Previous 20 / 33 Next

lOO.As the Commission has already emphasised in Forum of Conscience v Sierra Leone, the right to life is the basis of all other rights; it is the source from which other rights flow; and any unjustified violation of this right amounts to an arbitrary deprivationc. In the Ogiek case, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (the African Court) returned to this fundamental character of the right to life, indicating that all other rights and freedoms depend on this right>. The African Court considers that to deprive someone of life-is to eliminate the very holder of those rights and freedoms. ;:~~\ ' lOl.The United Nations Human Rights Committee-considers' tpat lithe right to life encompasses the right of persons to be free from acts and, o~issions intended to cause, or expected to cause, their unnatural or premature death, to live with dignity">. It is in this sense th',lt this Committee indicated th~t deprivation of life involves deliberate or at least foreseeable and preventibte ::'parm (damage or injury) caused by an act or omission, which results in the termiI!:ation of life>. The Commission is of the,oRinion that the State has a duty to take positive and concrete measures to guarantee the right to)ife, especially in the case of vulnerable and exposed persons, whose~9re B~$omes,tl hi~h priority». and 102. The Commission would first like to recall that economic, social and cultural rights are programmatic rights. This means that each State sets itself objectives to achieve in order:" to fulfil them. Therefore, their implementation depends on the means availabl~:t0"each State. Unlike civil and political rights, where each State is obliged to refrain from>violating them, the State is obliged to realize economic, social and cultural 'tights. \~,i; 103. In its Resoluti2~ :tjJ.135 OIl:i)Maternal~o~tali~ in :Vrica, the Co~ssion a!so stated that prev~Fltable maternal mortality IS a violation of women's nghts to life, dignity and equ~1ity protected by the African Charter on Human and Peoples I Rights and the Maputo Protocole. This same idea was expressed by the Commission in its General Comment No.3 where it stated that States must address chronic yet pervasive threats to life including preventable maternal mortality by building operational health systems and eliminating discriminatory laws and practices that impact on the ability of individuals and groups to seek health care29• 19

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