A/HRC/43/41/Add.3 precedence in case of conflict with other legislative provisions. This lack of incorporation weakens the weight given to the Convention in areas of law where it conflicts with Norwegian law, as illustrated below. 17. While recognizing the country’s strong, comprehensive legal framework and past efforts to bring domestic law into line with the Convention in accordance with its article 4, it has yet to complete the process of legal harmonization. That process requires, for example, that existing laws, regulations and practices that may discriminate against persons with disabilities are amended or abolished. The Special Rapporteur notes instances where laws contain provisions that are nor compliant with the Convention. For example, legal provisions that are framed under the medical model of disability and establish restrictions to the full enjoyment of legal capacity of persons with disabilities, including those with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities, diverge from article 12 of the Convention, which recognizes the full legal capacity of persons with disabilities. Examples include provisions in the Dispute Act (for example, sections 2 and 24), the Penal Code (section 44), the Guardianship Act (sections 4, 22 and 33), the Patients’ and Users’ Rights Act (chapter 4), the Mental Health Care Act (sections 3 and 4). These laws also use pejorative language when referring to disability or persons with disabilities, such as “seriously mentally ill and mentally handicapped witnesses” (for example, the Dispute Act, section 24-11), “severely mentally disabled” and “insanity” (the Penal Code, sections 20 and 44 and the Inheritance Act, sections 52 and 62). 18. The Special Rapporteur is equally concerned about legal provisions that allow for the deprivation of liberty, compulsory treatment and/or the use of coercion on the basis of disability, contrary to articles 14 and 17 of the Convention. Examples include the Penal Code, the Mental Health Care Act, the Health and Care Service Act and the Patients’ and Users’ Rights Act, which are further discussed in section III below. 19. The Special Rapporteur is alarmed by the provisions of the Termination of Pregnancy Act stating that women with “serious mental illness” or intellectual disabilities can be subjected to abortion without their free and informed consent. Furthermore, the Sterilization Act allows the next of kin or guardian of a person with severe intellectual or psychosocial disabilities to apply for a sterilization procedure in cases where the person is “despite support, unable to understand the nature and consequences of sterilization”. The Sterilization Tribunal then decides “whether sterilization is the best way to prevent a future pregnancy because the person concerned is incapable of looking after the child”. 20. At the policy level, not all public policies, including disability-specific ones, include a human rights-based approach to disability. For instance, the definition of disability in the strategy “A society for all” is not framed from a human rights perspective, but rather a medical one. Discussions on persons with disabilities are often framed in terms of care and social assistance, and the notion of substantive equality introduced by the Convention is not well known. In order to ensure a systemic transformation of society, the human rights-based approach to disability needs to be strengthened, including by providing guidance and support to counties and municipalities to strengthen capacities and skills to implement policies that are inclusive of the rights of persons with disabilities. III. Challenges and opportunities identified in Norway A. Data collection 21. At the request of the Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs, Statistics Norway prepares annually a set of approximately 70 indicators on living conditions for persons with disabilities. The indicators cover various aspects of life, such as family, health, participation, housing, education, employment and economic status, for persons with disabilities aged between 20 and 66 living in private homes. However, there is no official data available on children and youth with disabilities below 20 years of age, or on persons with disabilities aged over 67. Furthermore, as domestic legislation sets strict limits on the collection and distribution of personal data, there are challenges in the use of existing sociodemographic data and its disaggregation by disability. These limitations 5