Since May 2026, the European Union of the Deaf (EUD) and the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) have engaged intensively with the United Nations human rights system, submitting joint input to seven separate calls for input issued by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee), and the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities.
Taken together, these submissions respond to some of the most consequential drafting processes currently under way at the UN: new general comments and guidelines that will shape how States are expected to protect the rights of persons with disabilities, including deaf people, in armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies, violence, and political life for years to come.
Across all seven submissions, EUD and WFD return to the main core arguments:
- National sign languages are full languages, not “communication systems”, “formats” or “assistive technologies”: a distinction that determines what States are actually obliged to provide.
- Deaf people hold a dual status as persons with disabilities and as members of linguistic and cultural minorities, and both dimensions must be reflected in how discrimination, risk and violence are understood.
- Deaf-led organisations must be recognised and resourced as essential actors, not consulted as an afterthought, in humanitarian response, disaster risk reduction and political life.
Below is an overview of each submission and the specific change EUD and WFD are asking the relevant UN body to make.
1. Inclusive humanitarian assistance and the Humanitarian Reset
Drawing on direct engagement with National Associations of the Deaf in the occupied Palestinian territory, Ukraine and other conflict-affected contexts, EUD and WFD documented how deaf people are routinely excluded from emergency warnings, evacuation, aid distribution, healthcare and complaints mechanisms because sign language interpretation and accessible communication are treated as optional rather than as core humanitarian obligations. The submission also warns that ongoing humanitarian reform efforts, including the Humanitarian Reset, risk weakening existing disability-inclusion commitments unless explicit safeguards are maintained.
EUD and WFD are calling for: national sign language access and direct, sustainable funding for deaf-led organisations to be explicitly protected as core humanitarian obligations throughout the Humanitarian Reset and all other reform processes, not treated as discretionary extras.
🔗 Consult the call for input, issued by the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities.
2. The application of the ICESCR in situations of armed conflict
In this submission to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, EUD and WFD argue that denying sign language access during armed conflict is not just an accessibility issue but a direct violation of economic, social and cultural rights, undermining health, education, housing, work and cultural participation simultaneously. The submission asks the Committee to interpret the Covenant’s non-discrimination guarantee as explicitly covering language-based exclusion, consistent with the CRPD.
EUD and WFD are calling for: the forthcoming General Comment to state clearly that denying sign language access during armed conflict constitutes discrimination on grounds of both disability and language, applying without exception across every phase of conflict, from prevention to reconstruction.
🔗 Consult the call for input, issued by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
3–5. Three CRPD Committee zero drafts: political participation, intersectionality and violence
The CRPD Committee is currently finalising three related texts being a General Comment on Article 29 (political and public participation), Guidelines on intersectional discrimination against women and girls with disabilities, and Guidelines on disability-based violence. EUD and WFD submitted detailed, line-by-line comments on each.
Article 29 on the right to political and public participation. The zero draft repeatedly uses generic language such as “communication systems” or “appropriate communication supports” where it should instead name national sign languages and professional qualified interpretation directly. EUD and WFD are calling for: explicit recognition throughout the General Comment that the provision of national sign languages and funded professional interpretation is a precondition for political participation, including within the UN’s own treaty body processes and elections.
Intersectionality Guidelines. Deaf women and girls are currently discussed only through a disability lens, without recognising their simultaneous membership in a linguistic and cultural minority, and this is exacerbated when deaf women and girls have intersecting identities such as ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, among others. EUD and WFD are calling for: language, culture and membership of a linguistic or cultural minority to be added explicitly to the list of intersecting grounds of discrimination, and for audio-only reporting channels and hotlines to be recognised as a concrete barrier excluding deaf women and girls from protection and justice, alongside inaccessible shelters and GBV services without sign language provision, sexual and reproductive healthcare where consent and health literacy depend on information deaf women and girls cannot access.
Disability-based violence Guidelines. The current draft addresses ableism and stigma broadly but does not name audism as a distinct driver of violence against deaf people, despite documented cases, including killings of deaf persons linked to harmful beliefs about deafness. EUD and WFD are calling for: audism to be named explicitly as a form of ableism driving violence against deaf people, and for the Guidelines to reflect specific deaf-related experiences of violence, including coercive medical interventions on deaf children (such as cochlear implantation or speech therapy imposed at the expense of sign language), language deprivation within the family as a form of violence in itself, denial of sign language in institutions and residential schools, and the inaccessibility of audio-only hotlines, shelters and justice systems for deaf survivors of abuse.
🔗 Consult the call for input, covering all three drafts, issued by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
6–7. Two draft General Comments on Article 11 (situations of risk)
The CRPD Committee is also preparing two General Comments on Article 11: one on States’ obligations in situations of risk, and one on the impacts of situations of risk on persons with disabilities. EUD and WFD submitted detailed input on both, covering early warning systems, evacuation, detention, health, justice, data collection and the role of non-State actors.
General Comment on obligations of States parties. Provisions on early warning systems, evacuation procedures and emergency communication are drafted around generic “accessible formats”, without requiring national sign languages or professional and accredited interpretation. EUD and WFD are calling for: early warnings and evacuation to move beyond sirens and radio toward visual alerts, sign language provision and interpretation, treated as a linguistic right rather than an individual accommodation; these duties extended to armed non-State actors; and deaf-led organisations recognised as expert agents shaping emergency planning, not passive beneficiaries of it.
General Comment on impacts of situations of risk. Deaf-led organisations, sign language interpreters and translators are absent from the list of stakeholders engaged in risk reduction and emergency response, and proposed data collection does not capture sign language use. EUD and WFD are calling for: deaf-led organisations, interpreters and translators to be among emergency-response stakeholders, not as afterthoughts; data collection to stop assuming sign language as universal or limiting deaf people to an impairment perspective; and States made accountable for sign language access even where humanitarian aid is delivered through non-State actors.
🔗 Consult the call for input, covering both drafts, issued by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
What happens next
The full text of each EUD/WFD joint submission is expected to be published on the OHCHR pages linked above in the coming weeks. EUD will continue to follow all seven processes closely and will report on further developments as the drafts move toward adoption.
Home Other The EUD and the WFD Take Sign Language Rights to the UN: Seven Submissions, One Core Message
The EUD and the WFD Take Sign Language Rights to the UN: Seven Submissions, One Core Message
Since May 2026, the European Union of the Deaf (EUD) and the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) have engaged intensively with the United Nations human rights system, submitting joint input to seven separate calls for input issued by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee), and the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities.
Taken together, these submissions respond to some of the most consequential drafting processes currently under way at the UN: new general comments and guidelines that will shape how States are expected to protect the rights of persons with disabilities, including deaf people, in armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies, violence, and political life for years to come.
Across all seven submissions, EUD and WFD return to the main core arguments:
Below is an overview of each submission and the specific change EUD and WFD are asking the relevant UN body to make.
1. Inclusive humanitarian assistance and the Humanitarian Reset
Drawing on direct engagement with National Associations of the Deaf in the occupied Palestinian territory, Ukraine and other conflict-affected contexts, EUD and WFD documented how deaf people are routinely excluded from emergency warnings, evacuation, aid distribution, healthcare and complaints mechanisms because sign language interpretation and accessible communication are treated as optional rather than as core humanitarian obligations. The submission also warns that ongoing humanitarian reform efforts, including the Humanitarian Reset, risk weakening existing disability-inclusion commitments unless explicit safeguards are maintained.
EUD and WFD are calling for: national sign language access and direct, sustainable funding for deaf-led organisations to be explicitly protected as core humanitarian obligations throughout the Humanitarian Reset and all other reform processes, not treated as discretionary extras.
🔗 Consult the call for input, issued by the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities.
2. The application of the ICESCR in situations of armed conflict
In this submission to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, EUD and WFD argue that denying sign language access during armed conflict is not just an accessibility issue but a direct violation of economic, social and cultural rights, undermining health, education, housing, work and cultural participation simultaneously. The submission asks the Committee to interpret the Covenant’s non-discrimination guarantee as explicitly covering language-based exclusion, consistent with the CRPD.
EUD and WFD are calling for: the forthcoming General Comment to state clearly that denying sign language access during armed conflict constitutes discrimination on grounds of both disability and language, applying without exception across every phase of conflict, from prevention to reconstruction.
🔗 Consult the call for input, issued by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
3–5. Three CRPD Committee zero drafts: political participation, intersectionality and violence
The CRPD Committee is currently finalising three related texts being a General Comment on Article 29 (political and public participation), Guidelines on intersectional discrimination against women and girls with disabilities, and Guidelines on disability-based violence. EUD and WFD submitted detailed, line-by-line comments on each.
Article 29 on the right to political and public participation. The zero draft repeatedly uses generic language such as “communication systems” or “appropriate communication supports” where it should instead name national sign languages and professional qualified interpretation directly. EUD and WFD are calling for: explicit recognition throughout the General Comment that the provision of national sign languages and funded professional interpretation is a precondition for political participation, including within the UN’s own treaty body processes and elections.
Intersectionality Guidelines. Deaf women and girls are currently discussed only through a disability lens, without recognising their simultaneous membership in a linguistic and cultural minority, and this is exacerbated when deaf women and girls have intersecting identities such as ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, among others. EUD and WFD are calling for: language, culture and membership of a linguistic or cultural minority to be added explicitly to the list of intersecting grounds of discrimination, and for audio-only reporting channels and hotlines to be recognised as a concrete barrier excluding deaf women and girls from protection and justice, alongside inaccessible shelters and GBV services without sign language provision, sexual and reproductive healthcare where consent and health literacy depend on information deaf women and girls cannot access.
Disability-based violence Guidelines. The current draft addresses ableism and stigma broadly but does not name audism as a distinct driver of violence against deaf people, despite documented cases, including killings of deaf persons linked to harmful beliefs about deafness. EUD and WFD are calling for: audism to be named explicitly as a form of ableism driving violence against deaf people, and for the Guidelines to reflect specific deaf-related experiences of violence, including coercive medical interventions on deaf children (such as cochlear implantation or speech therapy imposed at the expense of sign language), language deprivation within the family as a form of violence in itself, denial of sign language in institutions and residential schools, and the inaccessibility of audio-only hotlines, shelters and justice systems for deaf survivors of abuse.
🔗 Consult the call for input, covering all three drafts, issued by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
6–7. Two draft General Comments on Article 11 (situations of risk)
The CRPD Committee is also preparing two General Comments on Article 11: one on States’ obligations in situations of risk, and one on the impacts of situations of risk on persons with disabilities. EUD and WFD submitted detailed input on both, covering early warning systems, evacuation, detention, health, justice, data collection and the role of non-State actors.
General Comment on obligations of States parties. Provisions on early warning systems, evacuation procedures and emergency communication are drafted around generic “accessible formats”, without requiring national sign languages or professional and accredited interpretation. EUD and WFD are calling for: early warnings and evacuation to move beyond sirens and radio toward visual alerts, sign language provision and interpretation, treated as a linguistic right rather than an individual accommodation; these duties extended to armed non-State actors; and deaf-led organisations recognised as expert agents shaping emergency planning, not passive beneficiaries of it.
General Comment on impacts of situations of risk. Deaf-led organisations, sign language interpreters and translators are absent from the list of stakeholders engaged in risk reduction and emergency response, and proposed data collection does not capture sign language use. EUD and WFD are calling for: deaf-led organisations, interpreters and translators to be among emergency-response stakeholders, not as afterthoughts; data collection to stop assuming sign language as universal or limiting deaf people to an impairment perspective; and States made accountable for sign language access even where humanitarian aid is delivered through non-State actors.
🔗 Consult the call for input, covering both drafts, issued by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
What happens next
The full text of each EUD/WFD joint submission is expected to be published on the OHCHR pages linked above in the coming weeks. EUD will continue to follow all seven processes closely and will report on further developments as the drafts move toward adoption.
All the publications from 2026 - 2028 are co-funded by and produced under the European Commission’s Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) Programme.
Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission’s CERV Programme. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
Share this article...
Related Articles
Women and girls with disabilities in the face of trafficking and sexual exploitation
On the 1st of December, the European Disability Forum (EDF) and the CERMI Women’s Foundation
The first European Accessibility Act peer support meeting
On the 11th of February EUD attended the first peer support meeting for the organisations that
Exclusive interview with the candidate for the presidency of the European Parliament, MEP Helga Stevens.
End of September 2016, it was announced that the group of European Conservatives and Reformists
“Disability Thematic Network Forum for Inclusion” with the title “Leveraging the European Accessibility Act to promote change”
On 22 June 2016, the European Foundation Centre organised a “Disability Thematic Network Forum for