Previous 24 / 33 Next

assault, rape, incest and when the pregnancy endangers the mental and physical health of the mother or the life of the mother or the foetus. This provision calls on States to ensure the availability, afford ability, accessibility and quality of sexual and reproductive health care services for women without discrimination on the basis of age, health status, disability, property status or place of residence= . This provision also calls on States to ensure that women are not subject to criminal prosecution and legal sanctions for receiving health services reserved for them, such as abortion and post-abortion care.t? , 121. In the present case, the Commission notes that the Complainants do not provide the details necessary to conclude that this right has been violated. In particular, they have allegedly provided information showing that the costs of health care . "'pf " that the distances are unsustainable in relation to the cost of living in .Nigeria to access health care are not affordable. Nor do the Complainaqts provide arguments that women's reproductive rights such as safe abot-tion are not protected in the cases listed in Article 14.2. a) and c) of the M_fPutoProtocol. ',{, 122. In the absence of all these details, the Commission concludes that Article 14.2. a) and c) has not been violated, On the violation of the right to dignity and theirlght not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 123. The right to dignity and the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is guaranteed by~:Article5 of the Charter which states as follows "Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of) his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man, in particular slavery, trafficking in persons, physical or moral torture, and cruel, inhuman er. degr,ading treatment or punishment, shall be prohibited. 124. Human dignity is a fundamental right that all human beings must enjoy without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of their mental capacities or disabilities, as the case may be40 . For this reason, in Purohit and Moore v Gambia, the Commission considered it as a natural right which every human being is obliged to respect, by all means, and which also confers on every human being the duty to respect it.41 #';. 0 .... UMAI',,, 7~''''''~ c.~{1 ARI4r "'tJ ~ 125. The provisions ,of Article 5 of the African Charter sugThSf~t ,,<:)'r-ture0 «" inhuman or degrading treatment is one of the acts that 1jd t t~ ;Vila i~ ~ right to dignity. In this sense, the Commission consider~tIw di' - ~ is -< ept around which the prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuma ~l\", h~ tfea ent J , <i'.r,v" c, "1'\14fflICI>.~ 38 African Commission on Human and Peoples~ Rights, General Comment No.2 on (J!&1#Efftli and Article 14. 2 (a) and (c) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People Women in Africa, para 29 39 Idem, para 32 40 Communication 41 Communication 241/01 - Purohit and Moore v The Gambia (2003) ACHPR para 57 241/1- op.cit, para 57 23 Q""~ <fJ '" c) and (f) n the Rights of

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