COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES The Committee on the Rights of Persons

with Disabilities that monitors the Con-vention on the Rights of Persons with Dis-abilities had its first session in 2009 and it

has yet to prepare its first General Recom-mendation. It is mandated to make such recommendations under Article 39 of the Convention.

INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966, came into force in 1976, giving the Human Rights Committee the mandate to consider individual complaints.

More than 110 states have ratified or

acceded to the optional protocol. So far the Committee has made decisions concerning approximately 750 communications.

Case of Miss K.L.N.H. vs. Peru, 2006 (CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003)

In this case the 17-year-old complainant had been informed by her gynaecologist and obstetrician that the foetus she was carrying had a serious abnormality, and termination of the pregnancy was advised based on the risks to the life of Miss K. The director of the hospital refused to give consent as in his view abortion was only permitted to save the life of the pregnant woman or avoid serious and permanent damage to her health. Miss K. gave birth to a baby girl that, as expected, died after four days. This led to deep depression, requiring psychiatric treatment. The failure to allow termination of the pregnancy in a situation where it was clear that this could have (and actually had) severe effects on the health of Miss K. constituted a violation of Article 7 on the grounds of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Furthermore, the Committee found that refusing abortion in a case where this would have been lawful (regardless of the view of the hospital director) was an unlawful interference in Miss K.’s private

minor. Finally, the lack of an adequate legal remedy constituted a violation of Article 2.

On this basis, the Committee found that Peru should compensate Miss K. and take appropriate steps to prevent a repeat of the violations.

The reasoning of the Committee was as follows: “6.2. The Committee notes that the author attached a doctor’s statement con-fi rming that her pregnancy exposed her to a life-threatening risk. She also suffered severe psychological consequences exacerbated by her status as a minor, as the psychiatric report of 20 August 2001 confi rmed. The Committee notes that the State party has not provided any evidence to challenge the above. It notes that the authorities were aware of the risk to the author’s life, since a gynaecologist and obste-trician in the same hospital had advised her to terminate the pregnancy, with the operation to be carried out in the same hospital. The subsequent refusal of the competent medical authorities to provide the service may have endangered the author’s life. The author states that no effective remedy was available to her to oppose that decision. In the absence of any information from the State party, due weight must be given to the author’s claims.

6.3. The author also claims that, owing to the refusal of the medical authorities to carry out the therapeutic abortion, she had to endure the distress of seeing her daughter’s marked deformities and knowing that she would die very soon. This experience added further pain and distress to that which she had already

August 2001, which confi rms the state of deep depression into which she fell and the severe consequences this caused, taking her age into account. The Committee notes that this situation could have been foreseen, since a hospital doctor had diagnosed anencephaly in the foetus, yet the hospital director refused termination. The omission on the part of the State in not enabling the author to benefi t from a therapeutic abortion was, in the Com-mittee’s view, the cause of the suffering she experienced. The Committee has pointed out in its General Comment No. 20 that the right set out in article 7 of the Covenant relates not only to physical pain but also to mental suffering, and that the protection is particu-larly important in the case of minors. In the absence of any information from the State party in this regard, due weight must be given to the author’s complaints. Consequently, the Committee considers that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 7 of the Covenant.

In the light of this fi nding the Committee does not consider it necessary in the circumstances to make a fi nding on article 6 of the Covenant.

6.4. The author states that the State party, in denying her the opportunity to secure medical intervention to terminate the pregnancy, inter-fered arbitrarily in her private life. The Committee notes that a public-sector doctor told the author that she could either continue with the pregnancy or terminate it in accordance with domestic legis-lation allowing abortions in cases of risk to the life of the mother. In the absence of any information from the State party, due weight must be given to

6.5. The author claims a violation of article 24 of the Covenant, since she did not receive from the State party the special care she needed as a minor. The Committee notes the special vulnerability of the author as a minor girl. It further note that, in the absence of any infor-mation from the State party, due weight must be given to the author’s claim that she did not receive, during and after her pregnancy, the medical and psychological support necessary in the specifi c circumstances of her case. Conse-quently, the Committee considers that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 24 of the Covenant.

6.6. The author claims to have been a victim of violation of articles 2 of the Covenant on the grounds that she lacked an adequate legal remedy. In the absence of information from the State party, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s claims as regards lack of an adequate legal remedy and consequently concludes that the facts before it also reveal a violation of article 2 in conjunction with articles 7, 17 and 24.”

In addition, the Human Rights Committee has made several decisions where a state has been found in violation of the Interna-tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by treating women and men differently, for example concerning Dutch provisions that prevented married women from receiving unemployment support.⁸ These cases do not, however, specifically deal with repro-ductive rights.

In December 2008 the United Nations General Assembly adopted an Optional Protocol that will give the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights the mandate to receive and consider individual

communications. At this stage it has not been ratified or acceded to by a sufficient number of states to come into force. Conse-quently, there are no decisions on individual complaints from this Committee.

CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION