{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"41764165","dateCreated":"1314633440","smartDate":"Aug 29, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"cristinamichels","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/cristinamichels","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/ohchrglossary.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/41764165"},"dateDigested":1532174763,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"comment","description":"I found that both entries do not spell out the elements of the violation, but only define what the terms access to water and sanitation mean","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[],"more":0}]},{"id":"41424215","dateCreated":"1313480967","smartDate":"Aug 16, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"lucindaohanlon","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lucindaohanlon","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/ohchrglossary.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/41424215"},"dateDigested":1532174763,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Comments from Lucinda","description":"8.3.1<br \/>\nI find this page unbalanced between water and sanitation. The normative content of both can be treated together as the SR did in her good practices criteria report - A\/HRC\/1\/31\/Add.1. <br \/>\n<br \/>\nConcerning the normative content, we typically divide it into 5 categories as we find it clearer - accessibility (physical, affordability, availability, quality and acceptability. Access to information and non-discrimination span across all of these normative elements, as does participation and accountability. I know this diverges from GC15, but we find it easier to communicate the issues in this way. <br \/>\n<br \/>\nThe language concerning discrimination comes across odd to me \u2013 I think there is a double negative in the sentence beginning \u201cThe principle of non-discrimination\u201d. I would suggest that we delete \u201cregard to the internationally accepted\u201d and instead put \u201cdiscrimination on\u201d. Also are we sure we want to include that list, when evolving interpretations have also included other categories? (For water and sanitation, tenure status is key). I would suggest that the language should be adjusted so it reads: <br \/>\n<br \/>\nThe right to water, and sanitation, is derived from the right to an adequate standard of living, and also the right to health. But I would hesitate to say also housing and food.  Certainly very closely related to housing, but that is also component of the right to an adequate standard of living so does it help to mention it? Also food - starts to get us away from personal and domestic uses and into productive uses which is specifically beyond the scope of the right to water. And I am not sure there is as close a connection between the right to sanitation and the right to food (besides pollution aspects)<br \/>\n<br \/>\nCEDAW article 14 only applies to rural women, so maybe specify that. <br \/>\n<br \/>\nThe citations to the IE\/SR\u2019s work require report numbers. The two cites that are there are referring to the sanitation report A\/HRC\/12\/24, and I would suggest as above that the good practices report is a helpful description of how we see the rights.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[],"more":0}]}],"more":false},"comments":[]},"http":{"code":200,"status":"OK"},"redirectUrl":null,"javascript":null,"notices":{"warning":[],"error":[],"info":[],"success":[]}}