Previous 16 / 33 Next

States to adopt a holistic approach to address the root causes of discrimination against women. They add that Article 5 of the Maputo Protocol requires States to eradicate harmful practices that undermine the human rights of women. 79. The Complainants state that ensuring equality means addressing not only formal (de jure) inequality, which is discrimination based on law, but also substantive (de facto) inequality or discrimination based on practice. Formal equality, they argue, requires ensuring that laws and policies treat all people in the same way. Substantive equality, on the other hand, offers a more comprehensive understanding of equality, requiring equality of outcome and opportunity. According to the Complainants, the practice of compulsory blood donation by the spouses of pregnant women and the detention of women in health care facilities should they be unable to pay their maternity bills in full, because they are based on widespread practice and not on law, fall within the scope of violations that formal equality alone will not address. 80. The Complainants state that various internatibnal standards require Nigeria to fully account for the high levels of prev:entable maternal deaths by addressing the roles that formal and material gender ...based inequalities play in women's predisposition to die or suffer debilitating injuries, as well as the different maternal health outcomes experienced by women based on their socioeconomic status. 'f:l;i ,!, -. Violation of the right1to information 81. The Complainants .\.allege that access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information i$., essential to prevent health problems and ensure the wellbeing of all individuals. In addition, access to sexual and reproductive health information can hell3\Rre,vent unplanned pregnancies, unsafe abortions and minimise the incidence ol:ma:tern~1 death and morbidity. The Complainants point out that a large proportion '01 maternal deaths in Nigeria could easily be prevented if women and girls had adequate access to information about their health. 82. According to the Complainants, the right to information guaranteed by Article 9 of the African Charter is a gateway to the rights to health, life, dignity and equality. With specific reference to health, the Complainants point to Article 14(2) of the Maputo Protocol which recognises the right to health information as an essential component of the right to health, stressing the importance of information, education and communication services i:% C'r~ 'A 'V of 1 adequate, affordable and accessible health care services. ~LI".,~<;.~E'f AR. 4r J" '. .) \f) (~ ,~ '. I.fI 83. ~hey also re~er to Art!de 14 (1) of the Mapu~o.Prot I~ol hi/(, ~ar ~t:r the nght t? family planrung education. More specifIcallY'I't\ om,JJ.&ln ts ege that in its last Concluding Observations, the Commi] ~ft:s. co that Nigeria revise its abortion law and adopt ~ Q s- ess to sw :4f"E EO oE.~ 15

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 564/15 - Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape & Alliance Africa v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Equality
Maputo Protocol
Right to Health
Sexual and Gender Based Violence
Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights
Women's Rights

Case Head Notes: The Complainants state that thousands of Nigerian women have lost their lives because the Respondent State has failed to provide adequate access to maternal health care services. They emphasize that these deaths were preventable, and they note that the Respondent State's per capita health expenditure is among the lowest in the world. They also emphasize that, since only women can get pregnant, the failure to provide quality maternal care services is discriminatory, as it is a unique and important element of womens' health. The complainants also note the inter-sectional nature of discrimination in maternal health services, as poor women often have even less access to quality care services. The Commission found no violation of Article 4 as they state that it was not demonstrated that the Respondent State had sufficient resources to prevent maternal deaths, or that it had failed to take steps to improve the right to maternal health. The Commission found no violation of Article 16 because they state that the highest attainable standard of health is dependent on the economic capacity of the state. They further state that the 15% budget allocation for the health sector, which the Respondent State agreed to in the Abuja Declaration, is an expression of political will, not a legally binding instrument, and cannot be enforced against the Respondent State. The Commission found no violation of Article 14 of the Maputo Protocol because they stated that a causal link between the facts and the alleged violations was not demonstrated. The Commission found no violation of Article 5 because they stated that it was not proven that the omissions of the health service providers had a specific and well-defined objective of humiliating the victims or inducing them to act against their will. Further, they state that it was not established that the acts or omissions of health service providers created feelings of fear, anguish, or inferiority in the victims. The Commission found no violation of Article 2 because, while fees for access to maternity services exist, the Commission states that it was not established the fees were introduced with the particular objective of preventing poor women from accessing maternity services. Regarding the discriminatory requirement that women must have their husband donate blood, or, alternatively, pay a fee, the Commission stated that there was no evidence to establish a violation. The Commission found no violation of Article 3 because they state that it was not established how victims received differential protection by the law and courts of the Respondent State. The Commission found no violation of Article 9 because they state that it was not shown how the ignorance of Nigerian women about contraception contributed to the risk of maternal mortality, or that the Respondent State played a passive role in providing information. The Commission found no violation of the right to scientific progress because they state that scientific progress has to be available, and it was not established how scientific progress in the Respondent State is available and sufficient to overcome these challenges, or that, if it is available, that it has been made inaccessible to women. The Commission found no violation of Article 7 because they stated that it was not demonstrated that the victims were prevented from seizing the compentent bodies, or that they were denied such an opportunity.

Country

Nigeria

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: May 23, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Duration of Procedure

Dec 31, 2014 ~ May 23, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 9.081999

Longitude: 8.675277

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Nigeria

Primary Documents

Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape & Alliance Africa v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 564/15 - Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape & Alliance Africa v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria

Primary Documents

Notifications