Congratulations to Katherine Mayall, Christina Zampas and Rosario Grimà Algora, whose new article in the Journal of Human Rights Practice focuses on four landmark cases (Alyne da Silva Pimentel v. Brazil (2011), K.L. v. Peru (2005), P. and S. v. Poland (2012), and R.R. v. Poland (2011), showing the international impact and rippling effects of strategic litigation.  We are pleased to circulate the following abstract, followed by information about these four decisions.

Katherine Mayall, Christina Zampas, and Rosario Grimà Algora, “Mapping the Cross-Border Influence of Regional and International Reproductive Rights Cases,” Journal of Human Rights Practice, Volume 16, Issue 3, November 2024, Pages 852–868. Abstract online, Institutional access to full text.

International and regional human rights mechanisms are essential tools for ensuring access to justice for human rights violations and advancing measures of non-repetition, such as domestic law and policy reform. Scholarship on the impacts of these mechanisms have largely centred on the resulting domestic law and policy reform in the countries at issue in these cases and the resulting normative standards human rights bodies have established. The cross-fertilization of these cases among other international and regional human rights mechanisms and domestic courts remains an important but under-explored aspect of how such cases influence progress towards the realization of human rights. Through the lens of four landmark cases on sexual and reproductive health and rights, this article examines the influence of these cases in jurisprudence from across the globe, demonstrating how such decisions have reverberated across borders. These rippling effects of strategic litigation constitute an important impact that should be taken into account when evaluating the influence and efficacy of these mechanisms.

RELATED RESOURCES:

Alyne da Silva Pimentel v. Brazil, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/49/D/17/2008 (August 17, 2011) CEDAW Decision online. [An impoverished 28-year-old Afro-Brazilian woman died of complications resulting from pregnancy after her local health center misdiagnosed her symptoms and delayed providing her with emergency care.]  2018 IJGO article by Alicia E. Yamin, Beatriz Galli and Sandra Valongueiro.  Abstract of 2013 article by Rebecca J. Cook. Portuguese translation of entire article. .Institutional access to full text. 

K.L. v. Peru, Communication No. 1153/2003, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003 (2005).  Decision in English.   Backup copy.    [Peru violated a 17-year-old girl’s rights. Minor was pregnant with anencephalic fetus and was denied a legal abortion; she was forced to give birth and developed severe depression following infant’s death four days after birth. Violations included right to be free from cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, right to privacy and special measures for the protection of minors.] Summary of decision by ESCR-Net.  

P. and S. v. Poland, App. No. 57375/08, European Court of Human Rights (2012).  Decision online.    Backup copy.    [Poland violated rights of a minor who sought a legal abortion after rape. A minor was subjected to: doctor’s refusal to help and refusal to provide a referral; distorted information about the law; detention in a juvenile centre, and disclosure of her personal and medical data to the press. The minor and her mother were harassed by doctors, anti-abortion groups, and representatives of the Catholic church] Summary of decision by CRR. 

R.R. v. Poland, App. No. 27617/04, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2011).  Decision online.    Backup copy.   [Poland violated the applicant’s rights to freedom from inhumane and degrading treatment and respect for private life by denying her timely access to diagnostic tests and information which would have enabled her to decide whether or not to seek a legal abortion; due to such delays, the woman gave birth to a child with Turner syndrome] Summary of decision by CRR.  

Abortion Law Decisions webpage (updated March 7, 2025) are online here.

__________________________________________________________________________
Contributed by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our Publications,  Research Resources, and Reprohealthlaw Blog Commentaries Series.  TO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of this blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

This entry was posted on Monday, March 10th, 2025 at 9:05 am and is filed under Courts, Decisions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.