Abortion as a human right - International and regional standards

Human Rights Law Review

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 249-294

  Zampas, Christina ^a   Gher, Jaime M ^a  

^a Center for Reproductive Rights   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 45149109057     PISSN: 14617781     EISSN: 17441021     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngn008     Document Type: Article

References (454)

1. World Health Organization (WHO), Unsafe Abortion: Global and Regional Estimates of Incidence of and Mortality due to Unsafe Abortion with a Listing of Available Country Data, 3rd edn (Geneva: WHO, 1997), WHO/ RHT/MSM/97.16 at 3-14.
2. Cook, Dickens and Fathalla, Reproductive Health and Human Rights: Integrating Medicine, Ethics and Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 26.
3. Alan Guttmacher Institute, 'Abortion in Context: United States and Worldwide', May 1999, available at: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ ib.0599.html [last accessed 17 September 2007].
4. Res. AHG/RES.240 (XXXI). The African Women's Protocol entered into force on 25 November 2005 after ratification by 15 African states.
5. OAU Doc. CAR/LEG/76/3 Rev.5; 21 ILM 58 (1982).
6. Article 14.2(c.), African Women's Protocol.
7. Article 14, African Women's Protocol.
8. African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR), List of countries which have signed, Ratified/Acceded to the African Union Convention on Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People's Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, available at: http://www.achpr.org/english/ratifications/ ratification.women%20protocol.pdf [last accessed 7 September 2007]. Ratifying countries are: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Libya, Lesotho, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, Mauritania, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Senegal, Seychelles, Togo and Zambia.
9. Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 1607 on access to safe and legal abortion in Europe, 15th sitting, 16 April 2008, available at: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link-/Documents/ AdoptedText/ta08/ERES1607.htm [last accessed 8 May 2008].
10. Cook, Dickens and Fathalla, supra n. 2 at 148.
11. Ibid. at 148-9.
12. Report of the International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, 5-13 September 1994, A/CONF.171/13/Rev.1 (1995), Chapter VIII C. Women's Health and Safe Motherhood at para. 8.25.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Vukovich, Key Actions for the Further Implementation of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Whole of the Twenty-First Special Session of the General Assembly), 1 July 1999, A/S-21/5/Add.1 at para. 63(iii), available at: www.un.org/popin/unpopcom/32ndsess/gass/ 215ale.pdf [last accessed 21 September 2007].
17. In this article a significant portion of the analysis of treaty-monitoring bodies' functions, interpretations and jurisprudence, is derived from: Center for Reproductive Rights, 'Bringing Rights to Bear: An Analysis of the Work of UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies on Reproductive and Sexual Rights', 2002, available at: http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/pub.bo.tmb. full.pdf [last accessed 2 October 2007].
18. Office Of The High Commissioner For Human Rights, 'Treaty Bodies', 14 February 2002, available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/ leafletontreatybodies.pdf [last accessed 21 September 2007].
19. Much of the research on Concluding Observations from Treaty Monitoring Bodies comes from 'Bringing Rights to Bear', supra n. 17.
20. ETS No. 5. See Council of Europe, 'About the Council of Europe', available at: http://www.coe.int/T/e/Com/about.coe/ [last accessed 21 September 2007].
21. Declaration of Santiago, Final Act of the Fifth meeting of Consultation of Foreign Minister, Res. VI, OEA/[s SER s].c/11.5 (1959) at 10-11.
22. Inter-American Institute on Human Rights (IIHR) and Latin American and Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Women's Rights (CLADEM) (eds), Protección Internacional de los Derechos Humanos de las Mujeres, Papers from the proceedings of a conference held in San Jose, Costa Rica, April 1997 (Portada de la Editorial Farben, 1997) at 150.
23. See also American Convention on Human Rights 1969, OAS Treaty Series No. 36, OEA/Ser.L.V/II.23, doc. 21, rev. 6 (American Convention), which entered into force on 18 July 1978.
24. Supra n. 22 at 150.
25. ACHPR, 'African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Establishment - Information Sheet No. 1' (African Commission-Information Sheet), available at: http://www.achpr.org/english/information.sheets/ACHPR%20 inf.%20sheet%20no.1.doc [last accessed 21 September 2007].
26. Article 62, African Charter.
27. African Commission - Information Sheet, supra n. 24. A communication can also be made by a State Party that reasonably believes that another State Party has violated any of the Charter's provisions.
28. Beyani, 'A Human Rights Court for Africa', (2005) 15) Interights Bulletin 1.
29. WHO, supra n. 1.
30. Center for Reproductive Rights, 'The World's Abortion Laws', avaiiabie at: http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub.fac.abortion.laws.html [last accessed 30 August 2007].
31. IPAS, 'Abortion ban saga continues in Nicaragua', 22 November 2006, available at: http://www.ipas.org/Library/News/News.Items/ Abortion.ban.saga.continues.in.Nicaragua.aspxht= [last accessed 25 September 2000].
32. UNTS 171, which entered into force on 23 March 1976.
33. HRC, General Comment No. 6: Article 6 (Right to life), in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 (2004) (Compilation of General Comments) at 128.
34. Ibid. at 129, para. 5.
35. HRC, General Comment No. 28: Article 3 (Equality of rights between men and women), in Compilation of General Comments supra n. 32 at 179, para. 10.
36. Ibid. at 181, para. 20.
37. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: Chile, 30 March 1999, CCPR/ C/79/Add.104 at para. 15;
38. Colombia, 1 April 1997, CCPR/C/79/Add.76 at para. 24
39. Ecuador, 18 August 1998, CCPR/C/79/Add.92 at para. 11
40. Guatemala, 27 August 2001, CCPR/CO/72/GTM at para. 19
41. Mali, 16 April 2003, CCPR/CO/77/MLI at para. 14
42. Mongolia, 25 Mav 2000, CCPR/C/79/Add.120 at para. 8(b):
43. Peru, 15 November 2000, CCPR/CO/70/PER at para. 20
44. Poland, 29 July 1999, CCPR/C/79/Add.110 at para. 11
45. and United Republic of Tanzania, 18 August 1998, CCPR/C/79/Add.97 at para. 15.
46. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: Mali, 16 April 2003, CCPR/ CO/77/MLI at para. 14
47. and Poland, 2 December 2004, CCPR/CO/82/POL para. 8.
48. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding El Salvador, 22 August 2003, CCPR/CO/78/SLV at para. 14.
49. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: Chile, 16 may 2007, CCPR/C/ CHL/CO/5 at para. 8
50. and Madagascar, 11 May 2007, CCPR/C/MDG/CO/3 at para. 14.
51. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: Mauritius, 27 April 2001, CCPR/CO/83.MUS at para. 9
52. and Venezuela, 26 April 2001, CCPR/CO/71/VEN at para. 19.
53. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding Gambia, 12 August 2004, CCPR/CO/75/GMB at para. 17.
54. Peru, supra n. 36 at para. 20.
55. Venezuela, supra n. 40.
56. Mali. supra n. 36.
57. Ecuador, supra. n. 36. For further discussion of the threat of suicide as a potential risk to life and thus a viable exception to abortion prohibitions, see infra section 2(A)(ii) European System.
58. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: Chile, 188 May 2007 (CCPR/ C/CHL/CO/5 at para 81
59. El Salvador, 22 August 2003, CCPR/CO/78/SLV at para. 14
60. Madagascar, 11 May 2007, CCPR/C/MDG/C0/3 at para. 14
61. and Poland, 2 December 2004, CCPR/CO/82/POL at para. 8.
62. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: Chile, 18 may 2007, CCPR/C/ CHL/CO/5 at para. 8
63. and Madagascar, 11 May 2007, CCPR/C/MDG/CO/3 at para. 14.
64. Chile and El Salvador, supra n. 46.
65. Poland, supra n. 46.
66. Ibid.
67. Chile and Guatemala, supra n. 36.
68. Ecuador, supra n. 36.
69. Chile and Guatemala, supra n. 36.
70. Chile, supra n. 36.
71. Guatemala, supra n. 36
72. UNTS 13.
73. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, General Recommendation 24: Article 12 of the Convention and Health), in Compilation of General Comments supra n. 32 at 280, para. 27 (CEDAW General Rec. 24).
74. Ibid. at 276, para. 11.
75. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding: Azerbaijan, 14 May 1998, A/ 53/38/Rev.1 at 10, para. 73
76. Belize, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 56
77. Burundi, 2 February 2001, A/56/38 at para. 61
78. Colombia, 4 February 1999, A/54/38 at para. 393
79. Georgia, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 111
80. Kyrgyzstan, 27 January 1999, A/54/38 at para. 136
81. Mongolia, 2 February 2001, A/56/38 at para. 273
82. Myanmar, 28 January 2000, A/55/38 at para. 129
83. Nepal, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 147
84. Nicaragua, 31 July 2001, A/56/38 at paras 300-1
85. Peru, 8 July 1998, A/33/38/Rev.1 at 73 and 75, paras 300 and 339
86. Romania, 23 June 2000, A/55/38 at para. 314
87. and Zimbabwe, 14 May 1998, A/53/38/Rev.1 at 16, para. 159.
88. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding; Belize, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 56
89. Colombia, 5 February 1999, A/54/38 at para. 393
90. and Dominican Republic, 14 May 1998, A/53/38 at para. 337.
91. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding: Chile, 9 July 1999, A/54/38 at paras 209 and 228
92. Greece, 1 February 1999, A/54/38 at para. 207
93. Hungary, 9 May 1996, A/51/38 at para. 254
94. Lithuania, 16 June 2000, A/55/38 at para. 158
95. Ukraine, 9 May 1996, A/51/38 at para. 287
96. and Georgia and Mongolia. supra n. 59.
97. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding: Burundi, 2 February 2001, A/ 56/38 at para. 62
98. Chile, 9 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 229
99. Chile, 25 August 2006, CEDAW/C/CHI/CO/ at para. 20
100. Georgia, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 112
101. Greece, 1 February 1999, A/54/38 at para. 208
102. Ireland, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 186
103. Kazakhstan, 2 February 2001, A/56/38 at paras 76 and 106
104. Lithuania, 16 June 2000, A/55/38 at para. 159
105. Mongolia, 2 February 2001, A/56/38 at para. 274
106. Nicaragua, 31 July 2001, A/56/38 at para. 301
107. and Slovenia, 12 August 1997, A/52/38/Rev.1 at para. 119.
108. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding: Burkina Faso, 31 January 2000, A/55/38 at para. 275
109. Luxembourg, 12 August 1997, A/52/38/Rev.1 Part II at para. 221
110. Myanmar, 28 January 2000, A/55/38 at para. 130
111. and Slovenia, 12 August 1997, A/52/38/Rev.1 at para. 119.
112. Chile, 25 August 2006, supra n. 62.
113. Ibid.
114. Burkina Faso, supra n. 63 at para. 276.
115. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding: Andorra, 31 July 2001. A/56/ 38 at para. 48
116. Belize, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 57
117. Cameroon, 26 June 2000, A/55/38 at para. 60
118. Chile, 25 August 2006, CEDAW/C/CHI/CO/4 at paras 19-20
119. Colombia, 4 February 1999, A/54/38 at para. 394
120. Ireland, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 186
121. Jordan, 27 January 2000, A/55/38 at para. 181
122. Nepal, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at paras 139 and 148
123. Panama, 2 July 1998, A/55/38/Rev.1 at para. 201
124. Peru, 8 July 1998, A/53/38/Rev.1 at para. 340
125. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 12 August 1997,A/52/38/Rev.1 at para. 148
126. and United Kingdom, 1 July 1999, A/55/38 at para. 310.
127. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding: Belgium, 9 May 1996, A/51/38 at para. 181.
128. UNTS 13, which entered into force on 2 September 1990.
129. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 4; Adolescent health and development in the context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in Compilation of General Comments, supra n. 32 at 328, para. 27 (CRC - General Comment No. 4).
130. Ibid. Note, the CRC has also expressed concern within its Concluding Observations regarding sex-selective abortions and female infanticide: see China, 24 November 2005, CRC/C/CHN/CO/2 at para. 28
131. India, 26 February 2004, CRC/C/15/Add.228 at para. 33, and recommended States Parties implement existing legislation prohibiting such practices and taking additional measures such as imposing sanctions to end such practices.
132. See Concluding Observations of the CRC regarding: China, 24 November 2005, CRC/C/CHN/CO/2 at para. 29
133. and India, 26 February 2004, CRC/C/15/Add.228 at para. 34. The CRC has not, however, addressed the complex intersection between curbing sex-selective abortion practices and promoting women's abortion rights, or specifically, called for States Parties to safeguard women's abortion rights when seeking to eradicate sex-selective abortion.
134. Concluding Observations of the CRC regarding: Chad, 24 August 1999, CRC/ C/15/Add.107 at para. 30
135. Colombia, 16 October 2000, CRC/C/15/Add.137 at para. 48
136. Guatemala, 9 July 2001, CRC/C/15/Add.154 at para. 40
137. and Nicaragua, 24 August 1999, CRC/C/15/Add.108 at para. 35.
138. Concluding Observations of the CRC regarding: Chad, 24 August 1999, CRC/ C/15/Add.107 at para. 30
139. and Guatemala, 9 July 2001, CRC/C/15/Add.154 at para. 40.
140. Chad, ibid.
141. UNTS 3, which entered into force on 23 January 1976.
142. See Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding: Mexico, 9 June 2006, E/C.12/MEX/CO/4 at para. 25
143. Nepal, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.66 at para/32
144. Panama, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.64 at para. 20
145. Poland, 16 June 1998, E/C.12/1/Add.26 at para. 12
146. Senegal, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.62 at para. 26
147. and Spain, 7 June 2003, E/C.12/1/Add.99 at para. 22.
148. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding: Nepal, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.66 at para. 55
149. and Poland, 19 December 2002, E/C.12/1/Add.82 at para. 51.
150. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding: Chile, 1 December 2004, E/C.12/1/Add.105 at para. 53
151. Malta, 14 December 2004, E/C.12/1/Add.101 at para. 41
152. and Monaco, 13 June 2006, E/C.12/MCO/CO/1 at para. 23.
153. Concluding Observations ot the CESCR regarding: Chile, 1 December 2004, E/C.12/1/Add.105 at para. 53
154. Malta, 14 December 2004, E/C.12/1/Add.101 at para. 41
155. Monaco, 13 June 2006, E/C.12/MCO/CO/1 at para. 23
156. and Nepal, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.66 at para. 55.
157. Article 2 of the ECHR provides: Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. Note that the European Commission on Human Rights (EComHR) interpreted this right as not only requiring State Parties to prevent intentional killing, but to also take necessary affirmative measures to protect life against unintentional loss. See Cook. Dickens, and Fathalla, supra n. 2 at 161,
158. citing Tavares v France, Application No. 16593/90, EComHR, Report of 12 September 1991, which was declared inadmissible on technical grounds. While the ECtHR now has the sole role of interpreting and applying the ECHR, prior Commission statements and decisions are persuasive.
159. Krzyanowska-Mierzewska, How to Use the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Matters of Reproductive Law: The Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights, (Astra, 2004) at Part III.1, available at: http://www.astra.org.pl/ astra.guide.htm [last accessed 9 September 2007].
160. Tavares v France, supra n. 79.
161. Recently, the. ECtHR referenced the Irish Supreme Court decision Attorney General v X, which held a pregnant teenager's suicidal tendencies to be a real and substantial risk to life under Ireland's life exception to the constitutional abortion ban, in the case D. v Ireland, to assert that Ireland's Constitutional Court has the potential to develop the parameters of the Irish abortion law, thus requiring the exhaustion of domestic remedies.
162. See D. v Ireland (2006) 43 EHRR SE16 at paras 88-103. See also Attorney General v X [1992] 2 CMLR 277.
163. Article 14.2 (c), African Women's Protocol.
164. Ibid.
165. GA Res. 217A(III), 10 December 1948.
166. GA OR 3rd Comm., A/PV/99 (1948) at 110-124.
167. GA OR Annex, 12th session (1957), Agenda Item 33 at 96, A/C.3/L.654 at para. 113. The Commission on Human Rights ultimately voted to adopt Article 6, which has no reference to conception, by a vote of 55 to nil, with 17 abstentions: See GAOR, 12th Session, Agenda Item 33, A/3764 (1957) at 119(q).
168. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: Argentina, CCPR/CO/70/ARG (2000) at para. para. 14
169. Costa Rica, CCPR/C/79/Add.107 (1999) at para. 11
170. United Republic of Tanzania, CCPR/C/79/Add.97 (1998) at para. 15:
171. Venezuela. CCPR/CO/71/VEN (2001) at para. 19
172. and Poland. CCPR/CO/82/POL (2004) at para. 8.
173. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: Ecuador, 18 August 1998, CCPR/C/79/Add.92 at para. 11
174. Mongolia, 25 April 2000, CCPR/C/79/Add.120 at para. 8(b);
175. and Poland, 29 July 1999, CCPR/C/79/Add.110 at para. 11.
176. CRC, supra n. 69.
177. Ibid. at Preamble. para. 9.
178. Commission on Human Rights, Question of a Convention on the Rights of a Child: Report of the Working Group, 10 March 1980, E/CNA/L/1542.
179. Ibid.
180. UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Working Group on a Draft Convention on the Rights of the Child, E/CNA/198~48 (1989) at p. 10, as cited in LeBlanc, The Convention on the Rights of the Child: United Nations Lawmaking on Human Rights (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1995) 69 (quoted in Ibegbu, Rights of the Unborn in International Law (Lewiston NY: E Mellen Press, 2000) at 145 and 146-7.
181. Article I, ICRC.
182. Paton v United Kingdom (X v United Kingdom) (1980) 19 DR 244: (1981) 3 EHRR 48 at paras 7 9 and 23.
183. Ibid. at paras 7-9 and 19.
184. Ibid. at para. 19.
185. Boso v Italy 2002-VII 99.
186. Ibid.
187. Hewson, 'Dancing on the Head of a Pin? Foetal Life and the European Convention', (2005) 13 Feminist Legal Studies 363 at 372.
188. Vo v France (2005) 40 EHRR 12 at para. 80.
189. Ibid. at paras 80 and 82. See also Grégoire Loiseau.'Histoire d'une vie volée: Le foetus n'est pas une personne', Droit et patrumone November 2001, chron. Droits des personnes, p. 99. summarising the 2001 case. The Cour de Cassation confirmed that a 'human being' is a biological concept in France, and human beings are understood to exist from the beginning of life, generally considered as conception, although there is no firm agreement on when life begins. On the other hand, the term 'person is a legal term that is attached to a legal category whose rights takes effect and are perfected by birth, although in certain circumstances the rights acquired at birth will be retroactive to conception. The decision was based on the distinction made in French law between the concepts of 'human being' and 'person', which scholars assert is deeply founded in principles of French civil law: Ibid.
190. Vo v France, supra n. 102 at para. 48.
191. Ibid. at paras 84, 89 and 92-3.
192. Howson, supra n. 101 at 372. Note, the ECtHR's failure to take a bright-line stance on Article 2 arguably opens the door for anti-abortion advocates to rely upon the ECtHR's consistent deference to States Parties to assert that if the tables were turned, and a State determined life commenced at conception, the ECtHR would have to employ similar deference.
193. Evans v United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 728.
194. Ibid. at paras 54-56.
195. Ibid. at para. 54.
196. Ibid.
197. Ibid. at paras 71-92.
198. A case is pending before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights challenging the Costa Rican Supreme Court's 2000 ruling banning in vitro fertilisation, based on the contention that human life begins at conception, thus entitling embryos and foetuses to the same legal protections as born individuals. Opponents of the decision are alleging that the Supreme Court ruling violates a myriad of human rights such as the right to health, to form a family, to Privacy and to benefit from scientific progress, as recognised under international law. The Inter-American Commission's ruling could have worldwide implications, impacting not only in vitro fertilisation and the right to bear children, but also the legal status of contraception and abortion. See Case 12.361, Ana Victoria Villalobos et al. v Costa Rica, Report No. 25/04 (2004).
199. Article 4 reads, 'The right to life shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception.'
200. Case 2141, Baby Boy, 25/OEA/ser.L./V./II.54, Doc. 9 rev. 1 (1981).
201. Ibid. Criminal charges were initially brought against the doctor in the Baby Boy case in the Massachusetts' court system; however, the highest court eventually overturned the doctor's conviction.
202. O.A.S.Res.XXX, 9th International Conference of American States (1948), OEA/Ser.L/11.82 doc.6ev.1 at 17 (1992), Article 1. The petitioner sought recourse under the American Declaration, as the United States is not a party to the American Convention. The American Declaration is technically not a legally binding agreernent under international law; however, it is a source of legal obligations for OAS Member States and has legal ramifications for those Member States that have not yet ratified the American Convention.
203. Ibid.
204. Baby Boy, supra n. 114 at para. 18.
205. Article 4, American Convention.
206. WHO, 'Constitution of the World Health Organization', signed 22 July 1946, OR Wld Hlth Org., 2, 100, which entered into force on 7 April 1948, at the preamble.
207. Report of the International Conference on Population and Development, supra n. 12.
208. Article 12, ICESCR; Article 12, CEDAW; and Article 24, ICRC.
209. KL v Peru (1153/2003), CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003 (2005); 13 IHRR 355 (2006).
210. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: El Salvador, 22 August 2003, CCPR/CO/78/SLV at para. 14; Mali, 16 April 2003, CCPR/CO/77/MLI at para. 14; and Poland, 2 December 2004, CCPR/CO/82/POL at para. 8.
211. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: Gambia, 12 August 2004, CCPR/CO/75/GMB at para. 17; Guatemala, 27 August 2001, CCPR/CO/72/GTM at para. 19; Mali, 16 April 2003, CCPR/CO/77/MLI at para. 14; Mongolia, 25 May 2000, CCPR/C/79/Add.120 at para. 8(b); and Polland, 29 July 1999, CCPR/C/79/Add.110 at para. 11.
212. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding Mali, 16 April 2003, CCPR/ CO/77/MLI at para. 13.
213. KL v Peru, supra n. 123.
214. Ibid. at para. 2.2.
215. Ibid. at paras 2.4 and 2.5.
216. The organisations were: Peruvian organisation Estudio para la Defensa de los Derechos de la Mujer (DEMUS); the Latin American and Caribbean Committee on the Defense of Women's Rights (CLADEM); and the United States organisation the Center for Reproductive Rights.
217. KL v Peru, supra n. 123 at paras 6.3 and 6.6.
218. Ibid. at para. 6.3.
219. Ibid. at para. 6.4.
220. Ibid. at para. 6.5.
221. Ibid. at para. 9.
222. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding Ireland. 29 March 2000, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.10 at para. 24.
223. Ibid. at para. 23.
224. Ibid. at para. 24.
225. Article 12(1), ICEDAW.
226. Concluding Obeservations of CEDAW regarding: Chile, 9 July 1999. A/54/38 at para. 209: Czech Republic, 14 May 1998, A/53/38 au para. 197; Georgia, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 111; Greece, 1 February 1999, A/ 54/38 at para. 207; Hungary, 9 May 1996, A/51/38 at para. 254; Namibia, 12 August 1997, A/52/38/Rev.1, Part II at para. 111; Lithuania, 16 June 2000, A/55/38 at para. 158; Republic of Korea, 8 July 1998, A/55/38 Rev.1 at para. 382(c); Romania, 23 June 2000, A/55/38 at para. 314; Russian Federation, 31 May 1995, A/50/38 at para. 523; Slovakia, 30 June 1998, A/53/38/Rev.1 at para. 91; Ukraine, 9 May 1996, A/51/38 at para. 287; and Vietnam, 31 July 2001, A/56/38 at para. 266.
227. Greece and Vietnam, supra n. 140.
228. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding: Cuba, 19 June 2000, A/55/38 at para. 257; and Finland. 31 May 1995. A/50/38 at para. 378.
229. Concluding Observations of CFDAW regarding: Cuba, 19 June 2000, A/55/38 at para 257; and Greece, 1 February 1999, A/54/38 at para. 207; Hungary, 9 May 1996, A/51/38 at para. 254; Lithuania, 16 June 2000, A/55/38 at para. 158; Mexico, 25 August 2006, CEDAW/C/MEX/CO/6 at para. 32 Mongolia, 2 February 2001, A/56/38 at para. 273; and Ukraine, 9 May 1996, A/51/38 at para. 287.
230. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding: Azerbaijan, 14 May 1998, A/ 53/38 at para. 66; Burundi, 2 February 2001, A/56/38 at para. 62; Cuba, 25 August 2006, CEDAW/C/CUB/CO/6 at para. 27; Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 3 February 2006, CEDAW/C/MKD/CO/3 at para. 31; Georgia, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. III; Kazakhstan, 2 February 2001, A/56/38 at para. 105; Kyrgyzstan, 27 January 1999, A/54/38 at para. 136; Republic of Moldova, 27 June 2000, A/55/38 at para. 109; Romania, 23 June 2000, A/ 55/38 at para. 314; Slovakia, 30 June 1998, A/53/38/Rev.1 at para. 91; and Uzbekistan, 2 February 2001, A/56/38 at para. 185.
231. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding: Azerbaijan, 14 May 1998, A/ 53/38 at para. 73; Burundi, 2 Februarv 2001, A/56/38 at para. 62; Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 3 February 2006. CEDAW/C/MKD/CO/3 at para. 31: Georgia, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 112: Greece, 1 February 1999, A/54/38 at para. 208; Kazakhstan, 2 February 2001, A/56/38 at para. 186; and Vietnam, 31 July 2001, A/56/38 at para. 267.
232. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding Kyrgyzstan, 27 January 1999, A/54/38 at para. 137.
233. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding: Czech Republic, 14 May 1998, A/53/38 at para. 197; and Mauritius, 31 May 1995, A/50/38 at para. 196.
234. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding: Ireland, 22 July 2005, CEDAW/ A/60/38 paras 359-405, 397.
235. See also Ireland, 25 June 1999, CEDAW/A/54/38 at paras 161-201.
236. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding: Andorra, 31 July 2001, A/56/ 38 at para. 48; Argentina, 23 July 1997, A/52/38 Rev.1, Part II at para. 319; Belize, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 57; Burkina Faso, 31 January 2000, A/55/38 at para. 276; Cameroon, 26 June 2000, A/55/38 at para. 60 Chile, 9 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 229; Chile, 31 May 1995, A/50/38 at para. 158; Chile, 25 August 2006, CEDAW/C/CHI/CO/4 at paras 19-20; Colombia, 4 February 1999, A/54/38 at para. 394; Dominican Republic, 14 May 1998, A/53/38 at para. 349; Ireland, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 186; Jordan, 27 January 2000, A/55/38 at para. 181; Mauritius, 31 May 1995, A/50/38 at para. 196; Mexico, 14 May 1998, A/53/38 at para. 408; Namibia, 12 August 1997, A/52/38/Rev.l, Part II at para. 127; Nepal, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at paras 139 and 148: Panama, 2 July 1998. A/55/38/ Rev.l at para. 201: Paraguay, 9 May 1996. A/51/38 at para. 131; Peru, 8 July 1998, A/53/38/Rev.1 at para. 340; Peru, 31 May 1995, A/50/38 at paras 446 and 447; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 12 August 1997, A/ 52/38/Rev.1 at para. 148; United Kingdom, 1 July 1999, A/55/38 at para. 310; and Zimbabwe, 14 May 1998, A/53/38 at para. 159.
237. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding Mexico, 25 August 2006, CEDAW/ C/MEX/CO/6 at Para. 32.
238. Ibid. at para. 33.
239. Ibid.
240. CRC - General Comment No. 4, supra n. 70.
241. Ibid.
242. Ibid.
243. Concluding Observations of the CRC regarding: Guatemala, 9 July 2001, CRC/C/15/Add.154 at para. 40; Chad, 24 August 1999, CRC/C/15/Add.107 at para. 30; and Nicaragua, 24 August 1999, CRC/C/15/Add.108 at para. 35.
244. Concluding Observations of the CRC regarding China, 24 November 2005, CRC/C/CHN/CO/2 at paras 64-5.
245. Ibid. at para. 64.
246. Ibid. at para. 65.
247. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding: Mexico, 9 June 2006, E/ C.12/MEX/CO/4 at para. 25; Nepal, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.66 at para. 32; Panama, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.64 at para. 20; Poland, 16 June 1998, E/C.12/1/Add.26 at para. 12; Senegal, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.62 at para. 26; and Spain, 7 June 2003, E/C.12/1/ Add.99 at para. 22.
248. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding: Bolivia, 21 May 2001, E/ C.12/1/Add.60 at para. 43; Mexico, 8 December 1999, E/C.12/1/Add.41 at para. 43; and Nepal, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.66 at paras 33 and 55.
249. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding: Kuwait, 7 June 2004, E/ C.12/1/Add.98 at para. 43, Mexico, 9 June 2006, E/C.12/MEX/CO/4 at para. 44; and Poland, 16 June 1998, E/C.12/1/Add.26 at para. 12.
250. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding: Mexico, 9 June 2006, E/ C.12/MEX/CO/4 at para. 25; Senegal, 31 August 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.62 at para. 26; and Spain, 7 June 2004, E/C.12/1/Add.99 at para. 22.
251. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding: Mexico, 9 June 2006, E/ C.12/MEX/CO/4 at para. 25; and Spain, 7 June 2004, E/C.12/1/Add.99 at para. 22.
252. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding: Armenia, 8 December 1999, E/C.12/1/Add.3 at para. 15; and Poland, 16 June 1998, E/C.12/1/ Add.26 at para. 12.
253. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding: Russian Federation, 20 May 1997, E/C.12/1/Add.13 at para. 10.
254. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding: Armenia, 8 December 1999, E/C.12/1/Add.39 at para. 19; Nepal, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/ Add.66 at para. 55; Panama, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.64 at para. 37; Senegal, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.62 at para. 47; Spain. 7 June 2004, E/C.12/1/Add.99 at para. 40; and Ukraine, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.65 at para. 31.
255. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding Switzerland, 7 December 1998, E/C.12/1/Add.30 at para. 22.
256. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding; Mauritius, 28 December 1995, E/C.12/1995/18 at para. 245; Poland, 19 December 2002, E/C.12/1/ Add.82 at para. 51; and Spain, 7 June 2004, E/C.12/1/Add.99 at para. 40.
257. Tysiac v Poland (2007) 45 EHRR 42.
258. How to Use the European Convention, supra n. 80 at Part I (b)-(f).
259. Ibid. at Part III.1.
260. Ibid. at Part III.7.
261. Ibid.
262. Article 2, ECHR.
263. Tavares v France, supra n. 79.
264. How to Use the European Convention, supra n. 80, (see also Ireland v United Kingdom A 25 (1978); (1979-1980) 2 EHRR 25 at para. 162, where the ECtHR stated '...ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3.... The assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim, etc'.
265. Ibid. at Part III.3, stating: 'Treatment is degrading if the person concerned has undergone humiliation or debasement attaining a minimum level of severity'. The assessment must be done on a case-by-case basis. Note, however, the author asserts that no such Article 3 complaints have been successful in the context of reproductive rights.
266. Ibid. at Part III.1
267. See also M. C. v Bulgaria (2005) 40 EHRR 20.
268. Brüggemann and Scheuten v Federal Republic Germany (1977) 10 DR 100 at para. 100.
269. See also Tysiac v Poland, supra n. 170 at paras 105-115.
270. How to Use the European Convention, supra n. 80 at Part III.7.
271. Brüggemann and Scheuten v Germany, supra n. 180.
272. Ibid. at 18 at para. 59.
273. Ibid. at 19 at para. 61.
274. Ibid. at 19 at para. 62
275. Paton v United Kingdom, supra n. 96
276. R.H. v Norway Application No. 17004/90, Admissibility decision of 19 May 1992, at para. 4
277. and Boso v Italy, supra n. 99.
278. Tysiac v Poland, supra n. 171 at para. 80.
279. Ibid. at paras 8-9.
280. Ibid. at para. 9.
281. Ibid. at paras 10-13.
282. Ibid. at paras 16-17.
283. Ibid. at para. 3.
284. Ibid. at para. 66.
285. Ibid. at para. 76.
286. Ibid. at para. 118. The ECtHR prescribed some of the key components of such a procedure: It should guarantee to a pregnant woman the right to be heard in person and have her views considered; the body reviewing her appeal should issue written grounds for its decision; and, recognising 'the time factor is of critical importance' in decisions involving abortion, the procedure should ensure that such decisions are timely.
287. Ibid. at para. 135.
288. Ibid. at paras 55-61 and 144. . Organization of American States - Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Letter to Nicaragua Minister of Foreign Affairs, HE Norman Calderas Cardenal, 10 November 2006, available at: http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/index.nicaragua. english.pdf [last accessed 22 September 2007].
289. Ibid.
290. Ibid.
291. Article 14.2 (c), African Women's Protocol.
292. Ibid.
293. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding Gambia, 12 August 2004, CCPR/CO/75/GMB at para. 17.
294. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding Peru, 15 November 2000, CCPR/CO/70/PER at para. 20.
295. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding Poland, 2 December 2004, CCPR/CO/82/POL at para. 8.
296. Ibid.
297. Peru, supra n. 204.
298. Article 7. ICCPR.
299. HRC General Comment No. 28, supra n. 34 at para. 11.
300. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding Ireland, 24 July 2000, A/55/ 40 at para. 23.
301. Ibid. at para. 24.
302. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding; Ireland, 1 July 1999, A/54/ 38 at para. 185
303. Mexico, 14 May 1998, A/53/38 at para. 399
304. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 12 August 1997, A/52/38/Rev.1 at para. 148
305. and Tunisia, 31 May 1995, A/50/38 au para. 246.
306. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding; Jordan, 27 January 2000, A/ 55/38 at para. 180
307. Myanmar, 28 January 2000, A/55/38 at paras 129-130
308. Panama, 2 July 1998, A/55/38/Rev.1 at para. 201
309. and Venezuela, 12 August 1997, A/52/38/Rev.1 at para. 236.
310. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding Nepal, 25/06/1999, CEDAW/A/54/ 38 at para. 147.
311. Ibid. at para. 148.
312. Concluding Observations ot CEDAW regarding Colombia, 2 February 2007, CEDAW/C/COL/CO/6 at para. 22.
313. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding Mexico, 9 June 2006, E/ C.12/MEX/CO/4 at para. 25.
314. Ibid.
315. Ibid.
316. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding: Bolivia, 21 May 2001, E/ C.12/1/Add.60 at para. 43
317. Nepal, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.66 at paras 32 and 55
318. Poland, 16 June 1998, E/C.12/1/Add.26 at para. 12
319. Poland, 19 December 2002, E/C.12/1/Add.82 at para. 29
320. and Senegal, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.62 at paras 26 and 47.
321. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding: Chile, 1 December 2004, E/C.12/1/Add.105 at para. 53
322. Kuwait, 7 June 2004, E/C.12/1/Add.98 at para. 43
323. Malta, 14 December 2004, E/C.12/1/Add.101 at para. 41
324. Monaco, 13 June 2006, E/C.12/MCO/CO/1 at para. 23
325. and Nepal, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.66 at paras 33 and 55.
326. M.C. v Bulgaria, supra n. 180.
327. Case 161-02, Paulina del Carmen Ramirez Jacinto v Mexico, Friendly Settlement, Report No. 21/07 (2007).
328. Article 1, American Convention.
329. Article 8, American Convention.
330. Article 25. American Convention. See also Inter-American Convention on the Prevention. Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women 'Convention of Belem do Para' 1994, 33 ILM 1534 (1994) (Convention of Belem do Para), at Article 4, which entered into force on 5 Much 1995.
331. Article 11, American Convention; Article 4, Convention of Belem do Para; Article 12, UDHR: And Article 17, ICCPR.
332. Article 7, American Convention; Article 9, ICCPR; and Article 3, UDHR.
333. Article 11, American Convention; Article 4, Convention of Belem do Para; Article 12, UDHR; and Article 17, ICCPR.
334. Paulina, supra n. 223 at para. 16.
335. Ibid. Note that application of the guidelines regulating access to abortion in the context of rape, is limited to the Mexican state of Baja California.
336. Ibid. at paras 20-3. The Inter-American Commission's 2007 Case Report indicates that while the Baja California Government has essentially complied with the settlement's provisions, the Commission will continue to monitor the Government's compliance with its obligations to assist Paulina with professional develonment and to lobby the legislature for legislative change.
337. Ibid. at Annex - Official Journal - Public Acknowledgment of Responsibility.
338. Ibid. at para. 25.
339. Article 14.2(c), African Women's Protocol.
340. Ngwena, Paper presented to the Center for Reproductive Rights: Access to Abortion Services and the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa: Opportunities and Challenges, 23 August 2007 at 7 (document on file at the Center tor Reproductive Rights).
341. KL, v Peru, supra n. 123 at para. 6.3.
342. Ibid.
343. D. v Ireland, supra n. 82 at para. 3.
344. Ibid. at para. 4.
345. Ibid. at para. 62. The applicant also argued, at paras 59 and 62, that Irelands of Information Act, which prohibits providers from fully discussing abortion with their patients or making referrals for abortion services outside the country when requested, infringed Article 10 (freedom of expression) because her obstetrician in Ireland was prohibited from referring her to a hospital abroad for termination.
346. Ibid. at para. 62. See also Article 35(1). ECHR.
347. Ibid. at para. 80.
348. Ibid. at para. 83,
349. citing Selmouni v France 1999-V 151; (2000) 29 EHRR 403 at paras 74-7
350. Ibid. at para. 92.
351. Attorney General v X, supra n. 82, concerning a 14-year-old girl who became pregnant as a result of being raped and consequently became suicidal. The Supreme Court theld that being suicidal constituted a real and substantial risk to life, as distinct from health, which could only be averted by termination of pregnancy.
352. D. v Ireland, supra n. 82 at paras 88-102.
353. Article 14.2(c), African Women's Protocol.
354. Ngwena, supra n. 36 at 3.
355. Ibid.
356. Ibid. at 9.
357. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: El Salvador, 22 A ugust 2003, CCPR/CO/78/SLV at para. 14
358. Kuwait, 19 July 2000, CCPR/CO/69/KWT, A/55/40 at para. 15; Lesotho, 8 April 1999, CCPR/C/79/Add.106 at para. 11
359. Poland, 29 July 1999, CCPR/C/79/Add.110 at para. 11
360. Senegal, 19 November 1997, CCPR/C/79/Add 82 at para. 12
361. and Venezuela, 26 April 2001, CCPR/CO/71/VEN at para. 19.
362. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: Gambia, 12 August 2004, CCPR/CO/75/GMB at para. 17
363. Peru, 15 November 2000, CCPR/CO/70/PER at para. 20
364. and Poland, 2 December 2004, CCPR/CO/82/POL at para. 8.
365. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: Chile, 18 May 2007, CCPR/C/ CHL/CO/5 at para. 8
366. Madagascar, 11 May 2007, CCPR/C/MDG/CO/3 at para. 14
367. and Mauritius, 27 April 2005. CCPR/CO/83/MUS at para. 9.
368. Concluding Observations of the. HRC regarding Gimte.mHIH, 27 August 2001, CCPR/CO/72/GTM at para. 19
369. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding Mauritius, 27/04/2005, CCPR/ CO/83,/MUS at para 9.
370. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding Poland, 2 December 2004, CCPR/CO//82/POL para. 9.
371. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: Guatemala, 27 August 2001, CCPR/CO/72/GTM at para. 19
372. Kuwait, 19 July 2000, CCPR/CO/69/KWT, A/55/40 at para. 16
373. Lesotho, 8 April 1999, CCPR/C/79/Add.106 at para. 11
374. Trinidad and Tobago, 3 November 2000, CCPR/CO/70/TTO at para 18
375. and United Republic of Tanzania, 18 August 1998, CCPR/C/79/Add.97 at para. 15.
376. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding Mali, 16 April 2003, CCPR/ CO/77/MLl at para. 14.
377. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: Gambia, 12 August 2004, CCPR/CO/75/GMB at para. 17
378. and Peru 15 November 2000. CCPR/CO/70/PER at para. 20.
379. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: Argentina, 3 November 2000, CCPR/CO/70/ARG at para. 14
380. Chile, 30 March 1999, CCPR/C/7/Add.104 at para. 15
381. Costa Rica, 8 April 1999, CCPR/C/79/Add.107 at para. 11
382. Ecuador, 18 August 1998, CCPR/C,/79/Add.92 at para. 11
383. Guatemala, 27 August 2001, CCPRI/CO/72/GTM at para. 19
384. Kuwait, 19 July 2000, CCPR/CO/69/KWT, at para. 16
385. Lesotho, 8 April 1999, CCPR/C/79/Add.106 at para. 11
386. Peru, 18 November 1996, CCPR/C/79/Add.72 au para. 22
387. Peiu, 15 November 2000, CCPR/CO/70/PER at para. 20
388. Trinidad and Tobago, 3 November 2000, CCPR/CO/70/TTO at para. 18
389. United Republic of Tanzania, 18 August 1998, CCPR/CV79/Add.97 at para. 15
390. and Venezuela. 26 April 2001, CCPR/CO/71/VEN at para. 19.
391. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding: Chile, 18 May 2007, CCPR/C/ CHL/CO/5 at para. 8; El Salvador, 22 August 2003, CCPR/CO/78/SLV at para. 14
392. and Madagascar, 11 May 2007, CCPR/MDG/CO/3 at para. 14.
393. Concluding Observations of the HRC regarding Argentina, 3 November 2000, CCPR/CO/70/ARG at para. 14.
394. HRC - General Comment No. 28, supra n. 34 at para. 20. See also Article 17, ICCPR.
395. Concluding Observations of the CEDAW regarding: Andorra, 31 July 2001, A/ 56/38 at para. 48
396. Chile, 9 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 228
397. Cyprus, 9 May 1996, A/51/38 at para. 55
398. Ireland, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 185
399. Jordan, 27 January 2000, A/55/38 at para. 180
400. Liechtenstein. 1 February 1999. A/54/38 at para. 169
401. Luxembourg. 12 August 1997. A/52/38/Rev.1. Part II at para. 210
402. Nepl, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at paras 139, 147
403. United Kinudom, 1 July 1999, A/55/38 at para. 309
404. and Zimbabwe, 14 May 1998, A/53/38 at para. 56
405. and Chile, 25 August 2006, CEDAW/C/CHI/CO/4 at para. 19.
406. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding Belize, 01 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 56; and Chile, 25 August 2006, CEDAW/C/CHI/CO/4 at para. 19.
407. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding Colombia, 5 February 1999, CEDAW/A/54/38/Rev.1 at para. 393.
408. Concluding Observations of CEDDAW regarding Colombia, 2 February 2007, CEDAW/C/COL/CO/6 at para. 22.
409. CEDAW - General Rec, 24, supra n. 57 at para. 12(d).
410. Ibid. at para. 31(c).
411. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding: Andorra, 31 July 2001, A/56/ 38 at para. 48: Belize, 01 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 57
412. Burkina Faso, 31 January 2000, A/55/38 at para. 276
413. Cameroon, 26 June 2000, A/555/38 at para. 60; Ireland, 1 July 1999, A/54/ 38 at para. 186; Jordan, 27 January 2000, A/55/388 at para. 181
414. Namibia, 12 August 1997, A/52/38/Rev.1, Part II at para. 127
415. Nepal, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at paras 139 and 148
416. and United Kingdom, 1 July 1999, A/55/38 at para. 310.
417. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding Belgium, 9 May 1996, A/51/38 at para. 181.
418. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding Ireland, 1 July 1999, A/54/38 at para. 185.
419. Concluding Observations of CEDAW regarding Chile, 25 August 2006, CEDAW/ C/CHI/CO/4 at para. 19.
420. Ibid. at para. 20.
421. Concluding Observations of the CRC regarding: Armenia, 24 February 2000, CRC/C/15/Add.119 at para. 38
422. Chad, 24 August 1999, CRC/C/15/A dd.107 at para. 30
423. Kyrgyzstan, 9 August 2000, CRC/C/15/Add.127 at para. 45
424. and Palau, 21 February 2001, CRC/C/15/Add. 149 a para. 46.
425. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding: Chad, 24 August 1999, CRC/C/15/Add.107 at para. 30
426. and Palau, 21 February 2001, CRC/C/15/Add.149 at para. 47.
427. Concluding Observation of the CESCR regarding: Bolivia, 21 May 2001, E/ C.12/1/Add.60 at para. 43
428. Mauritius, 31 May 1994, E/C.12/1994/88 at para. 15
429. Nepal, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.66 at paras 312 and 5151
430. Poland, 19 December 2002, E/C.12/1/Add.82 at para. 29
431. and Senegal, 24 September 2001, E/C.12/1/Add.62 at paras 26 and 47.
432. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding: Chile, 1 December 2004, E/C.12/1/Add.105 at para. 26
433. Malta, 14 Decemeber 2004, E/C.12/1/Add.101 at para. 41
434. and Monaco, 13 June 2006, E/C.12/MCO/CO/1 at para. 15.
435. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding Kuwait, 7 June 2004, E/ C.12/1/Add.98 at para. 23.
436. Concluding Observations of the CESCR regarding: Chile, 1 December 2004, E/C.12/1/Add.105 at para. 26; Kuwait, 7 June 2004, E/C.12/1/Add.98 at para. 23; Malta, 14 December 2004, E/C.12/1/Add.101 at para. 43; Monacoc 13 June 2006, E/C.12/MCO/CO/1 at para. 15; and Nepal, 31 August 2001, E/ C.12/1/Add.66 at paras 33 and 55.
437. GA Res. 39/46, 10 December 1984.
438. Concluding Observations of CAT regarding Chile, 14 June 2004, CAT/C/CR/ 32/5 at para. 6(j).
439. Ibid. at para. 7(m). CAT also recommended that Chile ensure immediate and unconditional treatment of persons seeking emergency medical care, in line with World Health Organization guidelines.
440. Open Letter from Human Rights Watch to the Nicaraguan Supreme Court, Amicus Curiae Brief at 14, available at: http://hrw.org/pub/amicusbriefs/ nicaragua0807web.pdf [last accessed 25 September 2007].
441. The Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action, Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, China, 4-15 September 1995, A/CONE177/20 (1995) at para. 106(k).
442. Ibid. at para. 109(i).
443. Center tor Reproductive Rights, 'The Center tor Reproductive Rights Commends Mexico City for New Law Legalizing Abortion in First Trimester: Vote Follows Important Decisions Acknowledging Reproductive Rights As Human Rights', Press Release, April 2007, available at: http://www.reproductiverights.org/pr.07.0424MexAbortion.html [last accessed 7 September 2007].
444. Center for Reproductive Rights, 'Landmark Decision by Colombia's Highest Court Liberalize One of the World's Most Restrictive Abortion Laws: Colombias Constitution Requires Government to Allow for Abortion in Some Cases', Press Release, May 2006, available at: http://www.reproductiverights.org/pr.06.0511colombia.html [last accessed 7 September 2007].
445. Constitutional Court Ruling C-355/2006, Presiding Judges: Jaime Araujo Renteria and Clara Ines Vargas Hernandez, Concurring Opinion: Manuel Jose Cepeda Espinosa, Dissenting opinion: Rodrigo Escobar Gil, Marco Gerado Monroy Cabra and Alvaro Tafur Galvis. Colombia's Constitutional Court further stated that: 'Sexual and reproductive rights also emerge from the recognition that equality in general, gender equality in particular, and the emancipation of women and girls are essential to society. Protecting sexual and reproductive rights is a direct path to promoting the dignity of all human beings and a step forward in humanity's advancement towards social justice.'
446. Vo v France, supra n. 102 at para. 85.
447. Women on Waves, '"Yes" to Legalize Abortion in Portugal', Press Release, 10 April 2007, available at: http://www.womenonwaves.org/ article-1020.1745-en.html [last accessed 25 September 2007].
448. BBC News, 'Portugal Abortion Law Put to Test', available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6309139.stm [last accessed 25 September 2007].
449. For a significant judicial pronouncement in Europe, see Family Planning Association of Northern Ireland v Minister for Health Social Services and Public Safety [2005] NI 188, where in October 2004 the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal held that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety of Northern Ireland failed to perform its statutory duties to provide women seeking to undergo lawful Hbortion with the health and personal services to which they are entitled. Specifically, the Court found that the Department had failed to provide guidelines on local availability of legal abortion services and failed to investigate whether women were receiving satisfiactory abortion related services. As a result, health care practitioners were confused on the status of abortion in Northern Ireland and fearful of being held liable for potentially breaking the law. Consequently, women were being denied services that they wele legally entitled to receive, and denied post-abortion care after having undergone abortions in Britain.
450. Tysiac v Poland, supra n. 170 at paras 80 and 125-130.
451. Ipas, 'Nepal Celebrates One Year of Legal Abortion Services', 25 March 2004, available at http://www.ipas.org/Library/News/News.Items/ Nepal.celebrates.one.year.oflegal.abortion.services.aspx [last accessed 25 September 2007].
452. Government of Nepal Ministry of Health and Population, World Health Organization and Centre for Research on Environment Health and Population Activities, 'Unsafe Abortion: Nepal Country Profile', July 2006.
453. In February 2007, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the Forum for Women, Law and Development and other concerned individuals filed a case with the Supreme Court of Nepal calling on the government to rectify this situation and the resulting human rights violations: See Center for Reproductive Rights, 'Public Interest Litigation to Secure Abortion Access in Nepal'. Fact Sheet. 2007. available at: http://www.reproductive rights.org/pdf/ww.nepal.abortion.factsheet07.pdf [last accessed 25 September 2007].
454. The Vatican is playing a formidable role in pressuring countries to limit women's access to abortion. For example, when Amnesty International's campaign on violence against women recognised that women must have acces to safe and legal abortion services in cases of unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape, sexual assault or incest, or when their life of health is at risk, the Vatican accused the organisation of promoting abolition and urged Catholics to stop donating to it: See, tor example, BBC, 'Vatican Urges End to Amnesty Aid', 14 June 2007, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6750887.stm [last accessed 6 February 2008].