The Approach of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Regarding Abortion: A Violation of the Right to Life or an Exception to It

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Master of International Law, Shiraz University, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Public and International Law, Shiraz University, Iran

10.22034/law.2025.62245.3396

Abstract

Abortion is recognized as one of the grounds for depriving life, and whether it is permissible or not has been one of the most significant legal challenges to the right to life. This issue has always been a source of serious disagreement among legal scholars and has been controversial at the level of international judicial practice as well. Among these, the approach of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is noteworthy, particularly in the sense that the confrontation between opponents and proponents of abortion has extended to the Court, effectively turning the issue into a challenge. This article, based on qualitative research and an analysis of the Court's rulings and Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, seeks to answer the question: Does the Court's approach lean toward the permissibility or impermissibility of abortion? The article concludes that the Court does not have a clear stance on recognizing abortion as a violation of the right to life or an exception to it. The Court's perspective up until 2013, particularly based on the case of ArtaviaMurillo et al. v. Costa Rica, due to reasons such as not recognizing the fetus as a person and not protecting it from the moment of conception, on the one hand, and prioritizing the mother's right to life and her right to privacy, on the other, has leaned toward the permissibility of abortion under certain conditions. However, from that year onward, in light of cases such as Beatriz v. El Salvador and Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, a shift in the Court's approach toward protecting the life of the fetus can be observed; this is reflected in its indirect support for the prohibition of abortion except in cases of medical necessity or danger to the mother’s life.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. الف) فارسی

    - کتاب‌ها‌

    1. آقایی‌نیا، حسین (1392). حقوق کیفری اختصاصی: جرایم علیه اشخاص (جنایات). تهران: میزان.

    - مقالات

    1. احمدی‌نژاد، مریم (1393). تحلیلی بر حق مادران بر سقط‌ جنین به عنوان ناقض حق فرد بر شناسایی شخصیت حقوقی در حقوق‌بین‌الملل با رهیافتی اسلامی. مطالعات حقوق بشر اسلامی، 3 (6)، 9-33.
    2. علوی، محمدتقی و عزیزی، مرتضی (1391). بررسی حقوق غیر مالی کودک آزمایشگاهی. مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی معاصر، 3 (5) 159-193.
    3. حسینی، سیدمحمد و رهایی، سعید (1401). نگاهی کارکردگرایانه به سقط ‌جنین آزاد با تأکید بر رویۀ دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر حقوق بشر. حقوق بشر، 17 (1)، 141-164.

    Doi: 10.22096/hr.2023.529256.1311

    1. رضایی، جمال (1383). سقط ‌جنین. طب و تزکیه، (52 74-84.
    2. سلیمی، مهدی؛ بهرامی کوتنایی، لیلا و عبدی حسین‌آبادی، وحید (1395). سقط ‌جنین. کنفرانس ملی فقه و حقوق، روانشناسی. 1-13.
    3. عباسی، محمود؛ قاسمی، آرین و رضایی، راحله (1398). تحولات رویۀ دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر در مواجهه با چالش‌های حق‌ حیات: مطالعۀ موردی آراء بنیادین سقط‌ جنین و مرگ خودخواسته. حقوق‌ پزشکی، 13 (48)، 157-184.
    4. مهرگان، امیرحسین (1384). سقط‌ جنین و حقوق بشر در آیینه حقوق بین‌الملل. باروری و ناباروری، 6 (4)، 410-440.
    5. مشکات، سید مصطفی (1397). مطالعۀ سنجشی جنین‌آزاری در سامانه کیفری ایران و ایالات متحدۀ امریکا. پژوهش حقوق کیفری، 7 (24)، 37-65.

     Doi:10.22054/jclr.2018.24029.1465

    1. موسوی، محمدعلی؛ عمیدیان، هاجر؛ نوروزی، یاسر و صفری، امیر (1390). سیر تاریخی و روند حقوقی سقط‌ جنین در امریکا و نقش جنبشهای زنان در فرایند تصمیم‌گیری سیاسی آن. تحقیقات زنان، 5 (2)، 1-32 .

    - سایت‌های اینترنتی

    1. جوادی، مرضیه (4/4/1401). ماجرای قانون سقط‌ جنین امریکا موسوم به «رو در برابر وید» چیست؟. در:

    https://rooziato.com/1401396033/what-is-abortion-law-and-has-it-been-overturned-in-us/

    1. خبرگزاری تسنیم (4/4/1401). دیوان عالی امریکا حق سقط‌ جنین را لغو کرد/ تجمع و درگیری معترضان به حکم. در: https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1401
    2. ذوالفقاری، مهدی (13/11/1395). اسرار تغییر دیدگاه ترامپ و حمایتش از لغو«قانون‌ آزادی‌ سقط‌ جنین، در: https://www.mehrnews.com/news/3892320
    3. یکتاپرس (8/4/1401). قانون سقط جنین در آمریکا لغو شد ! مجرم!. در:

    https://www.yektapress.com/fa/news/90048

    ب) منابع انگلیسی

    - Books

    1. Jayawickrama, N (2002). The Judicial Application of Human Right Law. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
    2. Nijsten, M (1990). Abortion and Constitutional Law A Comparative European-American Study. Italy: European University Institute Florence.
    3. Pasqualucci, J (2003). The Practice and Procedure of the inter-American Court of Human Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    - Articles

    1. Ahmad, N (2022). Opinion – The Right to Access Abortion is a Right to Privacy, E-International Relations, 1-3.
    2. Abboud, C. J. (2017). Doe v. Bolton, at: https://embryo.asu.edu/­pages/doe-v-bolton-1973.
    3. Bilke, L (2022). Abortion in Latin America Through the Lens of the IACtHR, at: https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/abortion-in-latin-america-through-the-lens-of-the-iacthr/
    4. Erdman, J, J. Cook, R (2005). The Interpretation of Article 4 (1) of the American Convention on Human Rights Consistently with the Human Rights of Women, International Programme on Reproductive and Sexual Health Law, University of Toronto, 1-20.
    5. Engstrom, P (2024). The Impact of the Inter-American Human Rights System Beyond Latin America, in: The Impact of the Inter-American Human Rights System: Transformations on the Ground, Edited By: Armin Von Bogdandy et al, 100-121.
    6. Fanni, S (2018). The Protection of the Right to Life at the Intersection between Reproductive Rights and Scientific Progress in the Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. Araucaria, 20 (40), 655-732.
    7. Gureghian Hall, M (2022). Abortion Rights in International Law: The Inter-American Human Rights System and a Post-Roe v. Wade America. UCLA Undergraduate Law Journal, (21), 63-89.
    8. Gerber Fried, M (2000). Abortion in the United States: Barriers to Access. Journal of Health and Human Rights, 4 (2), 174-194.
    9. Hennebel, L (2011). The Inter-American Court of Human Rights: the Ambassador of Universalism. Quebec Journal of International Law, Special Issue, 57-97.
    10. H Weiner, Merle (2016). Roe v Wade Case (US) United States [us], 1-15.
    11. M De Jesus, L (2013). Abortion Latin America and the Caribbean: Adoption of the America Convention on Human, ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, 20 (1), 1-47.
    12. M De Jesus, L (2014). The Inter-American Court on Human Rights’ Judgment in Artavia Murillo v. Costa Rica and Its Implications for the Creation of Abortion Rights in the Inter-American System of Human Rights. Oregon Review of International Law, 16 (225), 225-249.
    13. M De Jesus, L (2011). Revisiting Baby Boy v. United States: Why the IACHR Resolution did not Effectively Undermine the Inter-American System on Human Rights Protection of the Right to Life From Conception, Florida Journal of International Law, 23 (2), 1-56.
    14. Murphy, Jr.C.F. Abortion in America, 131-141.
    15. National Women’s Law Center. Roe v. Wade and the Right to Abortion, 40th Anniversary Roe V. Wade. Fact Sheet, 1-3
    16. Palacios Zuloaga, P (2021). Pushing Past the Tipping Point: Can the Inter-American System Accommodate Abortion Rights?. Human Rights Law Review, 899-934. Doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngab014
    17. paul, A (2012). Controversial Conceptions: The Unborn and the American Convention on Human Rights . Loyola University Chicago International Law Review, 9 (2), 209-247.
    18. Pires, T. T (2017). Procreative Autonomy, Gender Equality and the Right to Life: the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Decision in Artoya. Revista Direito GV, 13 (3), 1008-1028.
    19. Ramírez, G. A (2019). Abortion and Human Rights in Central America. Janus Head, 17 (1), 9-43.
    20. Smyth, R (2022-2023). Abortion in International Human Rights Law: Missed Opportunities in Manuela v El Salvador. Feminist Legal Studies, 1-12.
    21. Thomson, J. J (1971). A defence of Abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 (1), 47-66.
    22. Wilcox, A.J., Baird D.D. and Weinberg C.R. (1999). Time of Implantation of the Conceptus and Loss of Pregnancy. New England Journal of Medicine, 340 (23), 1796-1799.

    Doi: 10.1056/NEJM199906103402304

    1. Walsh, J, Møllmann, M, Heimburger, A (2008). Abortion and Human Rights: Examples from Latin America, IDS Bulletin, 39 (3), 28-39.

    Doi: 10.1111/j.1759-5436.2008.tb00459.x

    - Documants

    1. American Convention on Human Rights, 1969.
    2. CIDH, Informe No.9/20 Caso13.378 Iinform de Fondo Beatriz el Salvador, 3 March 2020.
    3. Informe No. 85/10 Caso 12.361 Fondo Gretel Artavia Murillo y Otros (Fecundación in Vitro) Costa Rica 14 de Julio de 2010.
    4. A.C.t.H.R. Digesto Themis, Corte idh, Artículo 4 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, at: https://www.corteidh.or.­cr/cf/themis/digesto/digesto.cfm
    5. IACHR, “Report on Merits Manuela and Family el Salvador”, Report No. 153/18 CASE 13.069, December 7, 2018.

    - Jurisprudence

    1. A.C.t.H.R, “Artavia Murillo y Otros (Fecundación in Vitro) Vs.Costa Rica. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas”, Serie C No.257, 28 de Noviembre de 2012.
    2. A.C.H.R, Caso Beatriz y Otros vs El Salvador, 2013.
    3. A.C.H. t, R., Resolucion de la Corte Inter Americana de Derechos Humanos, Medidas Provisionales Respect de el Salvador-Asunto, de 29 de Mayo de 2013.
    4. A.C.H.R, Case of Manuela et al.v.el Salvador, 2 November, 2021.
    5. Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio, Case of Manuela et al. v. el Salvador 2021.
    6. A.C.H.R.Baby Boy v. United States, Case 2141, Inter-Am.Comm’n H.R,Report No.23/81,OEA/ Ser.L/V/ll.54, Doc.9 Rev.1, 2–3(1981).
    7. Comunidad Indígena Sawhoyamaxa vs. Paraguay. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 29 de Marzo de 2006. Serie C No.146.I.A.C.t.H.R.
    8. C.H..RCase of Boso v. Italy (50490/99), Decision (Final), Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2002-VII.
    9. C.H.R. Case of Vo v. France (53924/00), Judgment(Merits), Reports of Judgments and Decisions2004.
    10. A.C.t.H.R. Case of Manuela et al.v. el Salvador, 2 November 2021.
    11. A.C.t.H.R. Xakmok Kasek Indigenous Cmty.v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, InterAm. Ct.H.R. (ser. C) No.214 (Aug. 24, 2010).
    12. S. Supreme Court, “Doe v. Bolton”, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).

    - Websites

    1. Planned Parenthood Action Blog. Roe v. Wade Overturned: How the Supreme Court Let Politicians Outlaw Abortion.at:

    https://www.­plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/roe-v-wade/­roe-v-wade-behind-case-established-legal-right-abortion

Jurisprudence and Islamic Law
Volume 15, Issue 37
December 2024
Pages 1-31

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics