AbstractPersons with visual disabilities cannot identify the banknotes issued by the Central Reserve Bank of Peru (hereinafter, BCR) because all banknotes are the same size. One might point to raised features, but these indicate authenticity rather than denomination. This article therefore seeks to demonstrate the problem through three interviews conducted at the National Union of the Blind of Peru and to emphasize the urgent need for action by the BCR. As an autonomous body empowered by the Constitution, the BCR could modify future banknote issues to address this situation.
Keywords: Visual disability, Braille, banknotes, coins.
Introduction:
Over time, commercial exchange has changed from barter to the familiar use of banknotes and coins, as people came to understand that monetary goods can satisfy needs by assigning value to things and objects in a form that is easier to carry. However, a nationwide problem exists in commercial transactions: persons with visual disabilities cannot identify the denomination or value of banknotes, although they can distinguish some coins by touch and size, such as one-sol and two-sol coins and newer coins that have their denomination minted on them.
According to the Central Reserve Bank of Peru (BCR), coins issued before 2001 did not contain the referenced Braille code. In response, newer one-sol coins issued after that year include dots said to identify their denomination through Braille. However, as discussed later, this measure is questionable because the purported Braille dots are confused with raised markings showing the coin’s denomination.
This article therefore has the following objectives:- To provide a brief introduction to the Braille reading-and-writing system for persons with visual disabilities, from an inclusive-education perspective.
- To emphasize the urgency of State action, especially by the BCR, which has constitutional functions relating to regulation of currency and credit in the financial system and can therefore modify the banknotes it issues, in light of the rights to free development of personality, non-discrimination and equality.
The article is divided into four sections. The first three introduce the reader to the Braille system and explain how persons with visual disabilities can read and write using Braille slates. The article then addresses the BCR’s functions regarding the issuance of banknotes and coins within a constitutional rule-of-law framework and argues that future issues should modify banknotes because persons with visual disabilities are currently unable to identify them. These points are supported by the applicable legal framework, and possible solutions are proposed to address the imbalance.
Finally, the article presents three real cases of persons with visual disabilities who described the ingenious ways in which they “juggle” daily tasks in order to participate in society and pursue equality of opportunity. The article then sets out its conclusions.
1. Brief introduction to the Braille system:
The system is known as Braille after its creator, Louis Braille, a student with a visual disability who developed a universal reading-and-writing system. Through this system, persons with visual disabilities can communicate in writing, contributing to social and educational inclusion.
Using touch, and particularly raised dots, users identify a set of 64 dot combinations used to represent letters and words. Learning is a process in which a person first identifies letters, then progresses to words and complete sentences, and through practical exercises can eventually achieve fluent reading and writing.
2. Regarding Peruvian banknotes and coins:
Under Article 83[1] of the 1993 Constitution, the BCR has authority to issue banknotes and coins. As a legal person, it is autonomous under its Organic Law, with the objective of maintaining monetary stability.
Under this constitutional mandate, the Central Bank’s purpose is to preserve monetary stability and its autonomy. Monetary stability is understood as “the principal contribution that the Central Bank can make to the country’s economy because, by controlling inflation, uncertainty is reduced and confidence is generated in the present and future value of the currency, an essential element for encouraging saving, attracting productive investment and thereby promoting sustained economic growth.”[2].
Autonomy, in turn, is described as “a necessary condition for monetary management based on technical criteria so that decisions are directed toward fulfilling the constitutional mandate to preserve monetary stability, without departures from that objective. One of the guarantees of autonomy is that directors may not be removed except for serious misconduct, as established in the Organic Law of the Central Bank.”[3].
The Central Bank therefore has among its functions the issuance of banknotes and coins in a manner that guarantees an adequate supply of cash in appropriate quantity and quality. Banknotes also contain various security features designed to guarantee authenticity, reflected in the familiar phrase “Feel, Look and Tilt,” since touch can reveal characteristics such as texture and particular raised-print features.
All of this is interesting, but an obvious question arises: is “Feel, Look and Tilt” suitable for persons with visual disabilities? The answer is no. It is clear that they cannot fully assess a banknote’s authenticity through a method that depends on visual inspection.
The BCR appears to design for the average person, so to speak, assuming that all senses are fully available. The same is not true for persons with visual disabilities, for whom an accessibility measure based on universal design is needed so that this part of the population can identify banknotes.
In 2005, Mexico identified this problem and decided to add tactile distinguishing marks to its $100, $200 and $500 banknotes. These banknotes contain raised marks so that persons with visual disabilities can identify them with the help of Braille templates. The template is used by locating an arrow on one side, positioning the template vertically so that the arrow points upward, and then folding the protruding portion of the banknote backward and forward, enabling the user to identify the banknote’s value with the aid of Braille characters.
3. The BCR, constitutional protection and the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities:
One characteristic of the constitutional rule of law is the protection of persons against differential treatment in order to achieve equality. Here we will refer to this in terms of reasonable accommodation[4]. Although the term is specifically used in the General Law on Persons with Disabilities (Law No. 29973) in the employment sphere, we adopt the underlying idea: necessary and reasonable modifications and adaptations that guarantee persons with disabilities full participation in society.[5]In the same vein, Article 2 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provides:
“Discrimination on the basis of disability” means any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation;
“Reasonable accommodation” means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
On the one hand, our argument is grounded in the constitutional principle of equality recognized in Article 2(2) of the Constitution and in repeated constitutional case law: “treat equals equally and unequals differently.” This gives substantive content to equality as a foundation of the constitutional order and to the principle of non-discrimination expressed in the same provision through the reference to “any other grounds.”
Discrimination can thus be understood as an act that arbitrarily differentiates a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground, while a violation of equality may also arise through arbitrary differential treatment even where the distinction does not expressly rely on one of those prohibited grounds.
On the other hand, accessibility is recognized in Article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by Peru through Legislative Resolution No. 29127 and therefore forming part of the constitutional framework.
Failure to adopt accessibility measures and reasonable accommodation affects the rights of persons with disabilities because, in light of the barriers they face, it prevents their full participation in all aspects of life. Within our constitutional framework, Articles 2(2) and 7 require the State to guarantee respect for their dignity and a legal system of protection and support.
Under the Fourth Final and Transitional Provision of the Constitution, international instruments must be used as interpretive criteria. Article 3(2) of the General Law on Persons with Disabilities likewise provides:
“The rights of persons with disabilities are interpreted in accordance with the principles and rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and other international human-rights instruments ratified by Peru.”."
Likewise, Article 3(a), (c), (e) and (f) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter, CRPD) provides:“(a) Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons;
(c) Full and effective participation and inclusion in society;
(e) Equality of opportunity;
(f) Accessibility.”
These principles seek to eliminate obstacles that prevent persons with disabilities from fully developing their autonomy. We should recall that the most appropriate understanding of disability does not locate disability in the person; we regard that individualizing approach as incorrect. Disability arises in interaction with society when accessibility and reasonable accommodation are not provided so that people, according to their circumstances, can fully enjoy and exercise their rights.
This is precisely what accessibility involves. Accessibility is a right of all people, and it is particularly important for persons with disabilities because it enables them to participate as autonomously and safely as possible, on an equal basis with others. Necessary modifications and adaptations facilitate the exercise of the rights of persons with disabilities to a greater degree.
Similarly, in Judgment Exp. No. 02437-2013-PA/TC, legal ground 23, the Constitutional Court understood that “forms of the ‘reasonable accommodation’ model do not point to the possibility that States Parties may alternatively introduce assistance schemes (...). The reasonableness of accommodations must be assessed not by the general and abstract treatment given to disability, but by the type of disability to which they are directed.”
The right to free development and well-being of the personality likewise protects the actions of every person aimed at achieving personal fulfillment, peace of mind and a way of life of their own choosing, by virtue of autonomy and dignity and the recognition that we are free and equal beings.
Accordingly, the rights to equality and non-discrimination of persons with disabilities are violated when banknotes issued by the BCR contain no distinctive feature that allows them to be identified. This also affects the rights to free development of personality and to an adequate environment, principles recognized in Articles 2(1) and 2(22) of our Constitution. As a result, persons with visual disabilities cannot participate fully in society on an equal basis with others.
It is important to distinguish between “Universal Design and Accessibility.” Accessibility, recognized in Article 3 of the CRPD and read systematically with Article 9, can be understood as “the modification of the environment, transportation, and communication and information systems so that, generally, persons with disabilities are able to exercise their rights.”[6]For this reason, Professor Renata Bregaglio, in discussing the scope of the non-discrimination mandate in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, emphasizes three issues: the general nature of the measure (it is not designed for one particular person but for a group of beneficiaries), the scope of the beneficiaries (persons with disabilities), and the binding nature of the measures (the State is required to adopt accessibility measures).[7].
Universal Design also seeks to eliminate barriers, but the modification is directed toward all people. Thus, Universal Design, as expressed in Article 4(1)(f) of the CRPD, requires States to “undertake or promote research and development of universally designed goods, services, equipment and facilities.” universal design” (emphasis added).
Finally, the difference between reasonable accommodation and accessibility is that reasonable accommodation has an individual scope and is an ex post measure, that is, it responds to the particular situation of a specific person with a disability. Accessibility, by contrast, operates at a broader level and extends to areas such as study and teaching methodologies, employee hiring criteria, working hours, judicial questioning, and health-care and medication services, among others.
In summary, accessibility applies generally and benefits all persons with disabilities, with States under an obligation to adopt accessibility measures. Universal design is likewise general, but it is directed toward all people, with and without disabilities, and the State obligation is to promote research and technical standards on universal design. Reasonable accommodation, by contrast, is not general but specific to an individual person with a disability, and the measure required from the responsible party must be reasonable.
4. Real cases: Brief conversation with members of the National Union of the Blind of Peru and their concerns:
In this section, we use the names Víctor, Patricia and Pedro because we prefer to protect their identities. Their identities are not the subject of the research; what matters most are their experiences of this monetary barrier. It is important to note that all three are adults, parents, and members of the National Union of the Blind of Peru.
Víctor became blind as a result of an accident and told us that he distinguishes banknotes by arranging them in order according to denomination. One-hundred-sol notes, for example, go first, followed by the other denominations down to ten-sol notes. This way, when paying, he knows which notes should come out first. But how many ten-sol notes does he have in his pocket? To distinguish them, he relies on relatives and trusted friends. Víctor says he has had several problems with unscrupulous people who lied about the denomination of a banknote. For example, when using public transport, he might hand over a twenty-sol note but be told by the fare collector that it was only a ten-sol note, resulting in incorrect change.
He therefore considers it appropriate for banknotes to have different sizes: one-hundred-sol notes could be larger and ten-sol notes smaller. This position relates to the concept of universal design “design that seeks to encourage the development of attractive and marketable products usable by any type of person. It is oriented toward solutions in construction and product design that respond to the needs of a broad range of users.”
Patricia, who has also experienced difficulties when making purchases and who runs her own massage business, told us that she prefers to be accompanied by a family member. Because she has limited resources, she does not usually shop in supermarkets or department stores but in commercial areas such as Gamarra and downtown Lima.
Each day she faces new variables in carrying out her activities and must trust in other people’s good faith. She explains that banknotes cannot be distinguished by smell or size because they are all the same. In her view, raised tactile markings on banknotes would be an appropriate measure, just as she is able to distinguish coins because they are different sizes rather than because of any supposed raised marking.
Finally, Pedro told us that the BCR once issued a one-sol coin with what was described as Braille. However, it cannot actually be read because the way the Braille is presented is not legible and becomes confused with the other raised features on the coin. He also noted that in other countries there are mobile applications that use a camera to identify a banknote and then announce its value through speech.
He also told us that he tried to make distinctive marks on his banknotes so that he could identify them, but because other people did not understand the purpose of the marks, they told him that the notes had holes and refused to accept them because they thought they were counterfeit.
By way of conclusion:
- The three real cases presented demonstrate the urgent need to modify Peruvian banknotes.
- Failure to modify them would affect the legally protected interests already identified in our Constitution and would allow arbitrariness and improper performance by the Central Reserve Bank in its banknote- and coin-issuing function.
- Whether the solution is framed as reasonable accommodation or universal design, a modification would benefit persons with visual disabilities.
- We recognize that this issue requires careful scrutiny, but whichever option is adopted, the priority should be to ensure that persons with visual disabilities can participate with equality of opportunity and greater autonomy in their daily lives.
References:
[1] The law determines the monetary system of the Republic. The issuance of banknotes and coins is the exclusive power of the State, exercised through the Central Reserve Bank of Peru.
[2] BANCO CENTRAL DE RESERVA.
[3] Íbidem.
[4] Norma Técnica para el diseño, implementación y ejecución de los ajustes razonables para el empleo de personas con discapacidad en el sector privado. Resolución Ministerial N° 127-2016-TR.
[5] It is important to note that the accommodation must be reasonable; if the employer cannot implement it because it would not be reasonable, the failure to implement it would not in itself constitute discrimination.
[6] BREGAGLIO, R. “El principio de no discriminación por motivo de discapacidad” en Nueve conceptos claves para entender la Convención sobre los derechos de las personas con discapacidad. IDEHPUCP.
[7] Íbidem.
Bibliography:
Convención sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad, aprobado el 13 December 2006.
Constitución Política Del Perú, promulgada el 29 December 1993.
Carey, A. (2009) On the Margins of Citizenship: Intellectual Disability and Civil Rights in Twentieth-Century America. Filadelfia: Temple University Press.
Desjardins, M. (2012) “The Sexualized Body of the Child: Parents and the Politics of ‘Voluntary’ Sterilization of People Labeled Intellectually Disabled” En: Sex and Disability, ed. R. McRuer y A. Mollow. Durham: Duke University Press.
Banco Central de Reserva del Perú (BCR). (2013) “La Misión Kemmerer”. Available at: http://www.bcrp.gob.pe/docs/sobre-el-bcrp/folleto/folleto-institucional-1.pdf
Ley General de la Persona con Discapacidad. (2012) Ley 29973. Ley general de la persona con discapacidad. 14 de junio 2012. Accessed: 23/06/17. Available at: https://www.mimp.gob.pe/webs/mimp/herramientas-recursos-violencia/contenedor-dgcvg-recursos/contenidos/Legislacion/Ley-general-de-la-Persona-con-Discapacidad-29973.pdf
Tribunal Constitucional. (2013) Expediente N° 02437-2013-PA/TC. Sentencia: 16 April 2014. Accessed: 23/06/17. Available at: http://www.tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2014/02437-2013-AA.pdf
