Sexual and Reproductive Rights

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.

In 1991, the Philippines delegated responsibility for “people’s health and safety” to the local level. In exercise of this power, an executive order 003 (“EO 003”) was issued in Manila, in 2000 which declared that the city would take an “affirmative stand on pro-life issues”. In response to a joint submission from NGOs in 2008, the UN Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (Committee) conducted an inquiry into alleged human rights violations resulting from the enforcement of EO 003.  

Patricia Mansilla Martínez, a member of Bolivian Parliament, filed an abstract action of unconstitutionality against articles 56, 58, 245, 250, 254, 258, 263, 264, 265, 266, 269, 315, and 327 of the Criminal Code for discrimination against women. The Court did not consider the constitutionality of articles 254, 315 or 317, as they are no longer in force.

In 2007, petitioners brought a case seeking mandamus to enforce obligations of women’s reproductive health rights under Article 20 (2) of the Interim Constitution and international human rights treaties to which Nepal is party. Petitioners argued that despite budgetary allotments by the government, no meaningful or effective programs had been initiated by the State to address the problem of uterine prolapse, as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of women suffering from the condition.