A/HRC/43/41/Add.6 46. The letters encouraged to answer the authorities only if the guardianship was considered unwanted. Out of the 17,000 people that were contacted (the persons and their guardians were contacted separately), approximately 400 reported back that they did not want the guardianship. In more than 100 out of the cases where the person opposed the guardianship, the protest has later been retracted. Approximately 200 guardianships have been revoked. *** 47. Further to these corrections, we have some comments, which we leave for the Special Rapporteur to consider, on points where the draft report could in our view benefit from some clarifications: «In paragraph 17, second sentence, instead of stating that the Convention “does not enjoy the supra legal status of other international human rights treaties”, the following description would be more precise and could be considered: 48. “Unlike international human rights treaties which are incorporated into domestic law through the Human Rights Act, such as for instance the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the provisions of the Convention will not take precedence in case of conflict with other legislative provisions.” On the following sentence of paragraph 72: 49. “While, as a general rule, this regime is voluntary, formal consent is not required if the person is deemed “unable to consent”, which contradicts its voluntariness.” 50. To secure voluntariness when the person is unable to consent, the County Governor still, and as far as possible, is obliged to secure that the guardianship is voluntary. 51. Since February 2018, both interpretation statements from the Ministry of Justice and guidelines to the County Governors, explicitly underline that even if a person is seen as unable to consent, neither can a guardian be appointed if there is reason to believe that this is contrary to the will of the person, nor may the guardian act contrary to the will or preferences of the person. 52. A range of other measures have also been implemented to secure voluntariness, which means that the lack of requirement of a formal consent does not contradict the regime’s voluntariness. Securing voluntariness is among the key aims of the system. 53. This comment is also of relevance to the first sentence of paragraph 74. On the first sentence of paragraph 73: 54. “Although the 2013 reform aimed to address the paradigm shift of the Convention, in practice the Guardianship Act focuses on representation rather than on supported-decision making, and allows for limitations in the exercise of legal capacity.“ 55. The role of the guardian is to assist the person in performing his legal capacity, primarily through supported decision-making, but, if the person wants it, also by being a legal representative. On the following sentence of paragraph 73: 56. “In many cases, County Governors appoint guardians without interviewing the persons concerned.” 57. A conversation with the person before appointing a guardian can only be omitted when this is considered impossible or aimless. Conversations are documented, and since 2018 the application demands to specify the reason why a conversation is omitted. By the end of 2018 conversations where carried through in 47 % of the cases. The conversation is voluntary, thus, the person him/herself is entitled to refuse the conversation with the County Governor. 9