Crux sancta sit mihi lux / Non draco sit mihi dux: Vade retro satana / Numquam suade mihi vana: Sunt mala quae libas / Ipse venena bibas

reede, 17. detsember 2010

Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohus vs. Iiri Vabariik

Eile avaldati Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohtu otsus, mis käsitleb kolme süüdistust Iiri Vabariigi vastu abordi küsimuses. Mõned uudised räägivad justkui oleks kohus tunnistanud Iiri abordi-seadused inimõigustega vastuolus olevaks, ent tegelikult see ei olnud nii. Selle kinnituseks toon järgnevad lõigud otsusest:
213. [...] Article 8 cannot be interpreted as meaning that pregnancy and its termination pertain uniquely to the woman’s private life as, whenever a woman is pregnant, her private life becomes closely connected with the developing foetus. The woman’s right to respect for her private life must be weighed against other competing rights and freedoms invoked including those of the unborn child [...]

214. [...] Article 8 cannot, accordingly, be interpreted as conferring a right to abortion [...]

227.  The Court concludes that the impugned restriction therefore pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of morals of which the protection in Ireland of the right to life of the unborn was one aspect.

233.  There can be no doubt as to the acute sensitivity of the moral and ethical issues raised by the question of abortion or as to the importance of the public interest at stake. A broad margin of appreciation is, therefore, in principle to be accorded to the Irish State in determining the question whether a fair balance was struck between the protection of that public interest, notably the protection accorded under Irish law to the right to life of the unborn, and the conflicting rights of the first and second applicants to respect for their private lives under Article 8 of the Convention.

241.  Accordingly, having regard to the right to lawfully travel abroad for an abortion with access to appropriate information and medical care in Ireland, the Court does not consider that the prohibition in Ireland of abortion for health and well-being reasons, based as it is on the profound moral views of the Irish people as to the nature of life (paragraphs 222-227 above) and as to the consequent protection to be accorded to the right to life of the unborn, exceeds the margin of appreciation accorded in that respect to the Irish State. In such circumstances, the Court finds that the impugned prohibition in Ireland struck a fair balance between the right of the first and second applicants to respect for their private lives and the rights invoked on behalf of the unborn.
Teiselt poolt osutas kohus Euroopa Liidu liikmesriikide "konsensusele" laiema indikatsiooni suhtes abordi taotlemise alusena ja avaldas "pehmet" survet Iiri abordiseaduste liberaliseerimiseks.

Põhjalikum analüüs organisatsioonilt "European Centre for Law and Justice".

Vt. ka LifeSiteNews ülevaade.

Kommentaare ei ole:

Postita kommentaar

Kommentaarid modereeritakse