Uncategorized

Court Clears the Way for Life Support Removal in France Against Wishes of Advanced Directive with Denial of Emergency Stay

By: Penelope Morrison Boettiger

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

FRANCE – On December 1, 2022, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declined to support a stay of execution under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court directed at the French Government to withdraw life-support treatment being provided to Mr. A. Medmoune. In the case of Medmoune v. France, the family of Mr. Medmoune sought the stay of execution of physicians looking to withdraw life-support treatment against the wishes he had expressed in writing in his Advanced Directive which clearly stated he would like to be kept alive should he be in an irreversible coma. Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the Court may determine interim measures for urgent issues to any State Party to the European Convention on Human Rights.

A patient on life support, 2013. Photo courtesy of NBCNews.

In France, Advanced Directives came quite late, established by law for the first time in 2005 through law n° 2005-370. To this day they are little known and not widely used, and as such this court request by applicants is one which has not been extensively litigated in France. Advanced Directives in France allow patients to request specific end of life care, including the wishes of patients concerning withdrawing life support. However, unlike in the United States, physicians in France are not required to follow a patient’s Advanced Directives. It is up to the physician to determine whether to respect an advanced directive and whether to discontinue care which results in a very weak position of self-determination.

In the present case, Mr. Medmoune is a 44-year-old man who had a serious accident and has been on life support in an irreversible coma since May 2022. In July 2022 the medical decision to remove Mr. Medmoune was made by a team of his physicians reviewing his case and prognosis. Applicants are his wife and sister, who argue his Advanced Directive to continue receiving life support treatment is clear and should be followed. Specifically, they argued life support removal would breach his right to life (Article 2 of the Convention) as well as his right to respect for private life in determining how his life should end (Article 8 of the Convention), and to his right to freedom of conscience and religion (Article 9 of the Convention).

The French court first put forth a question to the Constitutional Council regarding the constitutionality of Article L. 1111-11 of the Public Health Code, which states where “’the advance directives are manifestly inappropriate or incompatible with the medical situation’ the medical team may, subject to certain conditions, override those directives in the patient’s interest.” On November 10, 2022, the Constitutional Council rule the law in place was not antithetical to human dignity or personal freedom. Shortly thereafter, on November 30, 2022, applicants applied to the ECHR under Rule 39 to stay the withdrawal of life support while the merits of the case were in review. On December 1, 2022, the ECHR decided not to stay the French Court’s decision authorizing the withdrawal of life support treatment clearing the way for Mr. Medmoune’s life support to be imminently removed.

The forthcoming decisions on the merits have serious implications for the future of self-determination in Advanced Directives not only in France, but also in other countries around the world with similar laws. At the same time, the Court’s decision not to stay the withdrawal of life support under Rule 39 appears to close the door on those in France who would rely on this stay in order to stay alive while the merits of Advanced Directive cases continue.

For further information, please see:

ECHR – Medmoune v. France – Feb. 12, 2022

Journal of Palliative Care & Medicine – Advance Directives in Palliative Care: The French Case – Nov. 12, 2014

National Library of Medicine – Advance directives and the family: French and American perspectives – 2007

Health Care Analysis – Advance Directives in English and French Law: Different Concepts, Different Values, Different Societies – March 2014

AfCHPR Reaches Judgment Following Tanzania’s End on its Ban of Pregnant Girls in School.


Alexa Connaughton
Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

TANZANIA – In 2002, Tanzania enacted an amendment to the Education Act which banned pregnant girls from attending school, even after they had given birth. The effects of this policy were disastrous, leading to the expulsion of thousands of girls, making them unable to complete their compulsory education.

Girls on their way to school. Photo courtesy of Center for Reproductive Rights.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, Tanzania has one of the highest rates of child marriages in the world. Many schools lack of sex education and students don’t have access to information on how to prevent pregnancy, yet young girls are still subjected to this rule. Teachers and school administrators are left to enforce the policy with many schools choosing to conduct mandatory pregnancy tests, though there is nothing in the amendment to call for that.

Petitions regarding this matter have been brought to many different courts since the amendment’s inception. In 2012 the Legal Human Rights Center and the National Organization for Legal Assistance filed a petition with the High Court of Tanzania, on behalf of schoolgirls in Tanzania. Their petition was against the Minister of Education and Vocational Training, and the Attorney General of Tanzania. The petition alleged that the policy violates the Article 13 of the Constitution of Tanzania, which protects equal rights and non-discrimination. However, this petition was dismissed in 2017 after five years.

In November 2020 a petition on behalf of six Tanzanian girls who were expelled from school was brought before the court, in the case Tike Mwambipile and Equality Now v. United Republic of Tanzania. The petition alleged that the amendment violated the girls’ rights to education and non-discrimination. Seven different organizations also filed amicus curiae briefs, some of which included the Human Rights Watch and UNESCO. The Court recently released its judgment on this matter deciding that the petition was inadmissible due to the fact that another petition was filed with the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child who held a hearing on the matter in November 2021. Following that hearing Tanzania’s Ministry of Education adopted Circular No. 2 which reinstated students and effectively ended Tanzania’s ban on teen mothers in schools. However, Tanzania was one of three countries in the sub-Saharan African region which adhere to an official ban against pregnant students and Tanzania has yet to codify a protection of girls’ right to access education, regardless of pregnancy.

For further information, please see:

AfCHPR – Tike Mwambipile and Equality Now v. United Republic of Tanzania – Dec. 1, 2022

Center for Reproductive Rights – Center for Reproductive Rights and the Legal and Human Rights Centre file a complaint challenging the expulsion and exclusion of pregnant schoolgirls in Tanzania – June 17, 2019

Center for Reproductive Rights – Tanzania’s Policy Change Will Allow Pregnant Schoolgirls to Continue Their Education – Dec. 22, 2021

Equality Now – African Court On Human And Peoples’ Rights To Give Verdict On Case Challenging Tanzania’s Ban On Pregnant Girls And Adolescent Mothers Attending School – Nov. 20, 2022

Human Rights Watch – Tanzania: Pregnant Student Ban Harms Thousands – Oct. 6, 2021

Court Determines Ecuador Responsible for Violation of Right to Life of Two Individuals

By: Sallie Moppert
Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

SAN JOSE, Costa Rica – A recent judgment handed down by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, IACHER, determined that Ecuador was responsible for the violation of the right to life of two individuals who died following a traffic stop and subsequent police chase in 1997. In addition to the violation of the right to life, the Court also found several other violations, including the right to humane treatment, right to a fair trial, and right to judicial protection of their next of kin.

A member of the Ecuadorian Traffic Commission performs a traffic stop.
Photo courtesy of MSN News 360.

Walter Huaćon Baidal and Mercedes Salazar Cuevos were leaving a family reunion on the afternoon of March 31, 1997. While driving, the pair encountered a traffic checkpoint, where Baidal realized he had forgotten his driver’s license and vehicle documents. Baidal turned the car around, driving on the wrong side of the road, to drive to his house to obtain his missing documents. Members of the Traffic Commission, which had been conducting the traffic checkpoint, witnessed Baidal making an illegal turn and driving on the wrong side of the road, leading to two members of the Traffic Commission and four police officers giving chase.

The officers eventually caught up to Baidal and Cuevos and pulled the vehicle over. Baidal and Cuevos were removed from the vehicle and were fatally shot and killed by the officers. Administrative and judicial proceedings were brought against the officers involved in the incident. Five officers were dismissed and, while charges were brought against the sixth officer, he did not appear at the trial. As a result, the proceedings were suspended and the case was eventually declared beyond the statute of limitations on October 11, 2012.

The Court found that the lethal force used by the police force was unjustified and disproportionate, and amounted to nothing more than extrajudicial executions, thus violating the right to life of Baidal and Cuevos. In addition, the officers’ treatment of Baidal and Cuevos during the traffic stop violated their right to humane treatment. The IACHER also determined that Ecuador’s investigation and review of the facts of the case in the police criminal court as opposed to being held in a court with an impartial authority, violated their right to an effective judicial remedy. In addition, Ecuador did not carry out the investigative process with due diligence or within a reasonable period of time. Finally, the Court noted that the families of Baidal and Cuevos had not been able to obtain the truth of the situation and the determination of who was responsible for the incident in the ordinary criminal justice system.

Based on its findings, the IACHER ordered Ecuador to make full reparations for the human rights violations declared in the report, provide the necessary physical and mental health care measures for the family members of Baidal and Cueva, conduct a full and effective investigation of the human rights violations stated in the report, develop and introduce ongoing training programs for police agents, as well as the establishment of protocols on the use of force, introduce measures to ensure effective accountability in the criminal, disciplinary or administrative courts, and introduce measures to strengthen investigative capacity, with due diligence and in accordance with relevant international standards, on possible extrajudicial executions in the context of the use of lethal force by police officers, so that effective protocols are in place to carry out such investigations.

For further information, please see:

Inter-American Court of Human Rights – Ecuador is Responsible for the Extrajudicial Execution of Two Persons and for Failing to Adequately Investigate the Facts – Nov. 21, 2022

Organization of American States – IACHR refers case on Ecuador to the Inter-American Court – July 14, 2021

Bangladesh People Silenced for Political Activism

By: Kendall Hay

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Senior Articles Editor

DHAKA, Bangladesh – Violence has recently been erupting in Bangladesh over the upcoming 2023 national election. The current regime has been actively working to silence anyone who chooses to speak out against them. The last general election in 2018 saw similar protests, and accounts of rigged election procedures were reported. The current Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, has been in power for 13 years and has won the last three consecutive elections.

Police clash with protesters. Photo courtesy of Reuters

The primary opposition party, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), has been the prime target of violence and mass arrests. Leaders in this party have faced interrogation, torture, raids, and other methods intended to silence any resistance.

Although there have been peaceful protests, these demonstrations represent the voice of the people asking for the current leader to step down.

Pre-election violence has also ramped up against the relatives of those who are speaking out against the government. Because of loopholes in certain laws, some of these individuals have been arrested without a warrant and have been tortured for their political views without due cause. Police are not working to protect the people, but have been quelling any uprising by using rods, stones, and other means of violence in an effort to “maintain peace”.

The Bangladesh government has repeatedly upheld its stance on “democracy, human rights, and justice”, but as there continues to be an uptick in violence, many fear the election procedures will be no different than the last, which many claim were prejudiced and fraudulent.

Journalists are also currently living in apprehension of being tortured and silenced, and even fear for their lives for speaking out against the current government. Investigative journalists have recently been targeted, and several who have dared to speak out against the government have later been reported missing. One such case involved a journalist who reported on a sex-trafficking ring involving government officials, and then later was stated missing.  It has also been reported that these journalists have been interrogated in inhumane conditions and left in isolation.   

In addition to the unjust treatment of journalists, homes of BNP supporters have been raided, where police are targeting those opposed to the current regime. The BNP also claims that over 180,000 cases have been filed against members of their party in the last 10 years. Cases are also filed with unknown defendants, so that police have a wider berth of accused individuals which they can arrest, interrogate, and keep in custody.

The White House has recently called on the Bangladesh government to investigate the human rights abuses against journalists and activists as reports of injuries and deaths have reached the United States. The US has also asked that the government encourage peaceful protests without intimidation, violence, or fear. The US will continue to monitor the situation closely until the upcoming election.

 

For further information, please see:

Human Rights Watch – Bangladesh: Crackdown on Political Opposition – Oct. 10, 2022

BBC – Bangladesh accused of violent crackdown on free speech – Dec. 10, 2022

CNN – Tens of thousands protest in Bangladesh to demand resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina – Dec. 11, 2022

AlJazeera – Bangladesh opposition stages protests as it challenges PM Hasina – Dec. 11, 2022

Reuters – White House calls on Bangladesh to investigate reports of pre-election violence – Dec. 9, 2022

Migrant Children’s right to an education threatened by U.S. Governor

By: Christina Rosa Ralph

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

TEXAS, United States – The Supreme Court said in Plyler v Doe, “To control the conduct of adults by acting against their children…does not comport with the fundamental concepts of justice.”  Plyler v Doe, 457 US 202, 220 (1982).  Yet, recently, U.S. politicians have begun to more openly and strenuously vilify asylum seekers and undocumented immigrants by labeling them as an “invasion” and blaming them for any number of social ills.  The language seems calculated to agitate people for political reasons and to make them feel anger and hate toward immigrants.  While xenophobic rhetoric from politicians is not new, it is particularly troubling that at least one, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas, has aimed his anti-immigration rhetoric toward innocent migrant children by attacking their right to an education.

Children holding a sign affirming their right to education. Photo Courtesy of CavsConnect.com

Gov. Abbot recently announced plans to challenge Plyler, the 1982 landmark Supreme Court decision that held that all children, regardless of their immigration status, are entitled to equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment. Plyler struck down a Texas law that allowed undocumented children to be charged for, or excluded from, Texas’s public education system.  Plyler also reaffirmed that the 14th Amendment provisions are “universal in their application…without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.” 457 U.S. at 212. Yet, Abbott seems determined to label undocumented children a “subclass” not worthy of equal protection under the law, not only under Texas law, but in the hearts and minds of his supporters and others who see no injustice in vilifying children who are simply seeking to get an education.

Abbott’s comments make it clear that, in his opinion, Texas is only educating migrant children because the Federal government is forcing it to; and implying that undocumented children are to blame for deficiencies in education.  But these assertions are challenged, by many Texas educators, including Dallas Superintendent, Michael Hinojosa, who labeled Abbott’s comments a “manufactured crisis in the name of politics.” However, while Abbotts’s comments have been dismissed as “woefully ill-informed” and have been labeled a political “dog whistle” that does not make them any less dangerous to the children he is openly attacking.  And given that Abbott does not bother to distinguish between undocumented children, and children who are US citizens with undocumented parents, the dangers his broad vilification creates threatens all immigrant children and their families. 

In the 40 years since Plyler, states have used direct and indirect ways of limiting immigrant children’s access to education by adding to the already formattable obstacles to education faced by migrant children across the U.S.  Undocumented children, and children who are U.S. citizens of undocumented parents, face constant uncertainty and fear; language, cultural and social barriers; and often poverty and isolation. While the perception of immigrants, flamed by incendiary comments by public officials, is “intrinsically tied to negative perceptions” about immigrants, and a constant reminder to these children that many believe they are not welcome and do not belong.

The Supreme Court called education the “primary vehicle for transmitting ‘the values on which our society rests.’”  In Texas, it appears the governor is willing to use that vehicle to pass on values that teach some children they are more deserving of an education than their peers who are immigrants or 1st generation Americans while teaching others that they are, and will remain, a subclass of persons not worthy of an education or of equal protection under the law.

 

For further information, please see:

Dallas Morning News – Texas Educators say Immigrant Children aren’t as Much of a Worry as State Funding – May 9, 2022

Institute for Immigration Research – Plyler v Doe: Implementation, Challenges, and Implications for the Future – Aug. 2022

Latina Republic – Barriers in the United States Education System for Immigrant Children – June 23, 2021

MALDEF – MALDEF Statement on Texas Governor’s Comments on Landmark Educational Ruling – May 5, 2022

NPR – Talk of ‘invasion’ moves from the fringe to the mainstream of GOP immigration message – Aug. 3, 2022

Plyler v Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

New York Times – Texas Governor Ready to Challenge Schooling of Migrant Children – May 5, 2022