2) The injustice of forced sterilization

Forced sterilisation of disabled women is a very delicate issue because of its implications with the controversial theme of eugenetics. After a brief historical description of the phenomenon, it is now the time to come back to present and to the case brought before the European Court of Human Rights by five disabled women. In order to do that, West has interviewed Janina Arsenjeva, from the European Disability Forum.

1) Could you fully describe the case Gauer and Others v. France that was put before the European Court of Human Rights. When did the events take place, who are the women involved and were they hospitalized? Is this the first case of forced sterilization of disabled people that was put before the Court?

Between 1995 and 1998, five young French women with intellectual disabilities (Joëlle Gauer, Brigitte Thill, Françoise Gout, Nadège Boudevillain and Carole Gouley underwent surgical tubal litigation procedures for contraceptive purpose. Their consent was not sought prior to interventions and the women were not informed about the nature of the procedures. They were all employed at the Centre d’aide par le travail (Centre of assistance through work, CAT) of Sens (commune in the department of Yonne in Burgundy, France) and placed under the responsibility of the Association for Adults and Young People with Disabilities (APAJH).
They have complained to the European Court of Human Rights, and the Court’s decision is pending. In the meantime, the European Disability Forum supported the International Disability Alliance, Interights, Center for Reproductive Rights and Mental Disability Advocacy Center in drafting a third-party intervention to the Court outlining the international human rights standards that universally speak against forced sterilisation of women with disabilities.
To my knowledge, this is the first case at the European Court of Human Rights concerning sterilisation of women with disabilities. The Court has, however, dealt with cases of sterilisation of women of Roma origin.[1]

2) Which position have taken the European Disability Forum and the other associations which fight for the human rights protection in the official statement brought forward the Court?

The organisations stated that forced sterilisation of women with disabilities and the inadequacy of State responses to it represent serious violations of multiple human rights. We aimed to prove that inadequate legal framework, non-observance of law, non-exercise of due diligence to protect individuals all contribute to the crime of forced sterilisation being committed. Women with disabilities can be particularly vulnerable to this illegal practice due to historical discrimination and prejudice about their reproductive and sexual rights and abilities.

3) European Convention on Human Rights (CEDU) is the legal basis of the Court. To which articles the women can appeal to in order to see their rights being recognized?

The following articles have been raised by the applicants:
- Article 6 “Right to a fair trial”: the applicants, all of whom have been deprived of their legal capacity, have not been represented in the proceedings from the beginning, and no legal representative has been appointed to defend their interests. Their participation as “civil party” to the proceedings has also been denied.
- Article 3 “Prohibition of torture”: the applicants claim that the sterilisation without consent was an attack on their physical integrity.
- Articles 8 “Right to respect for family and private life” and 12 “Right to marry” : the applicants’ right to respect to private life and to found a family have been violated.
- Article 14 “Prohibition of discrimination” together with Articles 3, 8 and 12 : the applicants complain of discrimination on the ground of their disability in committing the above violations.[2]

(The answers were collected in a written form)

_______________
[1] K.H. and Others v. Slovakia, ECtHR 28 April 2009; V.C v. Slovakia; I.G., M.K. and R.H. v. Slovakia; M.V. v. Slovakia; N.B. v. Slovakia; R.K. v. The Czech Republic to name a few.

[2] The nature of Article 14 is such that it cannot be invoked independently, and must be linked to one of the substantial rights under the Convention.