Education (Right to)

Primary tabs

The mother of an intellectually disabled girl initiated a tutela action because her daughter had been diagnosed with cognitive deficit and microcephaly, and she could not afford the recommended integrated program of therapy and special education. The Constitutional Court accepted to review the case and ordered EPS Coomeva to coordinate with local education agencies to obtain a comprehensive medical assessment of the minor, as well as to determine the medical and educational services required for her disability.

Complainant is hearing impaired and had completed the first semester in the Primary School Teacher's College at Montería, but was not able to continue on past the first year because based on the applicable law (paragraph 3, Art 9 of Decree 366/2009) established that a minimum presence of 10 students with hearing disabilities was necessary to require sign language interpreters in educational institutions.

Country: 
United States of America
Working Group(s) / Area(s) of Work: 
Strategic Litigation
OP-ICESCR

The applicant is a body that represents over 150 member organizations that provide care for children living in the Western Cape who have severe and profound intellectual disabilities. In the Western Cape, the only available education for children who are severely and profoundly intellectually disabled occurs at "Special Care Centers" operated by non-governmental organizations. There are an insufficient number of such Special Care Centers and the children who are not able to obtain care at these centers receive no care at all.

The plaintiffs filed a constitutional claim arguing that Law 115 of 1994 did not comply with international human rights standards by allowing for the option to charge fees on primary education (sect. 183). The Court found the law unenforceable, considering that fees may not be applied to official primary education, but only to secondary and higher education levels.

Since February 2003, following the emergence of an armed conflict in the Darfur region of the Sudan, militiamen known as Janjaweed have engaged in forcibly evicting, killing, and raping thousands of Black indigenous people in that region.  The complainants alleged these acts were a failure of the government of Sudan to respect and protect the rights of the people of Darfur and in particular violated articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12 (1), 14, 16, 18 (1) and 22 of the African Charter on Human and People's Rights.  In affirming admissibility of the complaint, the Commission quoted its decisi

This was a class action brought on behalf of children residing in a school district with a comparatively low property tax base - 98% of whom were Mexican-American. The plaintiffs challenged the reliance of the State of Texas on local property taxes to finance schools, which meant that students in poorer districts received only two-thirds of the amount students received in the wealthier districts.

In SERAP v. Nigeria, the ECOWAS Court[1] considered whether it had the jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim involving the right to education under the African Charter, even if such a right was arguably non-justiciable in domestic constitutional or statutory law. The complainant initiated the case due to lack of adequate implementation of Nigeria's Basic Education Act and Child's Rights Act of 2004.

Under the SSPA system in Hong Kong, children are evaluated and placed into corresponding secondary schools based upon an Internal Assessment (IA) and an Academic Aptitude Test (AAT). placed into secondary schools based on those scores.  However, the IA and AAT scores were evaluated and analyzed based on sex, particularly because girls typically scored higher on the Internal Assessment portion and boys faired better on the Academic Aptitude standardized test.

This petition was brought to challenge the constitutionality of imposing a "capitation fee" (a fee based on the number of persons to whom a service is provided, rather than the actual cost of providing a service) on those people who wanted to enter a private medical school and were not admitted to the "government seats". These seats are reserved by the Government of India for members of communities that are explicitly recognized by the Indian Constitution as requiring support to overcome historic discrimination, or other groups designated by the government.