A/HRC/24/25 32. Ms. Mahler recalled the mandate of the German Institute for Human Rights, including the promotion and protection of human rights by pursuing several activities: information-gathering, documentation, applied research, human rights education, advising policymakers and society in general, participation in relevant debates and cooperation at the national and international levels. 33. Despite the legal framework in Germany, where non-discrimination was a general principle, age discrimination was seen as a new phenomenon. She illustrated her point with a survey of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, which revealed that one in five persons in Germany had experienced situations of age discrimination: for example, discrimination against women in employment throughout their lives often led to disproportionately lower incomes and pensions compared with men. Hence, older women were at higher risk of poverty in old age. 34. Ms. Mahler emphasized three main challenges for Germany in the protection of the rights of older persons: (a) With regard to labour, older workers were often stereotyped as less productive, less efficient, more prone to ill-health or disease or incapable of adapting to technological environments. In Germany, there were strict age limits for certain professions, which imposed a disproportionate limitation of the fundamental rights to work; (b) Health services should consider the health needs of older persons with the goal of enhancing their autonomy. The health system discriminated against older persons because many illnesses were wrongly defined as inherent to old age, and therefore older persons received different treatment from younger patients. Older persons should have the same access to health as younger people; (c) Public debate: demographic change was often associated with negative attributes and depicted as a threat. Such negative images reproduced ageism instead of underscoring the new possibilities offered by demographic change. 35. According to Ms. Mahler, the Government of Germany had to be more aware of the increasing importance of ageing by implementing a rights-based approach in order to allow older persons to enjoy their right to autonomy and independent living. German society had to include older persons in the public discourse to create an inclusive society. She argued that an international binding treaty for older persons would constitute a strong reference to close existing gaps and bring a human rights-based approach to age-adequate policies. 36. Mr. Doron explained the origin of the term “ageism”, and pointed out that international human rights instruments did not include an old age-sensitive approach. For instance, while the Universal Declaration of Human Rights included a list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in its article 2, no reference to age was made in it. In contrast, article 25 of the Universal Declaration depicted age as a negative contingency, equated with unemployment or sickness: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself … and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control”. The general pattern of the way in which international human rights law treated old age was either by ignoring it or considering it a vulnerable condition, a risk, a weakness or a burden, or by implying that older persons did not deserve to be considered a specific group, or by considering that their rights could be covered by other categories (such as “older women” or “older workers”). 37. The key reasons that would justify a specific human rights instrument for older persons on all levels were ageism and age discrimination. These phenomena were universal and unique to older persons, and manifest in all fields of life, such as employment, health services, social services, the economy, intergenerational relationships, and access to justice, 9