is the mostly violated aspect within the rights analyzed. This is related to the lack of guaranteed income and support services, which are not adequate for the persons with disabilities to take an active role in the community.

Besides, the family, care providers and partners have an essential and initial role, which is almost permanent, in the respect of privacy, autonomy, dignity and other principles of the CRPD. They also allow for access to systems such as those of health, education, employment, information and communication.

One aspect to be taken into account is that the regulations and legal requirements to make reports and to enforce the rights with specific legal actions are unknown. There is also a lack of acknowledgement of the legal capacity of the persons with disabilities, which is actually the main barrier for the effective enjoyment of human rights.

Taking into account all this information, it may be inferred that all these rights and principles are essentially interrelated and joint. However, their effective implementation requires the development of a balance based on the change of paradigm. This is where most of the violations originate, since persons with disabilities are only seen from the point of view of the disease or deficiency, without even realizing their category of citizens before the society.

The persons with disabilities and their organizations have the joint responsibility to change the current social imaginary which is based on charity and assistance, deficiency and lack of autonomy, among others. This requires the support of government and private bodies, as well as technical and financial cooperation, both at the national and international level, which will allow us to see the persons with disabilities as human beings who provide to the social development.

It is also essential to carry out information, communication and outreach campaigns to teach the broad community that the manner to conceive disability has changed, thus demythologizing the fact that disability means disease.

Current legislative regulation and harmonization must continue to achieve an effective implementation of the CRPD, removing figures such as interdiction to allow for support systems or strategies and support to make decisions, not only for hereditary issues, but also for life as a whole.

Many more conclusions and recommendations may be drawn from the information and data hereby analyzed and systematized. We highlight these as the most significant ones, based on the voice and reality seen by the persons with disabilities themselves, applying the motto of the CRPD in a concrete manner.

This work has allowed us to generate and strengthen the technical capacity regarding human rights of the persons with disabilities and their organizations, and to understand, in a theoretical and practical manner, how the rights of the persons with disabilities are violated, which requires the performance of monitoring, control and follow-up in the implementation of the CRPD.

References

• Aula Para Todos – Si tu estas estamos Todos. Ajustes razonables para la inclusión educativa de las personas con discapacidad en Colombia. Natalia Ángel Cavo/ Lucas Correa Montoya / Alejandra Cardona Acebedo. Boletín Especial de la Fundación Saldarriaga y Concha. Inclusión para todos. April 2011.
• Bases para la formación de una política pública en discapacidad para el periodo 2003-2006. Comité Técnico Nacional de Discapacidad, Representantes Grupos de Enlace Sectorial, Divulgación y Soporte Logístico: Ascopar- Capital Humano. Consejería Nacional de Programas especiales. Red de Solidaridad. Comité Técnico Nacional para la Discapacidad.
• Corte Constitucional de Colombia. Sentencia T-025/04, entre otras. Agencia Oficiosa en Tutelas.
• “Dignidad de la persona, derechos fundamentales, bloque constitucional de derechos y control de convencionalidad.” Humberto Nogueira Alcalá.
• Discapacidad Cognitiva. Congreso de la Republica de Colombia. April 2004.
• Discapacidad en Colombia: Reto para la Inclusión en Capital Humano. Julio Cesar Gómez Beltrán, Fundación Saldarriaga. April 2010.
• Directriz de enfoque diferencial para el goce efectivo de Derechos para las personas en situación de desplazamiento forzado con discapacidad en Colombia. Unhcr, Acnur, Ministerio de Protección Social – Republica de Colombia. January 2011.
• Esquema de codificación para datos de Entrevistas sobre experiencias individuales. Disability Rights Promotion International (DRPI). York University. Canada
• Evaluación Institucional de la Política Nacional De Discapacidad Complementada con una Evaluación De Resultados Cualitativos Sobre la Población Con Discapacidad Informe final. Econometria. November 2012. Colombia.
• Información Estadística de la Discapacidad. Dane. July 2004.Colombia.
• Guía de actuación y protocolos del alto gobierno en caso de un desastre súbito de cobertura Nacional. Documento General y Protocolos de Actuación. Sistema nacional para la prevención y atención de desastres. Dirección de Gestión del Riesgo. July 2006. Colombia.
• Guía para el monitoreo de los Derechos Humanos de las Personas con Discapacidad. Versión para Participantes. Capacitación Regional. Con Adaptaciones PcDPs Colombia- Disability Rights Promotion International (DRPI). York University. Canada. May 2013.
• Guía para el monitoreo de los Derechos Humanos de las Personas con Discapacidad. Versión para Facilitadores. Capacitación Regional. Con Adaptaciones PcDPs Colombia-. Disability Rights Promotion International (DRPI). York University. Canada. May 2013.
• Informe inicial sobre la implementación de la Convención sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad en Colombia. Informe Inicial. June 2013. Republic of Colombia.
• Informe para el Examen Periódico Universal sobre los derechos humanos de las personas con discapacidad en Colombia. Organización de las naciones unidas Consejo de Derechos Humanos Décimo Sexta Sesión. April 22 to May 3, 2013.
• Ley 1618 de 2013
• Ley 1616 de 2013
• Por Medio de la Cual se Expide la ley de Salud Mental y se Dictan Otras Disposiciones. Ley 1346 de 2009.
• Ley 1306 de 2009
• Por medio de la cual se organiza el Sistema Nacional de Discapacidad y se dictan otras disposiciones. Ley 1145 de 2007.
• Normas Integrales de protección a la Discapacidad en Colombia. Ministerio de Protección Social. Bogotá 2010.
• Normograma Discapacidad Colombia 2013. Marco Normativo Nacional de Personas Con Discapacidad en Colombia. www.minsalud.gov.co/buscar/results.aspx?k=normograma%20discapacidad%20noviembre%202013&s=All%20Sites
• Política nacional para promover la inclusión y el desarrollo de la población con discapacidad a través del acceso, uso, apropiación y aprovechamiento de las Tic. Tic Incluyente . Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones. September 2012.
• Promover la participación activa libre y significativa de los niños, niñas y adolescentes. Sesión Especial de la Asamblea General de la Onu en favor de la Infancia , 2002.
• Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2006- 2010. Ley 1151 de 2007.
• Planilla para el Monitoreo de Leyes, Políticas y Programas. Sistema de Monitoreo. Disability Rights Promotion International (DRPI). Universidad de York. Canada. May 2011.
• Proyecto de Atención Integral a Personas con discapacidad, Familias, cuidadores y cuidadoras- Cerrando Brechas. Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá. Bogotá Humana 2011. Colombia.
• Proyecto de Ley Goce Efectivo de los Derechos de las Personas Con Discapacidad Colombia. Ministerio del Interior, en la Secretaría del Congreso de Colombia el 30 de agosto de 2011.
• Resumen Informe Mundial de Discapacidad. Banco Mundial. Organización Mundial de la Salud – 2011.
• Sembrar para Cosechar. Los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad en Latinoamérica. Red Latinoamericana de Organizaciones No Gubernamentales de Personas con Discapacidad y sus familias. San José de Costa Rica. January 2011.