WUNRN
University of Toronto Faculty of Law
International Reproductive &
Sexual Health Law Program
European
Court of Human Rights: N.B. v Slovakia, released June 12, 2012
sterilization of Roma girl without informed consent
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-111427
Earlier ECHR decision: VC v. Slovakia
coerced sterilization of Roma woman
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-107364
_________________________________________________________________
By Andy Sprung, law student and Fellow in U of Toronto Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program - Case Summaries
SLOVAKIA – FORCED STERILIZATION OF ROMA WOMEN
Slovakia: In two cases, the European Court of Human Rights finds the forced sterilization of Roma Women is in contravention of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
V.C. v Slovakia [2011]
On November 8, 2011, the European Court of Human Rights issued its first judgment dealing with sterilization. The court unanimously found that a Slovak woman of Roma ethnic origin had been the victim of coerced sterilization in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court found that VC had been the victim of coerced sterilization, while in a public hospital, undergoing a Caesarian section to deliver her second child. In the late stages of her labour, medical personnel informed her that another pregnancy would result in the death of either the child or herself. VC signed the request for sterilization form without an understanding of the nature of the procedure or its consequences. This was not a life-saving surgery, and VC’s sterilization, as well as the way in which the hospital had requested she agree to it, had long-lasting negative effects on her physical and psychological health, in addition to damaging her marital relationship and her position within the Roma community.
In finding a violation of Article 3, the court noted that sterilization amounts to a major interference with a person’s reproductive health status and involves many aspects of personal integrity, including physical, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and family wellbeing. As recognized by a number of international documents, it requires informed consent. Although there was no proof that the medical staff had acted out of ill intent, the court recognized the gross disregard to VC’s right to autonomy.
In also finding a violation under Article 8, the court added that Slovakia failed to fulfill its obligation to respect VC’s private and family life by not ensuring that particular attention was paid to her reproductive health as a Roma woman. The court noted the prominence of VC’s ethnic origin in her medical records, as well as the segregation of Roma women within the hospital ward. It highlighted that these facts needed to be understood in the context of Slovakia’s history of the targeted sterilization of Roma women and as a failure to provide additional legislative safeguards to protect Roma women from coerced sterilization—a need identified by several European Commission Reports.
The dissenting opinion of Judge Mijovic would have also found a violation of Article 14 (discrimination).
The European Court of Human Rights decision is online here.
Press Release from the European Court of Human Rights, online here.
Press Release from the Center for Reproductive Rights, online here.
N.B. v Slovakia [2012]
On June 12, 2012, only a few months after the release of the judgment in the VC case, the European Court of Human Rights released a similar decision in another Slovak case. Once again, the court unanimously found that a Slovak woman of Roma ethnic origin had been sterilized without informed consent in contravention of Articles 8 and 13.
Similar to VC, NB was also sterilized while undergoing a caesarean section at a public hospital. However, NB was only 17 years old at the time of the intervention, so she was also legally a minor. The hospital, in addition to having NB sign the consent form after the administration of tranquilizing premedication, never obtained the consent of her legal guardians. NB did not learn of her sterilization until several months after the fact because it was not noted in her release report from the hospital.
The European Court of Human Rights decision is online here.
Press Release from Poradna - online here.
Article by Christina Zampas and Adriana Lamackova, “Forced Sterilization of Women in Europe” (2011) 114 International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 163-166, is online here.
FIGO guidelines on sterilization of women, released 2011 are online here.
CEDAW decision in a similar 2007 Hungarian case, online here.
Center for Reproductive Rights, “Body and Soul: Forced Sterilization and Other Assaults on Roma Reproductive Freedom” (2003) Report online.