This report was submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Committee to inform its review of Kenya’s implementation of the Provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in relation to torture. It adopts a thematic approach and specifically focuses on legal issues that relate to protection from torture and cruel and degrading treatment under the Covenant, including extra-judicial killings, the death penalty, the principle of non-refoulement, treatment of prisoners, access to adequate medical care for prisoners and the right to a fair trial. It integrates a gender and child-rights perspective and examines the problems related to domestic violence, female genital mutilation and reproductive health rights. The overall conclusion is that, while Kenya has endeavoured to include the principles of the ICCPR in its newly promulgated Constitution of 2010 and legislative framework, there continue to be important gaps, with inadequate legislation for criminalising torture and lenient sentences for those found guilty.
Values, Policies and Rights
In this statement, a number of international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working in health express their support for the report by the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the right to health. They believe the report is of fundamental importance in securing the right to health, in particular because it consolidates years of health and human rights legal analysis, supporting the conclusion that criminal law is an inappropriate tool for regulating sexual and reproductive health matters. Empirical evidence demonstrates that the misuse of criminal laws and punitive policies in the area of sexual and reproductive health cause disproportionate suffering for women; people engaging in same-sex sexual conduct; people identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons; those living with HIV or AIDS; and other groups who already suffer discrimination. The NGOs support the report’s call to immediately decriminalise abortion, ensure access to a full range of modern contraceptive methods, and facilitate access to full, complete, and accurate information on sexual and reproductive health.
This statement was released by the People’s Health Movement (PHM) in response to the Global Symposium on Health Systems Research, held from 16-29 November 2010 in Montreux, Switzerland. It raises a number of issues and suggestions for the future. It identifies some areas of relative neglect that may be rectified in the next Symposium, such as: the role of the health system in promoting primary health care, including the involvement of communities and intersectoral action; the place of people and participatory research in the field of health systems research; the challenge of balancing equity with universal coverage; and the roles of and interrelationship between public financing and insurance. PHM detects a tacit approval for the expansion of private financing and insurance models, which they consider problematic. While the importance of political and ideological factors were mentioned several times, PHM believes that more discussion could be had to discuss and determine the political, normative and ideological views of the community of health systems researchers. Health systems policy should be informed by research, but it needs to be shaped by normative principles and values first. At the Symposium, PHM notes that there was inadequate discussion about the way the HSR is shaped by university/academic context and the publishing industry and no discussion about the political economy of HSR and the biases in the research agenda that exist. Finally, PHM urges leaders and civil society not to tolerate the ‘myth of scarce resources’, and instead insist on equal focus and emphasis on the structural and macro-economic context of health systems.
CEDAW, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, at its recently concluded session, issued a statement (attached) on sexual and reproductive health and rights, which is its contribution to the ICPD@20 review process. The Committee reminds us that it "has observed that failure of a State party to provide services and the criminalisation of some services that only women require is a violation of women's reproductive rights and constitutes discrimination against them." It States that: "the provision of, inter alia, safe abortion and post abortion care; maternity care; timely diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV), breast and reproductive cancers, and infertility; as well as access to accurate and comprehensive information about sexuality and reproduction, are all part of the right to sexual and reproductive health" and that "every State can and should do more to ensure the full respect, protection and fulfilment of sexual and reproductive rights, in line with human rights obligations."
A giant step towards equality for women was recently taken at the United Nations when a High-Level Panel on UN reform recommended to the Secretary General the creation of the world body’s first full-fledged agency for women. The panel, appointed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan earlier this year, recommends “an enhanced and independent” policy, advocacy and operational agency for women’s empowerment and gender equality, to be headed by an Under Secretary-General; and is an inspired and entirely welcome remedy. If implemented and funded as recommended, the new organization will begin to correct over six decades of UN neglect and indifference toward women.
The Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda delivered its report on 30 May 2013 (included in this newsletter). In this statement, CESR welcomes the Panel’s clear affirmation that the framework to replace the Millennium Development Goals in 2015 should be grounded in respect for universal human rights. However, the fragmented and inconsistent incorporation of human rights in its proposals, coupled with the prominence given to an outdated vision of market/business-led development, prevents the report from meeting its own stated aim of proposing a truly “transformative shift”. For the new framework of goals, targets and indicators to meet the human rights litmus test, it must fully reflect the fundamental human rights principles of universality, indivisibility, equality, participation, transparency and accountability. It must also reinforce the duty of states to guarantee at least minimum essential floors of rights enjoyment, to use the maximum of their available resources to realise rights progressively for all, and to engage in international cooperation for this purpose. Human rights advocates have been particularly insistent that, alongside the environmental, economic, and social dimensions, a fourth pillar of sustainable development - accountable governance - is fundamental to putting in place the right institutions and effective incentives to translate international political commitments into lived realities. The report is also particularly weak in addressing corporate accountability.
The Regional Committee for Africa of the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2001 expressed concern that some health-related studies undertaken in the Region were not subjected to any form of ethics review. In 2003, the study reported in this paper was conducted to determine which Member country did not have a national research ethics committee (REC) with a view to guiding the WHO Regional Office in developing practical strategies for supporting those countries. In the current era of globalized biomedical research, good ethics stewardship demands that every country, irrespective of its level of economic development, should have in place a functional research ethics review system in order to protect the dignity, integrity and safety of its citizens who participate in research.
The UNAIDS Reference Group on HIV and Human Rights has called on UN Member States to reaffirm the focus on human rights that has driven thirty years of progress in the global HIV response. This statement sets out five non-negotiables for Member States as they negotiate the outcome document for the High-Level Meeting between now and June 8. It states that the outcome document should reaffirm the emphasis on a human rights approach that mutually obliges rich and poor nations to fulfil the human right to health and that respects, protects and fulfils the human rights of people living with, affected by and vulnerable to HIV and AIDS, as well as reaffirm Member States’ shared responsibility to realise the human right to health by setting clear targets for funding the HIV response. Governments should also commit to utilising, to the fullest extent possible, flexibilities under the TRIPS agreement to lower the price of essential medicines, as well as remove laws, policies, practices, stigma and discrimination that block effective responses to AIDS. They should reaffirm the centrality of people living with HIV to the response as well as their human rights to non-discrimination, treatment as prevention, and meaningful participation.
In this open letter, the Solidarity Community Care Organisation condemns the sterilisation of HIV-positive women without their consent in Namibia as discriminatory. It identifies other forms of discrimination against HIV-positive Namibians, such as a medical aid scheme that accepts HIV-positive clients who are on anti-retroviral therapy, while excluding those who are not. The Solidarity Community Care Organisation urges all HIV-positive persons in the country to unite and fight for their rights while fulfilling their obligations, such as restraining from spreading the virus. It also calls for all HIV-positive Namibians to denounce all forms of discrimination wherever they manifest themselves in Namibia.
Stigma processes have a dramatic and probably under-recognised effect on the distribution of life chances such as employment opportunities, housing, and access to medical care. We believe that under-recognition occurs because attempts to measure the impact of stigma have generally restricted analysis to one circumstance (eg, AIDS, obesity, race, or mental illness) and examined only one outcome (eg, earnings, self esteem, housing, or social interactions). If all stigmatised conditions were considered together and all outcomes examined we believe that stigma would be shown to have an enormous impact on people's lives.