4th Meeting, 1st session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Older Persons (IGWG)
Human Rights Council
Date: 15 July 2026
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/asset/k1h/k1hzvd5jlx
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [0:03]:

Good morning, Excellencies, distinguished participants. I declare open the 4th meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the human rights of older persons. This morning we will resume our plenary discussions under item 4 for the consideration of the outcome of the call for submissions, and I now will switch into Spanish for a small intervention. I'm sorry, I go again. Excellencies.

Excellencies, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, this is an important moment in our work with the presentation of the summary of contributions received, and I wish warmly to thank the Office of the High Commissioner for the excellent work done and the 30 or so states that have provided over 200 contributions. Behind each of those, there's time, thought, and a decision. The decision is part of this process from the beginning. What we have now does not seek to anticipate the conclusions. It's an overview of our ideas, our differences, and perhaps of the first foundations that we can build. The major international instruments never grew out of a lack of differences but rather from the willingness to understand them and find a way forward together. These contributions The participation of older persons themselves is part of this process. It makes it real. It gives it sense and legitimacy. So we must listen to them openly not to confirm what we already think but to understand what others think. To create a common instrument, we need to learn to build something together. I thank you.

I would like to invite Mrs. Peggy Hicks, Director of the Thematic and Special Procedures Division at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to present the informal analytical summary prepared by the Office on the contributions received. Mrs. Hicks, you have the floor.


OHCHR · Director, Thematic and Special Procedures Division · Peggy Hicks [2:50]:

Thank you very much. Before jumping into my prepared remarks, I just want to say how, how absolutely pleased I am to be here with, with all of you who are devoting your time and effort to what is, I think, one of the most important areas of possibility for progress on human rights, which in today's world, I think we all see as, as just incredibly important and worthy of all the effort that you're all going to put in. So just echoing the chair rapporteur's remarks about the need for us to come together around this. We've been waiting some time, and we're all very excited about the potential and so happy that so many people from the diplomatic community, the academic community— I see the current and former independent experts— and of course, the incredibly engaged and helpful civil society engagement around these issues. All of you have made such a difference in bringing us to this moment, and really looking forward to seeing what can be achieved through the IGWG. So with that, I'm very pleased, of course, to be with you at this first substantive session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Human Rights of Older Persons, and to share some of the key elements that emerged from the Chair's call for inputs, launched following the organizational session held in February. The Chair, at that time, as you recall, invited member states, observers, United Nations entities, national human rights institutions, civil society organizations, academic institutions, and other relevant stakeholders to submit their views on a range of issues relevant to the mandate of the Working Group. The response to this call for inputs has been remarkable. By 24 June 2026, some 202 submissions had been received from Member States, observers, United Nations entities, and experts, including the Independent Expert. National human rights institutions, civil society organizations, academic institutions, and individual experts. This breadth of participation reflects the importance that many stakeholders attach to this new process and provides a rich basis for the discussions ahead. It also shows the significant interest that the establishment of this Working Group has generated across regions and among a wide range of actors. The diversity of contributors and perspectives reflected in the submissions is also noteworthy. The inputs draw on different legal traditions, policy approaches, institutional experience, and different national contexts. Taken together, they provide a valuable resource for the Working Group as it embarks on its substantive work. The diversity of perspectives contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of both the challenges and opportunities related to the enjoyment of human rights of older persons. The contributions received have made— are being made available now on the working group's webpage. To facilitate your discussions, the Secretariat has prepared an unofficial summary of the inputs received. This summary does not replace the original submissions and, given the large number received, cannot capture every nuance of the views expressed. It should therefore be read without prejudice to the original submissions, all of which may be consulted on the webpage. In preparing the unofficial summary, the Secretariat sought to identify recurring themes and issues raised across the submissions while preserving the diversity of views expressed. The summary is intended solely as a facilitative tool to support discussions and should not be understood as reflecting any hierarchy among the issues or as attributing greater weight to particular perspectives advanced by contributors. Regarding the overarching framework, many submissions emphasized that the future instrument should be firmly grounded in the existing international human rights framework. Across many contributions, there was a shared emphasis on ensuring that older persons are fully recognized as rights holders, and that the application of existing human rights standards in older age is clarified and strengthened. Different views were expressed as to how a future instrument might best clarify, reinforce, or further develop existing standards as they apply to older persons. And emphasized the need for gender-responsive and disability-inclusive approaches within this overarching framework. Contributors also highlighted the importance of ensuring that responses remain relevant in the context of demographic change, digital transformation, climate change, and humanitarian situations. At the same time, a number of submissions also emphasized complementarity within existing instruments and the need to avoid duplication. and the importance of taking into account implementation and reporting considerations. Turning to the scope and core principles, the submissions reveal a number of commonly cited principles that should guide the future instrument. Dignity, equality, and non-discrimination, autonomy and independence, participation and inclusion, and accessibility feature repeatedly across submissions from different stakeholders. While submissions approach these principles from different perspectives, they emerge as a foundation upon which many envision the future instrument could be built. Many submissions also identify areas where contributors consider greater normative specificity may be warranted in the particular context of older persons. These include, among others, long-term care, health and care services, palliative care, access to justice, social protection, digital inclusion, and participation in decision-making. While perspectives vary, this provides a useful indication of the issues that many submissions put forward for further examination as the Working Group proceeds with its mandate. At the same time, submissions frequently highlighted the interconnected nature of these issues. Contributors noted that the enjoyment of human rights in older age is often shaped by a combination of social, economic, legal, institutional, and technological factors. This underscores the importance of considering these issues in a holistic and integrated manner. Some contributors raised questions concerning monitoring arrangements, reporting procedures, possible treaty body structures, complaint mechanisms, the relationship within— with existing international mechanisms, and the implications for states in the United Nations systems. These issues are likely to require further reflection as discussions advance. In conclusion, the submissions reflect the depth of experience— expertise, experience, and engagement that stakeholders have brought to this process. They illustrate both the complexity of the issues under consideration and the willingness of a wide range of actors to contribute constructively to the work of the Working Group. The submissions identify issues for further reflection and reflect a diversity of perspectives while at the same time demonstrating areas where perspectives have started to converge. Taken together, they provide a rich basis for the discussions that will take place during the session and for the work ahead. We hope that the official summary, together with the original submissions, will serve as useful reference material for delegates as they undertake this important task. Our Office remains fully committed to continuing its support to this important process and to assisting the Working Group in the fulfillment of its mandate. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [10:59]:

Thank you very much, Mrs. Hicks, for your presentation. Let me now introduce, to frame this segment of our discussion, I will now hand over the floor to the Deputy Permanent Representative from The Gambia, Mr. Marena, that will frame the discussions and will introduce our resource persons. Mr. Marena, you have the floor.


Gambia · Deputy Permanent Representative · Mr. Marena [11:23]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, at the outset, please allow me to thank Ms. And the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the comprehensive oral update and for compiling the wide-ranging submissions that have been received so far. And of course, I want to join Ms. Hicks in really congratulating everyone for the significant progress that has been achieved to date. I mean, it's not so easy in this day and age to really, I mean, agree, you know, the consensus in the field of human rights. But I think this process has been an exception to that, and we wish to really thank everyone for their sustained engagement and, of course, for the significant progress that has been made. As we have heard from the oral submissions, I mean, the oral update, the submissions reflect a diversity of perspectives from member states, national human rights institutions, civil society organizations, international organizations, and other stakeholders, whilst also showing areas where views are beginning to converge. Building on that overview, I mean, please allow me to highlight 3 considerations for our discussions today. I mean, first, the submissions reveal several areas of emerging convergence. There is broad support for a legally binding instrument, as you all heard from the oral submissions, oral update, grounded in international human rights law, based on the recognition of older persons as full rights holders. There also appears to be considerable agreement on the central importance of dignity, equality and non-discrimination, autonomy and independence, participation and inclusion, accessibility and protection from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. At the same time, the submissions have also identified issues that on which member states may hold differing views, and we look forward to hearing further perspectives from you today— I mean, during the discussions. Secondly, the submissions also offer useful guidance on the possible overarching framework, core principles, and structure of the instrument. We could also see from the submissions that there is a call for the future establishment for the future instrument to build on existing human rights law, whilst addressing gaps in protection and implementation that are specific to older persons. There also appears to be broad support for a structure comprising a preamble, definitions, general principles, general obligations, substantive rights, implementation and monitoring provisions, and final clauses. The focus of our discussion today will ensure that this structure is legally clear, coherent, and sufficiently flexible to respond to differing national contexts. Thirdly and lastly, the submissions have also shown that the instrument should not just be simply a collection of views, but should help guide the next stages of the Working Group's work. This would help the Working Group to move in a structured manner from broad discussions towards development of a draft treaty language. And it would also be important to ensure that older persons and their perspectives, as well as representative organizations, remain meaningfully involved throughout the process. And so building on this framework, it is my belief that our exchanges today will help sharpen these areas and provide clearer direction for the work ahead. And with those few remarks and summary of what we have heard from Ms. Hicks this morning, it is now my pleasure to introduce our resource person, Professor Andrew Byrnes. Professor Byrnes is a professor of international law and human rights at the University of New South Wales. He has extensive experience and expertise in equality and non-discrimination, and the rights of persons with disabilities, and the human rights of older persons, and has advised a range of national and international institutions, including the United Nations. And so we are very lucky to have Professor Pines in our midst today to really, I mean, get us going this morning. And without much ado, I now yield the floor to Professor Byrnes for your intervention. Thank you.


UNSW · Professor · Andrew Byrnes [16:10]:

Thank you very much, Ambassador, for your kind introduction and your upbeat approach to the topic. I'm honored to be a resource person and to speak on this panel on the responses to the Chair's call for inputs. I thank the OHCHR Secretariat, for the comprehensive and helpful summary of the submissions, and also Ms. Peggy Hicks for her comments this morning. Though I must say the podium seems a little underpopulated without my colleagues from civil society organisations and NHRI. I'll use my time this morning to identify, as the 2 previous speakers have to some extent, the many points of broad agreement in the submissions by all categories of stakeholders. And these turned out to be many more than I'd originally expected, even though I'd been part of this process for some time. There are, of course, divergent views on some issues, and some of those are recurring issues, some of them are new, though many of these can, as in other contexts, probably be resolved with goodwill and open minds. And even though translating the broad agreement that I'll talk about shortly into specific treaty provisions will surely reveal differences in perspectives and emphasis, we should, I believe, be optimistic that we can make substantial progress in our task in the near future. My reflections today are my own rather than organizationally endorsed and are based on my reading of the roughly 200 submissions supplemented by some closely scrutinized AI assistance as well as the excellent OHR summary. But my comments are not intended to be exhaustive. And I'm sure that others will have different perspectives on my view on the submissions. So I offer these comments for discussion and debate. Firstly, the extent of agreement. The extent of general agreement is striking across all categories of stakeholders in relation to the fundamental concepts, general principles, specific areas to be covered, and the structure of the instrument. And that is the case not only between because there are so many submissions, but because of the consistency across them. I know we've only had only— we've had only 30 state submissions, but when you add that to the 80 states, or include the 80 states that co-sponsored Resolution 5813, and the many supportive statements in addition that have been made already in this session, I think it gives us confidence in assuming that that level of agreement does exist and is broad. That should not be a surprise, given the extensive work on these issues over many years at the Open-Ended Working Group on Aging, in this— in the Human Rights Council, and in other fora. The principal matters on which there is a large measure of high-level agreement include— and I'll list 14, although it's not exhaustive, and I apologize for going over some old ground, but I think it's important to delineate those so that— help us give structure, but also to underscore the extent of the progress that we've made in these discussions. One, the need to reaffirm respect for the inherent dignity of the person and equal worth of all persons and their rights to autonomy and independence. Two, the need to embody the famous paradigm shift that moves from seeing older persons as passive recipients of welfare and objects of pity to active agents, full rights holders who enjoy full legal capacity and are entitled to live their lives as they choose. 3, the need to change dominant negative narratives about individual and demographic ageing. 4, the critical need to name and define ageism, to recognise that it's an important cause of the denial of the human rights of older persons and to make sure we seek to eliminate it. 5, the need to acknowledge that the concepts of older persons and older age are socially structured, and that the treaty should reflect this in its definitions and scope of coverage. 6, the need to build existing standards— build on existing standards in a way that does not undermine them nor regress from them, in particular drawing on the standards experiences of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 7, the need to include clear and strong general obligations on States Parties against which they can be held accountable, similar to those sets of general obligations in the existing treaties, but an updated version of them. 8, the need to include guarantees of substantive, transformative, and inclusive equality, including but not limited to the area of gender equality. 9, the need to recognize and ensure protection against intersectional discrimination that reflects the many ways in which older age, and other individual and group characteristics interact, as well as including cumulative discrimination across the life course. 10, the need to protect older persons against violence, exploitation and abuse by both public and private actors in all settings. 11, the need to ensure that older persons have non-discriminatory access to health services and access to the care and support that they need and want while enjoying the right to live independently and in the community. 12, and a critical substantive and procedural dimension, the guarantee of the right of older persons and their representative organisations to participate meaningfully in all international and national-level policymaking that affects them, including, of course, every aspect of these discussions and the formal and informal negotiations of this treaty. 13, the need to make rights on paper effective. By providing for effective, efficient monitoring and implementation procedures at international and national levels, and ensuring effective access to justice and remedies by older persons nationally. Fourteenth, and finally, but not exhaustively, the need to improve the collection of statistics appropriately disaggregated by age and age cohorts, so that the diverse lives of older persons are fully captured, and this data is used to enrich policy development and implementation. There is, of course, also support for other obligations, and I mentioned in particular, in relation to some of the Global South perspectives that have been expressed, the importance of developing provisions around international cooperation in development matters. So there's some specific issues. Let me talk broadly, then, about the sorts of rights that might appear. And it seems that support is generally, logically, if not always expressly, in favor of a full catalog of human rights, so a full-bodied treaty. The support, thus, is for those lists of rights that appear already in existing treaties and other relevant instruments. Some submissions suggested that only a limited range of rights, those said to be of particular importance for older persons, should be included. Other submissions understandably also expressed the desire to avoid unnecessary duplication. However, this is easier said than done. When we look at the rights contained in the UDHR, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the international covenants on human rights and other treaties, We find, in fact, if you go through one by one, that all of these rights and some others are in fact relevant to the lives of older persons, and all of them are or have been denied at different times and in different places up to and including the present. For example, the political rights to vote and stand for election might not perhaps immediately spring to mind as one of the top or priority issues when thinking of older people's human rights. Yet, there are at least 10 references in the inputs which were submitted to the political rights of older persons and infringements on them. And if you go through every right listed in those general treaties and the specific treaties, you will be able to find relevance to the contemporary lives of older persons. Worded Racial Discrimination Convention, which is much shorter, much more compact, much less ambitious in some ways. Both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities include provisions which duplicate, which carry over exact language from the covenants. The drafters of those treaties did not see this as involving unnecessary duplication, even if it involves duplication. Why? Because the general guarantees that were carried over are specifically supplemented by particular adaptations to the situations of persons with disabilities and children, respectively, and each provision forms a complete and coherent provision. And that, I think, is what we are or should be aiming for with this new treaty. Let me then turn to the expansion or clarification of some existing rights and the inclusion of new and emerging areas, once again building on what Ms. Hicks and the Ambassador have said. There is clearly very broad support amongst all stakeholders for expanding, or at least clarifying, that the right— for example, some existing rights. Examples often listed include clarifying that the right to palliative care is part of the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, at least if we're not creating new rights. Another is the elaboration of the right to lifelong learning for older persons, both for vocational and employment purposes as well as for self-fulfilment, elaborating that as part of the right to education. And there are many others, including in the area of social protection, social support. There's also strong support for addressing issues that have not been addressed adequately or at all in the human rights treaties thus far, partly because they weren't around in the '50s, '60s, '70s, and '80s when those treaties were drafted. Digital divides, digital accessibility, the opportunities and dangers of artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision-making generally, and particular reference to older people, climate change and its impact on human rights generally, on the rights of older persons, the important but complex topic of intergenerational relationships and solidarity, older persons in conflicts and emergencies, and the, I think, very complex and important topics of loneliness and social isolation, becoming more and more accepted as a major social issue. How we deal with that within human rights terms, I think, has yet really to be well theorized and put into practice. And there are others. Let me then mention a couple of issues with a relatively low profile thus far. There are some issues mentioned in the inputs that have previously received little attention in the discussions thus far. And we need to ensure that the following perspectives and issues are picked up and appropriately included in the instrument. Firstly, Indigenous peoples' rights. There's a certain irony there. We're meeting at the same time as the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and yet we haven't really engaged with Indigenous peoples in this area. The perspectives of small island states, including but not limited to those in the Pacific. Older persons in detention, as prison populations around the world increase in number. and age, persons living with dementia, including early onset dementia, and the complex issue of care work and older persons. How should the instrument deal with these issues as a human rights matter, but not try and deal with the whole dimensions, the whole problem, or the whole challenge, the whole topic of care work? That needs further consideration. And finally, business and human rights of older persons. Relatively little reference, for example, to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, or indeed in their activities under those principles in relation to older persons. Finally, monitoring. We've heard a lot about that. We're going to hear a lot more about it as times go on. Academic careers have come and gone while trying to reform the UN human rights treaty body system, and we're still not there. Monitoring is a challenging issue. We all wish to see effective monitoring of the new instrument. Some submissions have raised legitimate concerns that replicating what we now have under the other core treaties will not be useful or effective, given the current problems with the human rights body treaty system. Others wanted to see a monitoring mechanism for this treaty that is of equivalent rigor, or perhaps even greater rigor, to existing than existing procedures. We do need to think creatively, think AI. Think different approaches starting now, but it would be premature to take any firm decision on monitoring now. It's better to wait to finalise this issue till we've had time to think more and a better idea of the substantive content of the instrument. Finally, a point which is perhaps a little academic, but it's important: moving beyond the core treaties. We also need to include— to consider including rights accepted as part of international law outside the core human rights treaties, including, for example, some of those set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and also, say, for an example of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment endorsed by both the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. These are 2 important but not exclusive examples. And in relation to the latter, we should also be drawing on recent jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice in its 2025 advisory opinion of the obligations of states in relation to climate change and human rights, as well as on the treaty body jurisprudence and regional human rights jurisprudence on this topic. So, in conclusion, the inputs, and I think the vast majority of the statements that we've heard at this session, demonstrate, in my view, a broadly shared vision of the objectives of and rationale for this new instrument, as well as of its general scope structure, and the rights— type of rights and specific rights to be included. I believe that has crystallized as a result of the call for inputs process. This level of agreement, this range of agreement, has emerged from and builds on the extensive evidence combined— compiled previously and the discussions held over the last 15 years. There's still an enormous amount of work to be done, but we now— we must take decisive action to move towards text. We need a firm timeline, a clear process that provides for meaningful participation of civil society in NHRI in all its aspects, and a sense of urgency to advance towards our shared goal. Thank you.


Gambia · Deputy Permanent Representative · Mr. Marena [31:58]:

Thank you very much, Professor Bynes, for that very comprehensive and thought-provoking presentation. I think really done justice. Maybe a round of applause for Professor. Indeed, your— I mean, your presentation has provided valuable guidance, I mean, for all of us, I believe, on how these submissions may be understood, I mean, and how they can assist the Working Group in identifying areas of convergence and resolve unanswered questions and provide direction for the future instrument that we are all looking forward to. So with those brief remarks, Mr. Chair, Rapporteur, I now have the honour to return the floor to you for the interactive discussion.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [32:53]:

Thank you.

I thank you and I thank Mr. Barnes for his valuable contribution. You said it very clearly and I fully agree. I give the floor now— I will now open the floor for The interactive discussion. We will start with member states. Those interested can raise their nameplates. La primera en la lista que veo.

The first on the list that I see is the delegation of Spain.


Spain [33:32]:

Thank you, Chair. Spain reaffirms its commitment to an international convention for human rights for. Older persons, and we appreciate this effort in this ITG. In the framework of this effort and responding to requests for contributions, I'd like to underscore certain concerns regarding the guiding principles for the future binding instrument. First, Spain reiterates the need for this instrument to place this group as right holders, active right holders. That recognize ageism as a structural form of discrimination and that it take a cross-cutting gender focus and an intersectional focus, including the issue of disabilities, guaranteeing equal treatment and with respect for gender equality and sexual orientation equality. This can lead to egalitarian societies that show solidarity for all ages. We believe that it is essential that the systems for support and care be based in a human rights-based approach focused on people. It must be people-focused. It must promote deinstitutionalization, must be community-based. For this reason, it is essential to safeguard dignity, identity, and the links with the— with older persons, protecting their autonomy and their respect for their preferences, their full inclusion in society, and their full and effective participation in the decision-making processes. Third, it is essential that we incorporate the technology dimension in this as a structural element for the enjoyment of human rights, recognizing that digitalization, AI, and data use can broaden or restrict the enjoyment of the rights of this population group. We must ensure that development and the use of this technology respects dignity, autonomy, and equality, avoiding new forms of discrimination, exclusion, or control. as well as recognizing the digital divide as a form of structural inequality that limits access for older persons to rights, services, and participation. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [35:41]:

Thank you very much.


Czechia [35:48]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Czech Republic welcomes the OHCHR summary as a useful basis for further discussion. As under the CRPD framework, age should never constitute a barrier in access to human rights and fundamental freedoms. We are pleased that it reflects broad convergence on a human rights-based approach, recognition of older persons as rights holders, and the need to address ageism and age-based discrimination. The future instrument should add value by explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the ground of age, addressing intersectional discrimination, ensuring autonomy and legal capacity, and strengthening access to justice and remedies. Czech Republic supports functional and non-stigmatizing definitions. We attach particular importance to accessibility, including digital accessibility, AI safeguards, and effective non-digital alternatives for essential services. Long-term care and support should be rights-based, person-centered, and consistent with the will and preferences of older persons. References to family, community, or solidarity must not dilute the primary responsibility of states or undermine autonomy and enforceable rights. We support robust but coherent monitoring, including the treaty body national independent mechanisms, and meaningful participation of older persons and their organizations. The next step should be to transform the identified convergence into clear treaty language that is complementary to existing standards and based on a no-regression approach. I thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [37:36]:

I thank the representative of the Czech Republic, and I now give the floor to Qatar. Qatar.


Qatar [37:56]:

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The State of Qatar has granted the due attention to the human rights, namely of older persons. We have passed many laws and regulations. The State of Qatar established the National Institution for Women, Children, Older Persons, and Persons with Disabilities. Based on our interest in, uh, in the rights of the older persons, we have issued a decree in 2024 whereby, uh, all institutions are called to use a term qualifying older persons as persons of greater value and role. And we have also been taking care of the modern dimensions of getting older. We call for including the following concepts in the SOC: human dignity as a basis of all rights, effective participation of all older persons in decision-making on equal footing with others, protection from all forms of abuses and violations, securing social and legal protection and social protection, bridging the gaps. The instrument should start with a preamble defining its scope and objectives. It should comprise the general provisions including definitions, definition of older persons, main principles, and a clear legal text that will clearly stipulate that it is a legally binding instrument. And we should also take into account the various needs of various age groups, and the LBI should also determine the state's obligations when it comes to protecting and promoting rights of older persons and monitoring and gathering relevant data. Finally, we reiterate the importance of respecting national sovereignty and not interfering into the national laws and not including social principles that are not subject to international agreement. And we also need to ensure compliance when it comes to human rights obligations and other conventions that we have ratified. It is important to also take into account the national law, Islamic Sharia, cultural values, social values, and also to provide a certain degree of flexibility. The LBI should not contain legal— apologies, financial obligations. We reiterate our attachment to the human rights instruments we have ratified, and we have also updated and amended our laws according to international standards while preserving our national and cultural specificity. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [41:06]:

Thank you, Qatar, for your intervention. I've been asked by interpreters if all delegations wishing to take the floor can kindly send statements Please send your questions beforehand to the following address, speeches@un.org. Please, to help the interpreters that are in any case doing a wonderful job. I now give the floor to the distinguished delegate from Brazil.


Brazil [41:35]:

Thank you, Chair. I would like to first thank Mr. Peggy Hicks and Professor Barnes for their presentations. I have the pleasure to present the Brazil contribution to the International Instrument of the Rights of the Older Person. Brazil proposes to recognize older persons as rights holders and active participants in social, political, economic, and cultural life. Brazil considers the instrument should be grounded in the human rights-based approach guided by dignity, autonomy, independence, participation, equality, and non-discrimination based on age. Brazil's contribution emphasized that aging is a diverse and multidimensional process. Old age is shaped by inequalities accumulated through the life course, such as gender, race, ethnicity, disability, socioeconomic status, territory, sexual orientation, gender identity, and access to rights. Brazil processes intersectionality to serve as a structural and operational principle, ensuring protection for older persons who face a gravity of overlapping forms of vulnerability. Particular attention should be given to the older woman, Black and Indigenous older persons, older persons with disabilities, older persons living in poverty, in street situations, deprived of liberty, institutionalized, in situations of isolation, and those facing extreme social exclusion. Brazil highlights the importance on an intercultural perspective regarding indigenous peoples and traditional communities. A central element of Brazil's ideas in the recognition of care as a human right and a structural dimension of public policy. Care should be addressed as an autonomous right and as a foundation for dignity, autonomy, social protection, and participation. Brazil advocates standards for long-term care which are accessible, Accessible, continuous, person-centered, and culturally appropriate services integrated with health, social assistance, housing, mobility, and protecting policies. Brazil highlights the need to support paid and unpaid care workers through training, psychosocial support, social protection, and decent work conditions. In particular, Particularly relevant given the gender reorganization of care, which plays a disproportionate burden of women, including older women. Care should be a shared responsibility among the states, the private sector, communities, and with the families, women and men alike. Another priority is prevention and response to violence against older persons, including physical, psychological, sexual, institutional, financial, patrimonial, and digital violence, as well as neglect, abandonment, and exploitation. Brazil supports accessible reporting mechanisms, qualified and humanized services, protective measures, accountability, and reparations. Violence against older women's recalcitration given its invisibility and disproportionality and links to economic dependency gender inequality, and digital exclusion. Brazil stressed digital inclusion, lifelong education, access to information, accessibility, mobility, participation, gender and gender-neutral solidarity, and protection from social isolation as essential to autonomy, citizenship, belonging, and dignity. Brazil proposed that the instrument be clear, current, accessible, inclusive, and capable of guiding public policy, judicial interpretation, institutional action. In conclusion, Brazil advocates an instrument that recognizes the person in all their diversity, addresses ageism and structural inequality, strengthens autonomy and care, prevents violence, and assures aging with dignity, equality, participation, and full enjoyment of human rights. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [46:01]:

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished delegate from Brazil, and I now give the floor to the delegation of the GCC.


GCC · GCC [46:17]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our countries express their appreciation to the OHCHR for highlighting the submissions by various state countries and countries These submissions are important to define areas of convergence and to clarify issues that still require more dialogue. And this will enable the Working Group to move from multiple visions to a unified platform for a clear and practical instrument with an added value. We consider a convergence on a number of main fundamental principles Namely recognizing older persons as active right holders enjoying all rights on equal footing. An important convergence appeared on human dignity, non-ageism, independent participation, and protection from all forms of violence and neglect and abuse, as well as access to healthcare, social protection information, social justice, justice and digital and technical inclusion. These factors are important to move from an approach focusing on care only to a more comprehensive one that includes protection, empowerment, participation, and care, while respecting the important role of family, society, and solidarity. At the same time, there are some topics that require more clarification through in order to reach an efficient and implementable instrument, namely main concepts, definitions, scope of commitment, monitoring and follow-up, progress measurement, and the nature of commitments pertaining to care and support services. The instrument should include clear concepts that help to achieve implementation while keeping some flexibility to countries when it comes to their national legislations and demographic and social characteristics. Monitoring and follow-up should be based on a consultative and transparent approach that supports exchange of expertise, best practices, and follow-up of implementation. We would like also to focus on 3 main areas. First, the instrument should be based on relevant existing international instruments and to prove what is the added value when it comes to older persons without unnecessary duplication or unclear commitments. Second, the drafting of the instrument should take into account the multiplicity of legal, social, and cultural systems, levels of development, national resources, and to allow flexibility for countries to choose the best legislative, administrative, and policy measures. Third, the instrument should also recognize the role of family, society, solidarity between generations as efficient factor— essential factors to support older persons in a way that will complement the state responsibility and not limit it. Fourth, the instrument should be geared towards measurable outputs by encouraging clear indicators that help in terms of assessing development, developing policies, and achieve a real impact on the life of older persons. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [49:59]:

I thank the distinguished representative from the GCC, and I now give the floor to the delegation of Israel.


Israel [50:11]:

Thank you.

In our opening statement, we have affirmed Israel's support of this process and the discussion for the development of a legally binding instrument for the protection of the human rights of older persons. We have reviewed many of the submissions and identified the main principles and issues that arose, as was also presented here today. Israel itself has made a submission, so I will try to be brief and not repeat all that has been said in our submission. In line with the positions presented in many of the submissions, we support the fact that the negotiation of the future instrument should address the fundamental principles such as inter alia, human dignity, non-discrimination, participation of older persons in decisions that affect them, and inclusion. It should also promote a positive understanding of aging by recognizing that the need for support does not diminish a person's right, dignity, or autonomy, and that older persons should never be perceived as a burden on society. In addition, we— it will be necessary to discuss, as we have mentioned also in our statement, it will be necessary to discuss the institutional aspects and the monitoring mechanisms. At the same time, we have voiced the opinion that the instrument should address normative and implementation gaps. In doing so, it should avoid unnecessary repetition and duplication of existing international human rights instruments. We hear the divergent views on the topic of duplication, and we just think that it means that we have our work cut out for us, to work hard to identify and address gaps and make sure we include protection for rights that are not duplicative but necessary and adapted. We have a lot of work— I'm sorry, we support the discourse and the many submissions made will help inform and advance the discussion on this important issue. We have a lot of work ahead of us, but from the many comments submitted, it is clear that there is a positive spirit and a desire to promote the negotiations and discussions on the formation of an instrument to protect rights of older persons. Lastly, we agree with the comment made earlier that when a timeline is adopted and when we have drafting proposal, that will help moving the discussion forward in the practical sense. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [52:34]:

I thank the distinguished delegate from Israel, and I give the floor to Türkiye.


Türkiye [52:43]:

Thank you, Chair. The delegation of Türkiye thanks the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the preparation of this important summary, and also I would like to thank Professor Barnes for his comprehensive and clear evaluations. Türkiye firmly believes that older persons must be recognized as full rights holders entitled to equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. They are not merely beneficiaries of protection and care, but active members of society who continue to make invaluable contributions to families, communities, and sustainable development. In this regard, we support the development of a human rights-based and inclusive international framework that addresses existing protection gaps and enhances the visibility of older persons within the international human rights system. The future instrument should be firmly anchored in the existing international human rights architecture and should provide added value by clarifying the application of rights in older age, particularly in areas where normative and implementation gaps persist. Turkey attaches particular importance to the principle of human dignity, equality, and non-discrimination, autonomy, participation, accessibility, and protection from violence, abuse, and neglect. We further underline the necessity of combating ageism and age-based discrimination in all their manifestations, including those emerging in the context of rapid digital transformation and artificial intelligence. We also believe that a life course approach is essential. Inequalities experienced in older age often stem from disadvantages accumulated throughout life. Therefore, policies and legal frameworks should pay particular attention to older women and older persons with disabilities as well. Mr. Chair, Turkey places special emphasize on strengthening family and intergenerational solidarity. Families remain the cornerstone of support and care for older persons in many societies. In 2025, Turkey declared the Year of the Family, reaffirming our commitment to strengthening family bonds, promoting intergenerational solidarity, and supporting the well-being of all family members, including older persons. At the same time, recognition of the important role of families and communities should not diminish the primary responsibility of States to respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of older persons. Finally, Turkey underlines that future instruments should remain practical, implementable and sufficiently flexible to accommodate diverse national realities and capacities. International cooperation, technical assistance and the exchange of good practices will therefore be essential for effective implementation. Turkey stands ready to engage constructively in these negotiations with the shared objective of building an inclusive, forward-looking, and effective international framework that ensures no older person is left behind. I thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [55:52]:

Thank you, Turkey, for your contribution. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative from Japan.


Japan [56:03]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Japan places great importance on the promotion and protection of human rights of all persons, including older persons, and on upholding the principle of non-discrimination throughout the life course. So everyone should be respected as a responsible individual who are equally entitled to the full enjoyment of their human lives. We thank all speakers for their insightful presentation from the podium earlier and for sharing the summary input prepared by OSCHL. However, earlier circulation of such document in advance of the session would be more useful to understand the view from other members and other stakeholders. Now, we would like to share our observation of the summary. As many countries have pointed out in their submission and statement. Existing international human rights treaties already provide a solid foundation for the promotion and protection of the rights of older persons. Should a new legally binding instrument be developed, it should be built upon those existing international human rights treaties and ensure full coherence with them, including definition of key terms such as older person, to avoid any unnecessary identification with existing human rights instruments, we should first identify the gap to be addressed regarding the rights of older persons. We believe this should be the primary focus on our discussion in the earlier stage. And also, we see many submissions say it is essential we should take an intersectional and comprehensive approach And recognize that the situation of older persons are diverse and intersected with a range of issues including gender, health, disability, and socioeconomic and cultural factors. Having said that, we are ready to engage constructively.

Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [58:02]:

I thank the distinguished delegate from Japan. I now give the floor to the representative of State of Palestine.


State of Palestine [58:12]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The State of Palestine thanks the Office of the High Commissioner for its presentation and the resource persons for their valuable contribution. The call for submissions has provided a substantive basis to move forward. The task now is to translate the gaps identified into content of the future instrument. Palestine wishes to highlight one clear area requiring further normative development. The protection of older persons in situations of armed conflict and foreign occupation must be expressively— expressly addressed in the future instrument. These situations raise specific questions concerning how older age affects the enjoyment of the rights to life, health, and food, access to humanitarian assistance, family unity, and access to justice and remedy. They also expose age-specific barriers during evacuation and forced displacement, particularly for persons with reduced mobility, disabilities, or dependence on medication and assistive devices. We therefore believe the future instrument should contain clear substantive protections and corresponding age-responsive obligations in situations of risk. These should include protection during evacuation, and displacement, non-discriminatory and safe access to humanitarian access and healthcare, continuity of medication and assistive support, preservation of family and community support networks, and effective documentation, accountability, and remedies for violations. The submissions have already helped us identify the gaps. The next stage should be to develop substantive provisions necessary to address them. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [59:58]:

I thank the distinguished delegate from the State of Palestine, and I think that we have exhausted our list of speakers from member states. I see someone there. I don't know if the secretary can help me. Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, please, you have the floor.


Saudi Arabia [1:00:22]:

Thank you, Chairperson. At the outset, the delegation of Saudi Arabia aligns with the statement by the Gulf Cooperation Council. We thank the representatives of the Office of the High Commissioner for the updated information on the participation, the submissions made already. Saudi Arabia has presented its contribution on the framework, general structure, and basic principles on which the instrument should be based, drawing on the experience of our country in promoting and protecting the rights of older persons, including laws, for their inclusion, for the respect of their dignity, and the creation of a Council on Family Affairs with a section specifically on older persons. We also have the National Strategy for the Family, which seeks to build the capacities and the socioeconomic participation of older persons and protect them against isolation, abandonment, and negligence. Our country calls for a balance in terms of protection with the family and the community involved as well as the private sector, taking into account national capacities and differences between countries. Protection is key in our legislation, which establishes what roles should be played, including the family and the community and the state. So that responsibility is shared. Finally, my country considers that developing a legally binding instrument is a step forward for the global human rights system on condition that it is balanced and practical and based on semantic clarity, avoiding ambiguities and telescoping of terms in the legal sense. We must avoid that. Anything that is not the subject of international consensus and produce a wording which harmonizes the text and the commitments already undertaken by states and implemented by them. We must focus on practical measures, success stories of states, including within the national legislation that seeks to strengthen the rights of older persons. Taking into account plans implemented and best practice.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:03:31]:

Thank you.

I thank Saudi Arabia and I call on Guatemala.

Guatemala.


Guatemala [1:03:46]:

Thank you, Guatemala. Thanks to Chair and the Secretariat for organizing this discussion and for the presentation by the panelists. We believe it's important that the preamble reflects the historic, social, economic, political, community, and situational contribution by older persons and the need to overcome discrimination and recognize the demographic changes that justify this instrument The focus must be on human beings. This must be part of the legal instrument. Laws need to be updated to recognize the universality of human rights, their development, and the progressive codification. Older people have the right to receive adequate support and the right for their autonomy to be respected. This dimension is particularly relevant in contexts that involve long-term care, care for older persons with disabilities, residence, care for mental health, functional dependence, or digital divides where there can be greater vulnerability. Normative precision is particularly important where it refers to care and long-term care. There must be digital mechanisms appropriate to complaints and to financial matters. There are multiple intersecting forms of discrimination. These must be addressed. We must ensure effective active participation in decisions affecting older persons. We believe that part of the added value of the instrument is that it makes the specific barriers facing older persons visible and establishes state obligations clearly so that they can be addressed.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:06:00]:

I thank you.

I thank Guatemala. And I call on Uruguay.


Uruguay [1:06:10]:

Gracias, señor presidente.

Thank you, Chairperson, Rapporteur, and good morning, colleagues. In line with the contributions we have made, we recall that the future convention must address autonomy, participation, and dignity of older persons, recognizing diversity and different life paths. The instrument must have a human rights-based approach. It must incorporate gender and intersectionalities and establish clear obligations for states in terms of respect, protection, and promotion of the rights of older persons. We would like to focus on the main principles that should guide the future declaration— instrument. First of all, equality and non-discrimination based on age. This must be cross-cutting. The Convention must specifically address all forms of discrimination, including ageism, in institutional, interpersonal, structural forms, multiple intersecting forms of discrimination arising from gender, disability, race, sexual identity, gender identity. And socioeconomic situation. Second, it is crucial to reaffirm the dignity, autonomy, and legal capacity of older persons. The instrument must guarantee the right to take decisions on their own lives and, where necessary, provide support for exercising legal capacity, respecting the older person's wishes and preferences and their free informed consent. Participation and inclusion must be guiding principles. Older persons must be able to participate fully and effectively in a significant way in economic, social, cultural, political life and in design, implementation, follow-up, and evaluation of public policies that affect them. We also believe it is essential to incorporate the principle of universal accessibility, ensuring elimination of physical, communication, information, terminological, and digital barriers, which are a barrier to rights and to participation. Another essential principle is protection against all forms of violence, abuse, abandonment, and neglect. It must— the instrument must address different forms of violence, including sexual, economic, institutional, digital, gender-based, and other forms. And provide obligations for detection, protection, punishment, and reparation. Finally, we also believe it is important to address healthcare. The specific needs of older persons must be addressed, ensuring timely, continuous, non-discriminatory access to physical and mental healthcare rehabilitation support technologies. It is particularly important to recognize long-term long-term care from a human rights-based approach. Uruguay believes that these principles must be at the core of the future instrument and be represented in a cross-cutting fashion in their substantive elements in order to ensure a human rights-based approach for all older persons. I thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:09:26]:

I thank the distinguished delegate from Uruguay. I see no other member state wishing to take the floor at this stage. If so, please raise your nameplate now. It seems it is not the case. Before turning to the interventions from national human rights institutions, I've been informed by the Secretariat that there are people filming in the room. As I said yesterday, let me remind all distinguished participants that filming is strictly prohibited. You can access to any intervention from the floor through the webcast. Please avoid filming during the session. Thank you. Well, we'll now open the floor for national human rights institutions. The first one in the list is the Commissioner for Human Rights from Poland. You have the floor.


Poland · Commissioner for Human Rights [1:10:24]:

Chair, thank you for allowing us to explore possible approach to the new LBI, drawing also on the very useful OHCHR UNO of an official summary of submissions. I would like to focus specifically on the need to emphasize in the new LBI the negative impact of ageism on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons. This deeply rooted phenomenon requires a dedicated and targeted approach in order to be effectively addressed. To provide a clear example of such systemic discrimination, older persons in Poland have raised complaints with the Commissioner for Human Rights Regarding barriers to accessing activities offered by municipalities through clubs for older persons. The main concern they report is the requirement to undergo the procedure prescribed under the social assistance system, namely a social inquiry which involves, involves a visit by a social worker to the home of older persons applying for access to the club. Older persons describe this practice as humiliating and detrimental to their dignity. Some refuse to undergo the procedure and consequently resign from participating in the activities offered. This might negatively impact their healthy ageing. This example helps identify the root cause of the problem, which lies in a system where ageing policy is embedded within social assistance structures designed primarily for the most vulnerable and economically disadvantaged. disadvantaged groups. This stems from the deeply rooted stereotype of older persons as individuals in need of support and care. Following the WHO Global Report on Ageism, we identified this as a form of institutional ageism. Therefore, I would like to echo the call for including in the new LBI the provision suggested by States and reflected in Para 43 of the OHCHR Summary of Submissions, namely: the establishment of institutional mechanisms capable of detecting and remedying patterns of exclusion that persist even when legal norms appear formally neutral. Such mechanisms should operate on a permanent and recurring basis. Based on systemic reviews, the measure of success should not be the number of campaigns conducted or programs launched, but rather the number and nature of ageist systemic arrangements that have been removed, together with demonstrable improvements in well-designed indicators measuring the enjoyment of human rights by older persons. The transformative character of the new LBA should lead to the redesign of discriminatory systems of this kind in order to ensure that older persons can enjoy their human rights in practice. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:13:08]:

I thank the distinguished representative from the Commissioner for Human Rights from Poland. I now give the floor to the National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea.


NHRC-K [1:13:20]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. The National Human Rights Commission of Korea welcomes this opportunity to reflect on the written contributions submitted ahead of this session. Across these inputs, national human rights institutions raised a shared and consistent message. The current international framework remains fragmented, and older persons are not— still not fully recognized in law and policy. NHRI call for a shift away from a welfare-based approach to recognizing older persons as full rights holders, and for the new instrument to directly address ageism as a root cause of rights violations. They also stress a life course and intersectional approach, recognizing that disadvantage builds up over time, and call for a strong national monitoring data collection, and accountability mechanisms. The NHRC-K shares this view and would like to illustrate it briefly through our own domestic experience. First, regarding poverty and care, the inputs highlight that older women are disproportionately affected by poverty. In the Republic of Korea, lifelong structural inequalities lead directly to the feminization of poverty in old age. Older women often face a multiple burden, They lack adequate care resources for themselves while continuing to carry the heavy weight of unpaid caregiving. Poverty and care are not separate issues, but interconnected consequences of gender-based disadvantage. This reality demonstrates why the future instrument should guide states toward the care and support systems that do not rely solely on family structures. Care must be approached as a fundamental human right, ensuring that the burden does not disproportionately fall on older women. Second, concerning digital technology, submissions warned that digitalization can increase exclusion. In the Republic of Korea, our rapid digital transition has created significant barriers for older persons in accessing essential services. Furthermore, as AI governance becomes central to our society, we must proactively prevent these technologies from embedding and systematic ageism. The future instrument must guarantee accessibility. Older persons must not be left behind as services go digital, and alternative access must remain available. Mr. Chairperson, this submission shows that we already share a great deal of common ground. Moving forward, the instrument should clearly articulate state obligations and establish independent monitoring mechanisms at the national level. The NHRC-K, alongside with our NHRI partners, stands ready to contribute our experiences as this process advances. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:16:04]:

I thank the distinguished representative from the National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea, and I now give the floor to the Swedish Institute for Human Rights to deliver a joint statement on a very relevant number of national human rights institutions.


Swedish Institute for Human Rights [1:16:25]:

Canceled.

I canceled my submission this morning.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:16:28]:

Thank you.

Well, that's a shame. It was a huge number of institutions there represented by, by the Swedish Institute. I now give the floor to the National Human Rights Council of Qatar.


Qatar [1:16:48]:

Thank you. We emphasize the importance of practical commitments which can be implemented, including strengthening the financial commitment by states to supporting older persons in order to guarantee a decent life. The legal text must also address the issue of residence of older persons, the institutions that house them and their mandates and the services they provide to protect those living there so that people know what to expect. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:17:29]:

Thank you for your intervention. I now give the floor to Age Platform Europe.


Age Platform Europe [1:17:39]:

Thank you.

Distinguished Chair, delegates, and colleagues, I'm speaking on behalf of Age Platform Europe, the largest regional network bringing together more than 100 organizations of older persons. This statement summarizes our contribution to the call for input, which was based on consultations with our members. Older persons across our network convey a clear message: a new legally binding instrument offers a unique opportunity to strengthen the protection of older persons' rights, promote equality, and make these rights more visible, accessible, and enforceable, enabling older persons to claim their rights, participate fully in public life, and influence the decisions that affect them. Firstly, the new legally binding instrument should comprehensively address the full range of human rights while clarifying their application to the specific lived realities and experiences of older persons. To do this, the scope of the Convention must reflect aging as a natural and universal part of the human experience and understand older age as a social construct. Secondly, the Convention should be firmly grounded in human rights. It should promote dignity, equality, autonomy, participation, and inclusion through older age, while recognizing that older persons are a very diverse group.

Group.

The diversity of experiences in later life and the cumulative impact of multiple and intersectional forms of discrimination across the life course should also be reflected. The convention should adopt both a life course and intersectional approach addressing the structural barriers older people face. Thirdly, the legally binding instrument should be supported by robust implementation and accountability mechanisms. It should establish strong monitoring and reporting procedure, ensure that older persons have effective access to remedies when their rights are violated. The Convention should support the systematic collection of age-disaggregated data to strengthen evidence-based policymaking and monitor progress in the realization of older persons' rights. Last but not least, the process itself should embody the principles it seeks to protect. Older persons and their representative organizations must be meaningfully involved at all stages in the development, implementation, and monitoring of the Convention. Their lived experiences is indispensable to creating an instrument that is relevant, effective, and responsive to the realities of aging. This Convention represents a unique opportunity to strengthen the international human rights framework and ensure that human rights are fully enjoyed at every stage of life. Our members are looking forward to continuing to contribute to this process. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:20:26]:

I thank the representative of Age Platform Europe, and I now give the floor to the International Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse.


INPEA [1:20:36]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of INPEA and IRC Global Alliance. We welcome the momentum and the broad consensus that is clearly building towards the need for a strong and coherent treaty on the human rights of older persons. The central point comes across plain and simple throughout the inputs: older persons are human rights holders in equal standing with all others. Yet, in practice, their rights have remained under-articulated, inconsistently protected. The new legally binding instrument must therefore be grounded in the existing international human rights framework while making explicit how rights apply in older age and create what is missing. It must address ageism as a root cause of exclusion, discrimination, abuse and neglect. The instrument should be guided by clear principles: equality and non-discrimination, autonomy and independence, full and meaningful participation, respect for diversity and inherent dignity, gender equality, intersectionality, accessibility, consistency with existing human rights standards, disaggregated data collection, and accountability. Its architecture should be coherent and practical: a strong preamble that recognizes ageism, the purpose and scope that affirms the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights by all older persons in all their diversity, definitions that reduce ambiguity while recognizing aging and older age, a social construct with no arbitrary chronological age stated as part of the definitions. The full range of substantive rights, including the right to live free from violence, abuse, and neglect; access to long-term and palliative care; to assistive and digital technologies; to independent living and inclusion in the community; to social protection; to lifelong education and access to justice and remedies. There is agreement that implementation and monitoring must be robust, but there is uncertainty and a certain level of anxiety as to what the monitoring should look like. It is clear that while it is important to reflect now on what is needed, the substantive content should be developed first. It is clear also that the meaningful participation of older persons and their representatives organizations is a must in the process of negotiation, implementation, and monitoring of the instrument. In conclusion, this legally binding instrument is an opportunity to affirm unequivocally that human rights must be enjoyed throughout the whole life course. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:23:21]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the International Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse. And I now give the floor to the National Association of Community Legal Centres. You have the floor.


National Association of Community Legal Centres [1:23:34]:

Thank you, Chair. This session is an opportunity to identify areas of convergence, but equally it can highlight issues that remain underdeveloped. And we face a paradox that can't be ignored. Resolution 5813 requires this working group hears directly from older persons so the convention it develops is genuinely fit for purpose and reflects the principle of universality. Yet the older persons who most require innovative and adaptable protections are often the very people least able to participate in this process. Let me illustrate this through an example of older persons experiencing geographic disadvantage or isolation. This includes older persons living in rural, remote, isolated and inaccessible communities. Whether across vast and sparsely populated continental regions, in communities periodically cut off by seasonal events, or in remote archipelagos and island communities. Australia is home to many older persons living in these circumstances, but our experience is far from unique. Across every region of the world, older persons who live with geographic disadvantage are at particular risk of being left behind. They are in many respects invisible people living in invisible places. Geographic disadvantage is not simply a characteristic of place. It is a structural determinant of human rights and a powerful intersectional factor associated with multiple forms of disadvantage and exclusion. If this Convention is to deliver substantive equality, it must respond to the realities of isolation. These include barriers to transport, health, social services, housing, adequate standards of living, food and energy security, digital connectivity, climate change, disaster resilience, and access to justice. Accordingly, geographic disadvantage and isolation should be recognized in the text. The overarching framework should recognize geographic disadvantage and isolation as structural determinants of inequality and not merely intersecting characteristics. The general principles should affirm geographic equity, self-determination, and substantive equality. The general obligation should require geographically accessible, place-based implementation supported by disaggregated data, meaningful participation, and targeted measures that reach people wherever they live. Civil society is not a substitute for the lived experience of older persons, but it remains indispensable for communities without a voice. Our network is committed to ensuring that the perspectives of older persons living in these communities continues to inform this working group throughout the drafting process. I thank the Chair.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:26:06]:

Thank you for your contribution. I now give the floor to the International Federation on Aging.


IFA [1:26:13]:

Thank you, Chair. The International Federation on Aging wishes to thank the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for its excellent work in compiling the many submissions received in preparation for this session. The breadth and diversity of those contributions demonstrate the remarkable commitment of Member States, national human rights institutions, United Nations entities, academia, and civil society to this process. More importantly, they reveal something that should give us confidence as negotiations begin. Despite different legal traditions and national experiences, the submissions demonstrate encouraging convergence around many of the fundamental elements that should underpin the future Convention. There is broad recognition that existing international human rights law provides a strong foundation, while important protection gaps remain in its application to older persons. There is also clear convergence around key principles, including dignity, equality, participation, autonomy, accessibility, inclusion, and the recognition of older persons as full rights holders. Many submissions also recognise ageism as a root cause of the violation of human rights, exclusion, and discrimination. reinforcing the importance of addressing it explicitly within the Convention. The submissions therefore do more than identify common values. They point towards a common direction. They encourage us to move beyond broad agreement on principles and towards the development of clear standards, meaningful state obligations, and effective implementation mechanisms capable of making those principles a reality. That, in the IFA's view, is the true value of the call for submissions. It has not simply informed our discussions. It has helped to establish a strong basis for building consensus and shaping a convention that is principled coherent, implementable, and responsive to the current and future realities of longer lives. IFA looks forward to contributing constructively to that shared endeavor. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:28:56]:

I thank the representative of the International Federation on Aging, and I now give the floor to the representative of the International Disability Alliance.


IDA [1:29:09]:

Thank you very much, Chair. IDA appreciates the work of the OSCE Chair in developing a summary of all the contributions for this session. IDA welcomes constructive positions from States, including the recognition of older persons as rights holders, the importance of combating ageism and age discrimination as a State obligation, a flexible conceptualization of older persons, the need of an intersectional perspective, but also the need to respect dignity, autonomy, independence, and decision-making of older persons, and to uphold and build upon COPD standards, including supported decision-making, independent living, and participation in decision-making, among many other things. On the other hand, AIDA is a bit concerned and will remain vigilant vigilant, sorry, about comments suggesting even implicitly a subsidiary role of the state, stressing on the role of the family and on duties of individuals. The role of the state in respecting, promoting, and fulfilling human rights needs to be strongly reaffirmed also in the future legally binding instrument. IDA also looks attentively at the idea of healthy aging in paragraph 24, which if related or connected to the idea of active ageing might lead to inadvertently reinforcing ableism towards older persons with disabilities, opposing CRPD obligations on awareness-raising and reinforcing negative stereotyping. Last but not least, EDA remains also attentive to the references to long-term care, approaching it focusing on standards for quality, affordability, availability, etc., might lead to inadvertently perpetuate practices of institutionalization, contrary to human rights standards under that label and under the label of community-based care, used, for instance, to set small group homes of persons with disabilities in many countries. Institutionalization has been outlawed by the CAPD and the CAPD Committee. It is characterized by typical features regardless of the size and number of people living together in a residential setting, such as regimented daily life, deprivation of choice and control over one's own life, segregation and isolation from the community, and forced sharing of living spaces with others, among many other elements. This is clearly not the world we imagine in which older persons can exercise rights with autonomy, independence, and support, if required by the person, and taking active part in inclusive communities. So let's focus on building the world that we do imagine for older persons instead of accepting the limitations of current practices, which by daily persistence are not less harmful and contrary to human rights principles. Thank you very much for your attention.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:32:08]:

I thank the distinguished representative of IDA, and I now give the floor to AgeWell Foundation.


AgeWell Foundation [1:32:22]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair, delegates, and friends. I'm once again here talking about more or less the same thing. AgeWell Foundation welcomes the many submissions received so far, but the time for discussion is short. Urgent action is needed. Our submission, building on inclusive, context-sensitive framework, is grounded in stark evidence. A nationwide survey of 10,000 older persons conducted across India in the month of March and April 2026, the findings reveal a crisis. Only 29.5% percent receive any pension. Nearly 2 in every 5 face elder abuse, mostly within families. Just about 10% are aware of their legal rights, and very few of them have any idea about their human rights. Over 78% suffer digital exclusion. While loneliness affects more than 75%. These are not abstract numbers. They are the daily reality of Global South, which already hosts the majority of world's elderly and will host the— will host far more in decades ahead. We cannot afford a treaty shaped only by the experiences of the past or the Global North. We need a bold, context-sensitive instrument that addresses poverty, abuse, gender inequality, illiteracy, digital exclusion, and weak participation while embedding intergenerational solidarity So that today's youth become tomorrow's empowered older person. The submissions have spoken. Now the IGWG must act decisively. Let the voices and evidence of older persons, especially from the Global South, move from paper to the very heart of this legally binding instrument. Nothing about us without us. us, and nothing tomorrow without the urgency of today. Thank you, Chair.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:34:58]:

I thank the representative of H. Wells Foundation, and I give the floor to the Centre for Non-Global Killing.


Center for Nonkilling [1:35:11]:

Dear human beings, Mr. Chair, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, Everyone, everywhere, greetings of joyful human rights. The unofficial summary of submission is a very useful document showing the general directions of our discussions, though it is a bit lengthy and by nature it cannot be very precise and detailed. We would like to insist on 2 points from our submission. First, the right to longevity. Is it a right in itself? An application of the rights to life, to health, to happiness, or to peace? Whatever. The right to longevity shows the intersectionality, or said otherwise, that all human rights are interrelated. Anything that unwillingly shortens life, that withdraws the possibility of a long and peaceful life as a human, is—


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:36:07]:

sorry—


Center for Nonkilling [1:36:07]:

a human rights violation.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:36:08]:

Thank you.


Center for Nonkilling [1:36:09]:

Example, it diminishes the span of the right to life. It hinders the rights to a healthy life. It endangers the right to a happy and peaceful life. Longevity is also present in the right to freedom of expression when used to speak for prevention, and it is present in the right to access of justice, as said, in the need for rapid justice, but also to see prevention prevail. The right to longevity. In our submission, we started a list of all situations in which the rights of older persons may be directly concerned, thus beginning a casuistic list. Therein, we listed the right to die and its various consequences. First and foremost, the right to die in peace and dignity. The right to face death and to prepare it, to organize all related issues in full serenity. Discussions on this topic, death and its consequences, will need to be supple, humane, and sometimes courageous. Here again, it is the right to die in peace. Is the right to die in peace a new human right, or is it the expression and development of existing rights? We prefer the second solution. However, the question is highly important for the ones that are the more directly concerned. Thank you. Older persons. As our discussions evolve, both on remedies and specific aspects of the rights of older persons, this list of topics needs more prevention and protection. The fulfillment will be enriched by our participation and suggestion. Finally, it is worth highlighting that peace and well-being of older persons is a strong incentive. It may even be a guarantee of for the well-being of all humanity. Thank you, Chair.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:38:00]:

Thank you for your intervention. I now give the floor to CNS and Development Justice for Older Persons.


CNS · Shobha Shukla [1:38:18]:

On behalf of CNS and Development Justice for Older Persons, I, Shobha Shukla, as an older person with lived experiences, thank the UN Human Rights Council for giving me the opportunity to be a part of this historic intergovernmental process for drafting of a legally binding instrument for human rights of older persons. We need a feminist approach grounded in the development justice model while drafting this LBI. Firstly, this will ensure that older persons can enjoy economic, social, gender, cultural, and health justice, including sexual rights. Secondly, a feminist approach is the only pathway towards dismantling patriarchal barriers like gender stereotypes and harmful social norms and address interlinkages between gender, health, social, economic, and climate injustices, thus enabling older women and gender-diverse peoples to benefit from this legally binding instrument. We must also not forget that the rising anti-rights and anti-gender pushbacks will violate gender equality and human right to health for older persons too. Centrality of older persons must be ensured in the drafting of this LBI, especially of those from the Global South and from vulnerable communities like women, gender-diverse peoples, persons with disabilities, long-term survivors of HIV, and indigenous persons. We must listen to the people we serve. The LBI must address ground realities which are barriers for older people to fully enjoy their rights. Unless these barriers, most of which are either invisible, structural, or systemic, are replaced with enablers for older persons to enjoy all their rights, we would not be able to do justice to the spirit of this instrument. Ageing is not just a welfare issue. It cuts across healthcare, housing, transport, local governance, technology, employment, safety, financial services, and community life. Urban and rural planning, public transport and conveyance, labour and workforce policies must ensure that older peoples live a dignified life. We are not asking for some favor or mercy for us, but demanding our long overdue rights. The preamble of this LBI must reinforce that older persons are engaged in shaping policies, programs, and their implementation at all levels, and a sizable number of them must be women and from other marginalized and vulnerable populations. Please do not involve those who have benefited from patriarchy. Thank you for your attention.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:41:07]:

Thank you, Madam, for your intervention. I now give the floor to Silvernetz EV.


Silvernetz [1:41:15]:

Thank you, Chair. Silvernetz welcomes the summary of inputs, and a big thank you to Professor Burns for his excellent presentation. The number of more than 200 inputs demonstrates not only broad interest but also a clear expectation. Human rights of older persons must no longer remain fragmented, insufficiently visible, or dependent on soft law alone. We therefore welcome that the summary identifies, among others, social isolation as an obstacle to the effective enjoyment of human rights. Loneliness is not merely a private feeling. It is a human rights issue when it cuts people off from participation, from services, from protection, and from remedies. We also strongly welcome the repeated recognition of ageism as a structural driver of violations in older age. It appears particularly in stereotypes, institutional routines, and in the quiet assumption that the lives, choices, and voices of older persons matter less. I should like to underline 2 practical implications. First, participation must reach beyond those who are already visible, organized, and digitally connected. The voices of isolated older persons must be actively sought. So the active involvement of civil society in this whole process is extremely important. And I'm glad that today, as a sign for that, we are seated in the midst of the room, not at the side or the back anymore. Second, essential information, public services, and complaint mechanisms must remain accessible through non-digital channels. A digital-only approach risks excluding precisely those whose rights are most fragile. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:43:26]:

Thank you for your intervention. I now give the floor to HelpAge International España.


HelpAge International España [1:43:37]:

Thank you, Chair. We welcome the summary of the submissions received and appreciate the wide range of contributions provided by States, national human rights institutions, civil society organizations including older persons organizations, and academics. Together, these submissions demonstrate an emerging consensus on several foundation elements for the future Convention. In particular, many contributions highlight the need for a human rights-based and transformative approach, moving beyond paternalistic medical or welfare-based models and recognizing older persons as full rights holders. There is also a growing recognition that ageism is a root cause of many human rights violations in older age and that combating age discrimination must be one of the central objectives of the Convention. We also note broad convergence around key principles such as dignity, autonomy, quality and non-discrimination, participation, accessibility, independent living, and inclusion in the community. Some submissions further recognize the importance of addressing issues such as digital inclusion, artificial intelligence, climate change, and long-term care. The submissions further demonstrate that this process is not, not starting from scratch. They build on many years of work undertaken by United Nations human rights mechanisms, regional systems, states, civil society organizations, and older persons themselves. This growing body of knowledge, experience, and practice provides a strong foundation for developing a Convention that not only reframes existing human rights standards but also addresses the gaps and barriers that continue to prevent older persons from enjoying their rights on an equal basis with others. These priorities are reflected across contributions from different stakeholders and regions and resonate strongly with the issues identified through GAROP's global consultations and joint consensus positions. Together, they highlight areas where the Convention has the potential to make a meaningful difference in the lives of older persons. As the process moves forward, the participation being meaningful and inclusive, Resolution 58/2015 30 invited States, relevant United Nations entities, national human rights institutions, civil society, and especially older persons and their representative organizations to contribute actively and constructively to the work of the Working Group. Continued participation through the process will help ensure the Convention remains informed by lived experience, different perspectives, and the expertise that has built over many years. In this regard, older people and their representative organizations have an essential contribution to make. As Andrew Barnes said, we need different perspectives. Their ongoing involvement will help ensure that the Convention is not only grounded in existing human rights standards and previous regional and international experience, but also in response to the realities that older persons face today and in the future. Thank you so much.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:46:48]:

Thank you. I now give the floor to Foundation Jan Nagel.


Foundation Jan Nagel [1:46:56]:

Thank you, Chair, and I thank all the delegates that are still there from the governments, and I hope that those who aren't there have good excuses for it because personally I have a history of being a lawmaker. In the '80s, the '90s, and recently what we call the COVID years—periods that coincide personally with my 30s, 40s, and 70s—and it's with those experiences in mind that I want to focus on the role of government, also in line with the remarks Professor Burns made. We can make a very well treaty, but in the end, it is the government that should give the good example, and the government that's also, and the lawmakers, they're also in the position of changing things because you have a constitutional law which which says all men are equal and then they made exceptions in the law. So that's how the system works and that's why I'm worried about the absence of a number of— especially European countries because I sense a bit of arrogancy. Sure, the position of elderly in most of the European countries is better, but still they can feel neglect. I give you an example. We have a new government with a young Prime Minister. Nothing wrong with that, but In his speech representing the— presenting the new government, in the first hour he talked— he mentioned young people 64 times. And then we started— we stopped counting. For the rest, he still kept calling young people and never mentioned one time Yes.

The elderly.

When he came back the next day for his answer, he made apologies and he says his father has called him and said, where are we? But it shows you how difficult it will be when you have governments that don't accept that there are elderly people who contribute to society because they have a hyperfocus on the economic data and anything not transitional in money is not in the data. And the only thing civil society comes in the picture is when there are calls for cost containment, so you can cost containment in long-term care and you replace the long-term care by informal care because informal care costs nothing until you discover that informal care do cost things because people are in employment and they can't do their job properly. I'm out of time, so I will keep 2 remarks in the end. I'm very much I'm wholeheartedly supporting calls for more focus on the women, especially in healthcare with the male gaze. And even if the majority of physicians and medical specialists are women, there's still a male gaze. But when we talk about a right to longevity, we must also take in the picture that there's a large difference in socioeconomic status. In the Netherlands, that's 7 years in longevity difference between people with low economic status and high economic status, and there's a difference between male and female, and the male are living less long— less longer than the female. So if we have a right to longevity, It also expects that governments will take their role and try to get the gap less wide than it is today. Thank you very much.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:51:59]:

Thank you, sir. And the last one on my list is the Global Initiative on Aging and Longevity. Sir, you have the floor.


Global Initiative on Aging and Longevity [1:52:08]:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank the Argentinian presidency for its leadership, and I would like to— I had also planned to thank Director Peggy Hicks for her presence here and the work the Human Rights Office is doing, so I would ask her staff to extend that congratulations. I think we have to begin by recognizing the achievement of this meeting. that we have come a long way, but this is, to me, a major achievement. So, in listening to the interventions during these days, I have been very optimistic about the commonality of agreement that we have in this hall. I would refer to my statement in the month of February when I spoke in the podium. And then I mentioned also in the other intervention that I suggested that the resource person be Professor Andrew Barnes. I think that— I am very happy that he's there. He has helped us in other conventions, especially the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The submission papers are extremely interesting, and I think it is a broad scope that States, NGO participation, and academia have had. We, as the Global Initiative on Aging, the Harvard Project on Disability, and the World Policy Analysis Center, submitted a document which we think it will be helpful in the negotiating phase because it's based on agreed language which most of the countries in this hall have agreed in different instances and conventions. I would like to stop there to make a very important reference. Not all the state parties of the United Nations, that is the 193 countries, are members of all the human rights conventions. A convention is an instrument of legally binding treaty in which a nation-state agrees, which its parliament or its judicial process ratifies, and becomes legally binding and therefore also becomes monitorable by the treaty organs in the United Nations. Therefore, what we are talking about is a standalone treaty, which I hope will be sufficiently ample to incorporate all the preoccupations that have been mentioned in this hall today. I would agree with my— with the speaker that went before me, I have counted 57 state participations of the 193 countries of the United Nations. I think one of our most important objectives would be to promote the participation of other countries in this negotiation. We must have a treaty that has substance but that also has numbers, and that is fundamentally what we would look for to have a broader scope of universality of the rights and defense of the dignity of persons who are aging. I would like to end this with a recommendation to the Secretariat, because since we're talking about ageism, I spoke to some of my colleagues in the human— in the NGO community, persons who are aging like I, and the security system of the United Nations does not permit us to come to the doors of the Place des Nations, which is next to this hall, It obligates us to go to the other door because we are NGOs that are negotiating an aging convention when one of the preoccupations that is listed by the Swiss authorities is heatstroke because of the temperatures of the hall. So I think that should be corrected by the authorities of the Secretariat with the guards of the United Nations. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:56:03]:

Thank you.

Okay, the Secretary is saying here that he will bring to the attention of the security sector. Hopefully, that could be sorted out. Thank you, Ambassador. It's always a pleasure to see you in the room, and thank you for your contribution. With this last— this was the last intervention. I will now give back the floor to our distinguished discussant, the DPR of The Gambia, to moderate this for further comments and final remarks from his side and from Professor Barnes.


Gambia · Deputy Permanent Representative · Mr. Marena [1:56:53]:

Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair Apatow. I think the discussions this morning have really confirmed that the submissions that have been received have provided a very strong substantive foundation for the future work of this working group. A number of areas of convergence appear to have emerged, including I mean, the fact that there is need for a human rights-based instrument, the recognition of older persons as full rights holders, of course the centrality of dignity, equality, non-discrimination, as well as participation. At the same time, the discussions have also highlighted several matters that require further analysis and Political negotiation, as is evident in any treaty negotiation, issues on the definition and scope of the term of, I mean, older persons, the relationship between rights and normative development, of course legal capacity, etc. I mean, the discussions have also demonstrated that implementation considerations must inform the drafting process right from the beginning. I mean, we should not only examine the rights and obligations to be included in the future treaty, but also how these can be translated into legislation, policies, budgets, institutions, data systems, remedies, and measurable improvements in the lives of older persons on the ground. I must emphasize this is particularly important for many states who are engaged in this process, who are yet to put in place legal frameworks on the rights of older persons. We do have certain states which have actually come up with legislation, but I think the majority of states are yet to really have their local laws in place. And it goes without saying that these states would be relying on the international legal instrument that we will be developing from here as a guiding light and as a model or standard on which they can anchor their domestic legislation. So it is particularly important that we pay attention to those implementation considerations that would make it easier for all states that would be engaged in the process to really, I mean, easily, I mean, come up with their local legislative frameworks, I mean, based on the, I mean, the international legal framework that the Working Group would be coming up with. Finally, the submissions and today's discussions, I mean, should now help, I mean, the Working Group to distinguish between areas of convergence and divergence, areas that need further clarification, as well as questions that require political support and decision at the highest level. I believe this would provide us with a practical basis for structuring the next phase of the negotiations and of course help us to move towards the preparations of the treaty language during the drafting process. And with those few remarks, I would now want to invite— I mean, Professor Bynes to offer final observations arising from the discussions from the floor.


UNSW · Professor · Andrew Byrnes [2:00:45]:

Thank you. Thank you very much, Ambassador, and I will make observations on 3 areas. I'd like to thank everyone for the wide range of interesting comments and submissions. First, though, I'd— notwithstanding Ambassador Gallegos' kind words, I think I should acknowledge that the knowledge and insights that I have have been the result of ongoing collaboration over many years with my civil society colleagues, National Human Rights Institution colleagues, member states, other scholars, other older persons and their organizations. I think we are all here in many ways expressing collective wisdom and collective effort. I'd like to touch on 3 topics. One is the concerns that have been expressed about the need to ensure that any treaty is— has respect for national contexts and specificities and allows states flexibility that they need in order to adapt implementation of international obligations to their particular political, legal, social contexts. And also the question of financial obligations. I think the first point to say is that these are not new issues. They're issues that have been effectively addressed in the negotiation not only of human rights treaties but many other treaties. And although I can't see whether all 193 flags or signs are occupied, I think I can say with confidence that every state in this room has ratified at least one of the core human rights treaties, and most have ratified many more than that. After all, the Convention on the Rights of the Child has 196 ratifications, which is more than there are members of the United Nations. CRPD has 193, and down it goes— 189 for CEDAW, 182 for CERD. and in the 170s for the 2 international covenants. So these are not problems that haven't been addressed, and I'm sure that they can be addressed in appropriate ways as a matter of international negotiations. I think as we're entering into the hardcore international law space of treaty negotiations, it's probably also picking up— it's worthwhile reminding ourselves of a couple of hard rules, really, of international law in terms of state sovereignty. We've heard a lot about the importance of states being able to exercise sovereign powers and to respect local traditions. But I think it's also important to remind ourselves that it's very clear that acceptance by a state of a treaty obligation, any treaty obligation, human rights or others, is a voluntary and informed agreement by that state to limit the exercise of its otherwise unlimited sovereignty in particular areas. And the state shapes that and makes an acceptable decision for itself politically and legally through the negotiation process, decisions to ratify or exceed, and the use of permissible reservations if they are available. So I think we need to be important— we need to recognize that there's no longer, as there perhaps was in the 19th and early 20th century, a notice of a domaine réservé into which international law does not obtrude, particularly when it's done so— it does so with the consent of the state and indeed often the endorsement of the state's constitution. Second point, perhaps also an important one, an elementary one, but it's important to recall, that national laws, customs, or traditions are not a justification for failure to comply with an international obligation. In the human rights area, as in many other areas, the very point of signing on to a treaty is to change one's laws, practices, and customs by improving them. And I think this is going to be the case here, as it has been with other treaties. That this is not a hurdle that had to be overcome in the context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, or the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers. The notion was that if you were tailoring existing rights, you copy much of the right and then add the tailoring, and you've got a coherent, usable product. In addition, it's hard to see how this would work As a technical matter, let's say we're doing something on the rights of older prisoners. We want to pick up the provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights relating to torture and other cruel treatment in Article 7, and Article 10, treatment of prisoners, to people in detention humanely. Do you just have a section saying when older people are in detention, they must receive particular care and attention without the general guarantee or not? capacity, all creating an image of older persons as failing, decrepit, on their way to death, consuming resources, giving nothing. And that is exactly, I think, the image that we are struggling against. We want the holistic view of the rights holder, and that would also support the often invoked mantra of the interdependence of human rights.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [2:07:03]:

Thank you.


UNSW · Professor · Andrew Byrnes [2:07:04]:

nowhere clearer than there. To do that and not have a complete catalogue will also, I think, significantly impair the utility of the document as a policy framework. I have here my CRPD which I can go to government, open it up and say, look there. If I've got to go to a bit in the new convention and then go back and say, well, that relates to another treaty over here, and I'll bring the bits and pieces. It doesn't work well. This is, this is what, this is what we want— coherent, holistic document. The other reference that there has been at times through the discussion is to the, the mission that we're on is about plugging gaps. That's true, we've identified gaps, but we also had a very unedifying an unfairly sterile discussion at the General Assembly about whether a problem with the system is a gap, what sort of gap it is, whether it's a normative gap, and so on. I think while it's important to say yes, it's a useful analogy, it's not complete. Because if we go back and look at the work done in the General Assembly and look in particular at the 2 High Commission— Office of the High Commission's— the study of 2021 on the system and the report to the Human Rights Council in A/HRC/4970, we'll see that those studies identified more than individual gaps which could be fixed by just plugging them with some sort of gap filler. They said that the wall that we've seen these gaps, these holes in, actually doesn't have solid foundations. It has conceptual flaws, and that that is why— Thank you. We need to have the holistic approach informed by ageism, informed by an understanding of ageing, informed by older people's experiences and voices. So I think when we do that, that just all reinforces the issue, I think, as to why we need to be comprehensive and not a sort of smorgasbord approach. The final issue, and I do this with some trepidation, is To say a few words about international human rights law and families. The question of the family, we know, it's a challenging political and cultural issue across and within our countries. But I think as we approach the issue— and it's relevant to long-term care, but not only long-term care— we need to keep in mind the complexity, variety, different experiences people have of families, and different legal statuses. That sometimes, too often, families can be sites of domination, of coercive control, of violence, of abuse, of stereotyped roles, of denial of opportunities to get out into the world. And so they're complex, and those complexities carry over into the world of older people. We know that elder abuse is mainly perpetrated by family members. So when we start talking about that, we need to remember international law recognizes a wide variety of family structures. It recognizes the rights of individuals in that family to protection against state intervention, but also to protection against each other. And so it takes us back to the starting point of the Universal Declaration that all individuals are born in equal inequality and dignity, and to remember that it's the individual's rights, it's the older person's rights that must be taken into account, and it is the state that has that obligation and responsibility under international law, and that the family in ideal circumstances, if the family members and if the older person want that, can provide important support in that context of long-term care but also other forms of support. So I think as we approach it, we do need to be nuanced. We do need to reflect the complexity and the realities as we go forward in trying to create a better human rights system. Thank you.


Gambia · Deputy Permanent Representative · Mr. Marena [2:11:41]:

Thank you very much, Professor Bynes, for those concluding observations. Can we have a round of applause for Professor? Thank you. I mean, Professor's observations and very valuable and insightful contributions have, I think we'll all agree, enriched, I mean, the discussions this morning. I mean, the intellectual debt that he has brought, I mean, to this discussion has really provided a compelling perspective on the why and the hows of the future LBI. I'm sure the Working Group will really be calling on him as we move forward towards the drafting process to really get on board all the different perspectives and to really ensure that the instrument is well-grounded in international law, in human rights, and of course also takes into account all the nuances and the different perspectives of the different stakeholders that are present in this room. I would also like to thank all member states here present and of course the NHRI that have also I mean, here present and who have also made valuable written submissions and of course taken the floor, the NGOs, CSOs, and all stakeholders really who have enriched our submission process as well as the constructive contributions from the floor. I'm sure we are all very proud of being part of this historical process. A process which only not seeks to, I mean, seek the— I mean, right the wrongs of the past, but also to lay the groundwork for a fairer world, I mean, for an increasingly significant proportion of our populations. I mean, a proportion of the population that we are— most of us are already in or moving very fast towards. And so we are doing this not only for the future generation of older persons, but for our own selves. Therefore, it is very important that we pay attention to the rights that we are really formulating for older persons so that no one is left behind. With those few remarks, Mr. Chair, Rapporteur, thank you very much for the opportunity, and I now return the floor to you. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [2:14:38]:

Thank you very much to both of you for your very valuable contributions, which undoubtedly will help us in our discussions, in our future discussions. It has been brought by the Secretariat that unfortunately one member of civil society didn't have the chance to take the floor. As we have some time, And apologies for that. I will give the floor to Professor Fusako Seki, that is the last one on the list of speakers. Please, Professor, you have the floor.


Japan · Professor · Fusako Seki [2:15:09]:

Chair, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. I have researched elder law for a long time, and as a professor, I always want to speak a lot, so I'm truly glad of this chance. Thank you. I'm Fusako Seki from Japan. I have analyzed the submissions published on the OHCHR website. Many submissions point in the same direction: older persons as holders of rights, not objects of welfare, and an instrument that makes universal rights effective in old age without repeating existing catalogues. I support this direction. I raise 2 points that have not yet been fully addressed, but that seems to me essential for the drafting ahead. First, the submissions demand both strong protection and strict non-discrimination. Both are right, but they can pull in opposite directions because age-based measures can protect or discriminate, as in the case of my father Hajime. The instrument should recognize this tension and provide a framework for distinguishing the two. Does the measure remove social barriers? Are its means proportionate to its aims? Second then, what more should the instrument articulate? Older persons have lived a long life and are approaching its final stage. From these 2 facts, I propose these considerations. The first is temporality. For older persons, remaining time is limited. A delay in realizing a right can therefore amount to its denial. The second is continuity. The life and relationship built over many years are the foundation of a person's identity. Once lost, they cannot be rebuilt. The third is the recognition of the life lived. The life a person has lived deserves recognition regardless of contribution to society. These are not new rights. They make universal rights such as dignity and autonomy effective in older age. One final point: solidarity and shared responsibility must never dilute the primary obligation of states. Thank you so much.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [2:18:18]:

Thank you, Professor, for your contribution. I would like to make an important announcement. Regarding Friday's session, the core group composed by Brazil, The Gambia, the Philippines, Slovenia, and Argentina informed me that the draft timeline for Friday is now available. The Secretary— I think the Secretariat already circulated the text and it will be posted on the website in the next few hours. We will try to do our best to have hard copies for civil society and other stakeholders this afternoon or tomorrow morning. I think that it is important to know that it's a draft that could be considered by all the members before the session, and the idea is to have as many inputs and comments as possible during that session and to adopt it if there's consensus on Friday. Okay, this brings us to the end of this meeting. This afternoon we will resume our session at 3 PM when it will be introduced a food for thought paper on guiding principles and structure. I hereby declare the meeting closed.