HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONTINUES TO DISCUSS DRAFT GENERAL COMMENT ON THE RIGHT TO LIFE

The Human Rights Committee this afternoon continued its discussion on a draft General Comment on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life. In particular, Experts concluded their discussion on paragraph 8, and discussed paragraphs 11 and 12 of the draft. No decision was made on any of the paragraphs.

During the discussion on the draft paragraph 8 on the right to life and abortion, Experts debated whether the term abortion ought to be removed altogether and whether the focus should be on the right of the unborn child or the right of the woman. There was a debate as to the specification of the four circumstances where criminalisation of abortion should be prohibited, and Experts agreed that specific formulations would be made during the following session. While some Experts noted that the purpose of the General Comment was to compile all case law of the Committee in a single text and not to introduce new findings, others disagreed and stated that there was always a progressive element in General Comments. Some noted that prohibiting the termination of pregnancy was linked to the generalized discrimination against women, and to the fundamental inequality between men and women. Part of the way in which the Committee had sought to counter that type of discrimination against women in the past had been by empowering women to be in charge of their own bodies.

It was suggested that the Committee should clearly state that legal restrictions could not put the woman’s life in danger. Emphasis should also be put on state preventive measures, including information on reproduction, sex education, family planning and contraceptives. Experts cautioned against undermining, contradicting or repeating what the Committee had already noted in other General Comments, notably General Comment No. 22 on the right to sexual and reproductive health, which focused on the denial of abortion, maternal mortality, prevention of unsafe abortion, access or non-access to abortion services, post abortion care, criminalisation of abortion, and restrictive services for abortion. In that respect, they noted that the word “foetus” had not been used. Different opinions were expressed on whether there should be focus on the right to the life of the unborn child or the life of the woman. Some Experts said that article 7 was related to article 6 of the Covenant and thus it was inappropriate to draft a general comment on abortion. Rather, the focus had to be on the right to life and on the limits on the right to life. Others said that it had to focus on prohibiting States from putting restrictions on women that would put their lives at risk. There was a general agreement on the link between excessive regulation and clandestine abortions.

In the course of the debate on draft paragraph 11 on the personal autonomy and euthanasia and assisted suicide, it was said that the intention of the paragraph was to establish a balance between the demand to the right to life, and the demand not to be subjected to a cruel and degrading treatment. For some people, that meant that being prevented from ending their lives could amount to cruel and degrading treatment, both physical and mental. The Committee brought up the example of the Netherlands, where there were some 2,000 assisted suicides every year. There seemed to be insufficient control of approval and there were fears that there were unsatisfactory protections of the right to life. Experts did not agree on whether the focus should be on the personal autonomy, or on vulnerable groups as well as limits. Most Experts agreed that the paragraph should be divided into two parts and separately deal with suicide and assisted suicide/ euthanasia, separately. Another Expert said a third element was missing, namely ceasing treatment, or not pursuing the treatment that was needed. There was no agreement on this third category.
During the discussion on paragraph 12 on positive and negative obligations of States Parties, there was an agreement to move or separate the paragraph, and remove the phrase “military operations during armed conflicts”. There was also an agreement that the notion of “due diligence” had to be introduced, as well as the notions of necessity and proportionality.

The Human Rights Committee will next meet in public on Monday, 21 March at 10 a.m. to consider the Progress Report of the Special Rapporteur on Follow-Up to Concluding Observations.



For use of the information media; not an official record

CT16/011E