From silent atrocities to justice: examining the legal landscape of forced sterilization of women with disabilities across Europe – JURIST – Files

In addition, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“UNCRPD”), does not explicitly mention forced sterilization in the text of the treaty, but the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities then focused on protection against forced sterilization General comment 3 of the CRPD committee which is linked to Article 6 of the UNCRPD, which concerns the rights of women and girls with disabilities and clearly identifies forced sterilization as a cruel and inhumane practice. THE Committee is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the UNCRPD by States Parties.

Historical context

Forced sterilization, originating from eugenics movementsand took a sinister turn in the 20th century as European countries sought to control specific populations. The context of forced sterilization arises from the 19th and 20th centuryeugenic efforts. This approach has taken a dark turn, notably Nazi Germanywhere forced sterilization and murder of “undesirable“People – those suffering from mental illnesses, genetic diseases and other presumed disabilities – were methods of ‘negative’ eugenics. This procedure was part of a broader, mainstream eugenics movement that was prevalent throughout American culture and not limited to the margins. Additionally, forced sterilization laws targeting marginalized people have been implemented in a number of European countries, such as Roma women, the poor, the single and women seeking abortion. Although illegal in most European countries, forced sterilizations remain persist in some regions, reflecting a troubling history that continues to impact marginalized populations today.

This persists even in the EU today, with recent reports revealing ongoing forced sterilization, disproportionately affectingwomen and girls disabled people, particularly those under guardianship. This harmful practice, rooted in systemicprejudice, assumes that individuals do not have the capacity to make decisions about their bodies or their parenting. Placing them under guardianship worsens the problem, causing them to lose control of medical choices, including sterilization decisions.

Forced sterilization seriously violates women’s rights, including through ethnic and gender discrimination. Fight against underlying stereotypes, discriminationAnd ableism is crucial to ending this practice and rectifying persistent historical injustices against disabled communities. It also highlights the urgent need for a coordinated response, which includes criminalizing forced sterilization and ensuring justice for victims.

Implications of forced sterilization of people with disabilities

Forced sterilization of persons with disabilities has significant consequences for a range of human rights. It is part of a broader pattern of denial of the human rights of women and girls with disabilities and exclusion of reproductive and sexual health care, limited contraceptive choices, involuntary abortions, and denial of parental rights that arise from social attitudes and prejudices that characterize disability as a personal or pathological tragedy requiring medical treatment. This undermines the rights of women and girls with disabilities, including their right to start and maintain a family, and their right to live free from violence and exploitation. This practice violates their physical integrity and their security, constituting violence against women. It also represents a form of systemic violence against girls with disabilities, leading to heightened forms of discrimination and a denial of their right to make decisions about their own bodies.

The UNCRPD provides a basis for defending the rights of persons with disabilities, emphasizing the need to prohibit forced sterilization and ensure the full realization of their rights. The practice of forced sterilization is also linked to historical eugenics laws and represents a violation of the rights to self-determination, physical integrity and family life.

Therefore, addressing the implications of forced sterilization of persons with disabilities is essential to uphold their basic human rights and prevent further systemic violence and discrimination.

Legal frameworks and violations

The UNCRPD constitutes a crucial international instrument in safeguarding the rights of persons with disabilities.Article 12 of the CRPD ensures that persons with disabilities will be treated equally before the law, particularly in the context of reproductive autonomy, legal capacity and protection from exploitation and abuse; Article 16 which requires States parties to take all reasonable precautions to protect persons with disabilities from abuse and violence, including neglect and exploitation. This article aims to create a protection framework that recognizes the vulnerability of people with disabilities to these forms of abuse. Further away, Section 17 which guarantees the physical and mental integrity of people with disabilities, emphasizing the importance of respecting and preserving their physical and mental well-being; Article 18 of the CRPD requires State Parties to recognize equal rights for persons with disabilities to freedom of movement, choice of residence and nationality, ensuring their full inclusion and participation in society as a whole. Section 23 guarantees the right to found a family and make decisions regarding procreation and to assert their reproductive autonomy and choices regarding family planning, as they constantly face problems regarding the right to found a family that is not theirs not granted because they are not sufficiently competent to do so; And Section 25 ensures that people with disabilities will have the opportunity to freely and voluntarily consent to medical treatment. This highlights the importance of obtaining consent during medical treatment.

Furthermore, the CRPD Committee, in (General comment 3), clearly identifies forced sterilization as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, violating several international human rights treaties.

Furthermore, in the area of ​​women’s rights, the Convention on Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women(“CEDAW”) (Article 12) prohibits forced sterilization and requires states to prohibit discrimination in health care.Istanbul Convention (Article 39) requires legislative measures that make forced abortion and sterilization illegal.

THE Rome Statute (Article 7) defines crimes against humanity as acts, including forced sterilization, committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population, In the ICCPR (Article 7) strictly prohibits forced sterilization, guaranteeing protection against torture, cruel treatment and non-consensual medical or scientific experimentation. Further away, Section 3 of the ECHR unequivocally prohibits torture, encompassing the prohibition of forced sterilization, emphasizing the absolute rejection of any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and Article 8 guarantees the right to privacy and family life, allowing state interference only when lawful and necessary.

In the case of VC v. Slovakia (2011), a Roma woman was forcibly sterilized during a cesarean section in a public hospital in eastern Slovakia. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that this act violated his right not to suffer inhuman and degrading treatment and his right to private and family life, ordering the Slovak government to pay him compensation of EUR 31,000 and to reimburse his legal costs.

Furthermore, in the NB v. Slovakia (2012), concerns the forced sterilization of a Roma woman during her second birth. Sterilized at 17, she claimed discrimination and forced consent. The ECHR found that the sterilization was not carried out with valid consent, which constitutes a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Damages were awarded, highlighting the state’s failure to protect the reproductive health of Roma women under Article 8, thereby exposing issues of inhumane and degrading treatment.

And in YP v. Russian Federation (2022), The court found that there was no inhumane and degrading treatment, but held that sterilization without the patient’s consent violated the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR. The case is important in the context of patient autonomy, medical paternalism and the right to informed consent in medical procedures, but forced sterilization continues occur through Europe.

The road ahead

The path forward to solving the widespread problem of forced sterilization of women with disabilities in the European Union requires a holistic strategy. Only women with disabilities themselves can legally and ethically donate valid consentto their own sterilization. Furthermore, perceived mental incapacity, including medically or judicially determined mental incapacity, does not invalidate the requirement of the free and informed consent of the woman herself as the sole justification for sterilization.

As part of any process to ensure fully informed choice and consent, women with disabilities should be informed that sterilization is a permanent procedure and that there are alternatives to sterilization, such as reversible forms of family planning, and that it should not be practiced systematically. child.

This problem can be solved by strengthening legal frameworks, raising awareness, encouraging international collaboration, taking actions complete research and implementation of effective monitoring mechanisms. Prioritizing these actions will collectively address historical injustices, ensure justice for victims of forced sterilization, and fight for a future where the rights and dignity of every individual, regardless of disability, are unequivocally respected.