UN

The ECLJ advocates for the right to life at the UN Human Rights Committee

The right to life at the HRCommittee

By ECLJ1438048500000

The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) decided to update its interpretation of the right to life. To this end the Committee invited NGOs to submit briefs on various aspects of the right to life by 12 June 2015 and organized a half-day discussion during which they could make statements, on 14 July 2015.

Although there was strong majority of contributions and oral statements coming from prolife organizations, it is difficult to know what will be the outcome of this consultation process, as in his introductory speech, the host of the Half-Day General Discussion told the NGOs representatives, that they should not expect too much from this process, as the HRC has no intention to go too far from its existing developed practice on the right to life.

Two other concerns should be mentioned about this consultation process. The first issue is the admission of other NGOs submissions outside the time limit to counterbalance the prolife organizations. On 12 June 2015, 40 submissions were received by HRC, at least 26 from prolife organizations. Although the deadline for written submission was not extended, on the 13 July 2015, 112 NGOs submissions appeared on the HRC website. Has the HRC feared the influence of the prolife organizations on the interpretation of the right to life, that somehow, out of the blue, more than 70 NGOs submitted written comments outside the time limit which were accepted by the Committee? Those submissions will be taken into consideration for the drafting of the General Comment.

The second concern is the limited time allowed to the prolife NGOs. On 14 July 2015, 39 NGOs were present at the half-day discussion and took the floor for 2 or for 4 minutes. This discrepancy of statement time comes from the fact that HRC divided the discussion on 6 topics[1]. Thus, if on “abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide” topic there were many prolife NGOs, each of them had 2 minutes, whereas on “LGBT and children” or “general submissions” topics, there were 2 NGOs receiving 4 minutes, although in some of the statements they also referred to abortion.

The ECLJ participated in this process submitting a brief and delivering a 2 minutes statement. In its statement, the ECLJ recalled the undisputed fact that the individual human life is a continuum that begins at conception and advances in stages until the natural death. The ECLJ also to draw the attention of the HRC on practices that, at present time, constitute growing violations to the human life at its beginning (sex and disability selective abortion neonatal infanticide and destruction of embryos) and at its end (assisted suicide and euthanasia) requesting the UN to oppose to the materialist and utilitarian ideologies which call into question the inalienable attribute of the right to life and the dignity of the human person.

Regarding the statements on “abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide”, 21 prolife organizations affirmed that the child enjoys before and after birth the right to life and expressed, with various arguments, the need to reaffirm the right to life of every human being from fertilization until the natural death, to condemn practices violating this right and to recall the Member States their obligation to refrain from intentionally killing of an innocent life and to protect life by law.  

For example, “Autistic Minority International” drew the attention on the practice of disability selective abortion, comparing it with genocide, as over 90% of unborn children with Down syndrome are suppressed.

Ms. Denise Mountenay from “Canada Silent No More” affirmed that unborn child is “not a potential human being, but a human being with potential”. She gave a testimony from her own experience as a woman who had three abortions and had breast surgical interventions because of that: “Abortion hurts and kill women too. It damaged my cervix and killed my children! It is not a “safe” procedure for pregnant women. Many published studies link abortion to breast cancer, pre-term birth and mental health problems in the aftermath”. It was interesting that to counter balance her testimony, Olivier de Fourville, member of the HRC, asked Center for Reproductive Rights and IPAS about the impact of the restrictive legislation of abortion on women and if there were any studies and statistics on the impact on the women’s health of illegal or restrictive legislation of abortion. This was the only question put by the HRC on this topic.

Dieter Egert, appointed by a German court the “Legal Representative as Guardian of German Unborn Children Regarding Abortions” denounced the torture of children during abortion as they feel pain and requested “to stop recommending death as a solution”. He also drew the attention on the fact that women often regret their abortion.

Ms. Cora Sherlock, from “Pro Life Campaign” recalled that there is no right to abortion in international human rights law, as it would run contrary to the Convention of the Rights of the Child and other UN norms and would lead to the removal of the right to life from an entire group of human beings. She denounced the HRC’s consistent criticism of Ireland for not expanding the availability of abortion. In its support she indicated Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution, which expressly guarantees the equal right to life of the unborn human with his or her mother, and the ECHR’s A., B. and C. v. Ireland judgment that acknowledged the competence of the Irish people to decide this aspect of their law. She requested the HRC to respect this judgment.

“Family and Life Ireland” recalled the HRC that from “les travaux préparatoires” on Article 6 of the ICCPR derives the following: the life of the unborn is protected in the context of the death penalty in the case of a pregnant woman; a proposal to permit States to provide for abortion on limited grounds was rejected on the basis of the right to life of the unborn; the proposal to explicitly protect the unborn by this article was rejected on the grounds of subsidiarity, no delegate argued against the right to life of the unborn or for a right to abortion; the right to abortion is not included in this article, otherwise this article would deny the human rights status of the unborn and assume his inferiority.

“ADF International” reminded the legal basis of affirming the right to life since fertilization and the inexistence of a right to abortion: the enjoyment of the right to life by every human being (Article 6 § 1 of the ICCPR); the prohibition of the death penalty for pregnant women (Article 6 § 5 of the ICCPR); the entitlement of protection of  the children before and after birth (the Preamble of the Convention on the Rights of the Child); the definition of the “child” as any human being below 18 years old (Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child). Further, it highlighted that there is no right to die provided by an international or regional human rights treaty.

On the other side, 8 NGOs affirmed that the “right to life begins at birth”[2] and requested the “right to abortion for girls and women”[3]. “Not allowing women to abort turn women into slaves and vassals”[4]; “it is conservative and patriarchal”[5]; it represents “control of man over women and girls”[6]; “women and girls are not second class citizens” to refuse them abortion[7].

“ILGA” and “ARROW” expressed their gratitude that for the first time the HRC linked the right to life and included in the discussion the reference to sexual orientation and gender identity.

In the oral statements, the only NGO advocating for “the choice to live or not, when life is not worth living” was the “Center for Global Non-Killing”.

[1]1) general submissions ;2) death penalty ; 3) Meaning of inherent  right, abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide ; 4) right to life and other areas of law; 5) right to life and social and economic rights; 6) right to life and LGBT and children;

[2] Amnesty International; The Center for Global Non-Killing; Center for Reproductive Rights; Mandy Jane Roseman, Human Rights Program, Harvard; Safe Abortion Women’s Right; Reproductive Health Matters; Head of Delegation to the UN Human Rights Council-International Humanist and Ethical Union; IPAS;

[3]Amnesty International ;

[4]Safe Abortion Women’s Rights ;

[5]Reproductive Health Matters;

[6] Assian-Pacific Resource & Research Centre for Women (ARROW) ;

[7]Assian-Pacific Resource & Research Centre for Women (ARROW) ;

Cookies & Privacy

There is no advertising for any third party on our website. We merely use cookies to improve your navigation experience (technical cookies) and to allow us to analyze the way you consult our websites in order to improve it (analytics cookies). The personal information that may be requested on some pages of our website (subscribing to our Newsletter, signing a petition,  making a donation...) is optional. We do not share any of this information we may collect with third parties. You can check here for our privacy & security policy for more information.

I refuse analytics cookies