CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ ABORTION AND EUTHANASIA IN THE DRAFT HUMAN RIGHTS … that “[i]n the context of the consideration of the question of the realization of the right to life, including the emphasis on … taking measures to preserve and protect the lives of their citizens, it seems inappropriate to include the theme of euthanasia and appeals to countries to legalize it”. 6 Further, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), as one of the non- governmental organizations, criticised the fact that the “provisions of paragraphs 9 and 10 … attempt to imply that the right to life also includes two so-called rights to abortion and to assisted suicide/euthanasia”. 7 In my opinion, it is worth looking closer whether this critique has its merits, namely whether the above HRC’s draft general comments adequately address the issues of abortion and euthanasia in the context of Article 6 (and other relevant articles) of the ICCPR, and whether, on a more general level, the draft comments reflect the state of international law in this area. What follows is not a systematic analysis, but several comments on certain, in my opinion, problematic aspects of the HRC’s legal approach to the very sensitive and controversial issues of abortion and euthanasia. “Right to life” or “right to life with dignity”? In paragraph 3 of the draft General Comment, the HRC states that the right to life “concerns the entitlement of individuals to be free from acts and omissions intended or expected to cause their unnatural or premature death, as well as to enjoy a life with dignity”. The question is whether the specification concerning the enjoyment of life “with dignity” cannot somehow modify the interpretation of Article 6 of the ICCPR, including its relation to the practice of abortion and euthanasia. For example, the ECLJ expressed its reservations to this expression, pointing to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which in its preamble mentions the “recognition of the inherent dignity of all members of the human family”), and arguing that “the dignity of every human being is actually inherent”. 8 This reservation seems to be relevant. It points to the fact that dignity is, in fact, inseperable atribute of any human life, even life lived “without dignity”, and that the protection of any human life is the object and purpose of the right to life. The slight addition in the draft General Comment might divert the focus of the interpretation of Article 6 from the absolute II. limited circumstances that the State is responsible for a woman’s death as a result of her undertaking unsafe abortion. …”); available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/GC36-Article6Righttolife.aspx (visited on 2 June 2018). See further Remarks of Poland to the General Comment No 36, where, after an extensive reasoning, Poland suggests the deletion of the whole paragraph 9. 6 Russian Federation, Preliminary comments on the Draft General Comment No. 36 (Russian Federation adds that such inclusion “is contrary to article 6 of the Covenant, which allows the forcible removal of a person’s life only on the verdict of the court for committing particularly serious crimes in states that have not abolished the death penalty as a measure of criminal punishment. No humanistic considerations or medical evidence can serve as a basis for depriving a person of life.”); available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/ GC36-Article6Righttolife.aspx (visited on 2 June 2018). 7 European Centre for Law &Justice, ECLJ’s Contribution to the Drafting of the General Comment No. 36 on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, 6 October 2017, pp. 5-6 and 17; available at http://media.aclj.org/pdf/ECLJ-Comments-on-HRC-Draft-GC-on-article-6-and- the-Right-to-life.pdf (visited on 1 June 2018). However, the ECLJ’s comments are not available at relevant official internet page of the HRC. 8 ECLJ, op. cit. sub 7, p. 5.

189