Enforcement/Implementation of ESCR

Primary tabs

The Campaign for the Ratification of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (OP-ICESCR) launches a new promotional brochure to explain what is the OP-ICESCR, why is the OP-ICESCR valuable for people and why is the...

Developed thanks to the collective work of ESCR-Net Members

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.

This case came before the Supreme Court of India, on appeal, against a Bombay High Court verdict striking down the Maharashtra government’s statewide ban on dance performances in bars. The ban dates back to August 2005, and prohibited ‘any type of dancing' in an "eating house, permit room or beer bar", but made an exception for dance performances in three stars hotels and above, and other elite establishments. The State justified the ban by asserting that bar dancing corrupts morals, fuels trafficking and prostitution, and causes exploitation of women bar dancers.

French version of the guide "Claiming ESCR at the United Nations: a manual on utilizing the OP-ICESCR in strategic litigation". This...

Developed thanks to the collective work of ESCR-Net Members

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.

The case was brought by disadvantaged children in need of accommodation and treatment in high support units.  The children asserted that the state was under a constitutional obligation to provide them with special care and appropriate educational facilities.  The state agreed that such facilities were necessary and had begun the planning process for building them.  However the projects suffered many administrative and logistical delays.  A High Court Judge issued a mandatory injunction (an order requiring the performance of a specific act), incorporating the state’s plan and ordering the go

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.

This public interest litigation case (PIL) was filed via Article 32 of the Indian Constitution directly before the Supreme Court of India and petitioned the Court to direct the State of Uttar Pradesh (UP) to take steps to end child labor. Thereafter a Court-appointed committee reported the enormity of child exploitation in UP’s carpet industry, finding that many children were kidnapped from Bihar, that the industry largely employed minor children under 14 years, and that many experienced physical abuse. 

The dispute in this case consists of two elements and arose when the first respondent purportedly purchased a property, Angus Mansions, in Johannesburg. In the initial action, the first respondent sought the eviction of approximately 300 people who were residing on the property (the applicants). The opposing action called into question the validity of the sale agreement and, consequently, the eviction order.