Droit à la vie

Onglets principaux

Caselaw

En 2004, la Secretaría de Salud de Botswana distribuyó una directiva interna entre instituciones médicas públicas para informarles de un Decreto Presidencial que autorizaba “el suministro de tratamiento gratis a reclusos que no sean ciudadanos que sufran de enfermedades que no sean el SIDA”. Reclusos de Zimbabwe con VIH positivo presentaron demandas para cuestionar ea decreto después de que se les negaran medicamentos de una terapia antiretroviral (TAR).

In 2004 Botswana’s Secretary of Health circulated an internal directive to public medical facilities informing them of a Presidential Directive authorizing “provision of free treatment to non-citizen prisoners suffering from ailments other than AIDS.” HIV-positive Zimbabwean prisoners filed lawsuits challenging this directive after being denied free Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ARV).

In 2011, the petitioners filed a constitutional petition alleging that the government had violated the Ugandan Constitution through acts and omissions with regard to maternal health services. More specifically, the petitioners contended that the government had failed to provide basic maternal health services and to adequately budget for maternal health and that the unethical behavior of health workers led to the preventable deaths of expectant mothers during childbirth.

On 17th July, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held the Romanian government accountable for violating the human rights of Valentin Câmpeanu, a youth with severe mental disabilities and HIV positive, who died in 2004. Abandoned at birth, he lived in public institutions all his life. When he turned eighteen, he was shifted to a social care home for adults, and afterwards, to a mental hospital. Here, left in isolation, and in the cold, without necessary health care and treatment, and deprived also of food and proper clothing, he died within seven days.

This case was brought by six pregnant or lactating women who lived in poverty in a Delhi slum.  The women were denied food rations, as well as prenatal and children health benefits which they were entitled to under several national benefit programs.

Rudul Sah was arrested in 1953 on charges of murdering his wife. He was acquitted by an Additional Sessions Judge, in 1968, who directed his release from jail, pending further orders. Rudul Sah languished in jail for 14 years after his acquittal, until his plight was highlighted in the media in 1982 and led to the filing of the PIL on his behalf.

A coalition of residents sent a letter of petition to the Supreme Court to challenge the Water and Power Development Authority's (WAPDA) construction of an electricity grid station in their neighborhood, on designated "green belt" property. The Court heard the matter as a human rights case, as Article 184 (3) of the Pakistan Constitution provides original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to take up and determine any matter concerning the enforcement of fundamental rights of public importance.

In 2005, under the Article 26 procedure of the Constitution, the Irish Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of a bill referred to it by the President. This bill authorized charges for in-patient services, provided by the public health service, to be imposed on certain people, in most cases, elderly people of limited means.

Tras un informe periodístico sobre una mujer indigente que falleció en una calle muy concurrida cuatro días después de dar a luz a una beba, el Tribunal abrió esta causa de interés público por iniciativa propia. El Tribunal solicitó a la organización Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), un miembro de la Red-DESC, que presentara amicus sobre la situación en Delhi de la salud de las mujeres indigentes embarazadas y que se encuentran en el período de lactancia, y que sugiera medidas adecuadas.

Following a newspaper report regarding a destitute woman who died on a busy street four days after giving birth to a baby girl, the Court brought this public interest litigation (PIL) on its own motion. The Court also asked the Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), an ESCR-Net member organization, to file an amicus brief on the status of maternal health for destitute pregnant and lactating women in Delhi, and to suggest appropriate remedies. HRLN’s amicus outlined myriad state failures to implement government schemes providing for food and health services to women and marginalized groups.