CONTACT INFO:
DIONNE SCOTT
CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
DSCOTT@REPRORIGHTS.ORG
(917) 637-3649
July 13, 2006 --On July 5, the European Court of Human Rights declared the Irish abortion case, D v. Ireland, inadmissible. D v. Ireland centers on an Irish woman who decided in 2002 to have an abortion after receiving a diagnosis of fetal impairment. In her application to the Court, she argued that Ireland’s restrictive abortion law, specifically its prohibition of abortion in cases of fetal impairment, violated her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court’s decision not to admit her case does not address whether Ireland’s restrictions on abortion in fact violate the Convention, but rather focuses on procedural issues. According to the Court, the woman had not exhausted all of her legal options for relief in Ireland before submitting her case—a requirement of the European Court and other human rights systems.
In 2001, the woman became pregnant with twins. She later learned that one fetus had stopped developing while the other had developed a fatal chromosomal abnormality. But under Irish law, abortion is illegal except to save a woman’s life and providers are prohibited from fully discussing abortion with their patients or making full referrals for legal abortion services outside the country when requested. As a result, the woman was forced to travel to Britain and make her own arrangements to have the procedure.
As noted, the European Court and other human rights bodies generally require exhaustion of available domestic remedies as a criterion for admitting cases. However, under principles of international law, applicants only have to exhaust those domestic remedies that are effective. For example, in the UN Human Rights Committee case of K.L. v. Peru , K.L. was denied access to a legal therapeutic abortion and complained directly to the Committee, arguing that there were no legal procedures in Peru that would have enabled her to obtain an abortion within the limited timeframe required by the circumstances of her case. The Committee agreed and admitted her case (and went on to find violations of her human rights), finding that "a remedy which had no chance of being successful could not count as such and did not need to be exhausted..."
Nancy Northup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights issued this response:
"It is unfortunate that the Court did not take this case. However, we look forward to a just resolution in the future for women like D who have to suffer through such inhuman and degrading treatment. Ireland’s abortion law is out of step with those of most European countries and violates women’s most basic human rights. Any government that is concerned about the health, well-being and other basic dignities of its people should guarantee that women have comprehensive information about reproductive health and access to necessary services."
The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Court last year, arguing that restrictive abortion laws—especially those that prohibit abortion in cases of fetal impairment—and barriers to abortion-related information and referrals violate women’s human rights.
