The Supreme Court of Canada said today it will hear an appeal by the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) that could grant terminally ill Canadians the right to assisted suicide. The case seeks to allow seriously and incurably ill but mentally competent adults the right to receive medical assistance to hasten death under specific safeguards. Lawyer Grace Pastine, who will argue the case for the BCCLA, says the decision to hear the appeal is a victory for those who support the right to to die with dignity. "I'm feeling great now. This is an enormous relief, and I'm just so happy that now there will be an opportunity to argue this very important case in front of the Supreme Court of Canada," Pastine told CBC News on Thursday morning. Several witnesses in the case are very ill and the BCCLA applied to have it expedited. But the high court rejected that, and as is customary, it gave no reasons. That means the hearing to determine the future of assisted suicide in Canada will l
The SCC has agreed to hear the appeal in the Carter case, a case about physician assisted dying, from the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA). Both of the terminally ill patients involved in the Carter case, Gloria Taylor and Kay Carter, have now passed away but the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association will be arguing the case at the SCC. In June 2012, Madam Justice Lynn Smith of the B.C. Supreme Court found the current Criminal Code provision that prohibits assisted suicide to be unconstitutional. Justice Smith found that section 241(b) of the Criminal Code breaches the claimants’ rights under both sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. She further decided that those infringements are not justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter. In October 2013, the BCCA disagreed. The BCCA overturned the decision of Justice Smith on the basis that the constitutionality of section 241 with respect to section 7 and section 1 of the Charter was decided in Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney
VANCOUVER – Forcing sick patients to suffer through painful, agonizing deaths without the ability to ask a doctor to help them end their lives is akin to “torture,” a lawyer told the British Columbia Court of Appeal on Wednesday as he argued for the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. Joseph Arvay, who represents several plaintiffs in a case that saw the law struck down last year, said the ban on assisted suicide leads some patients with terminal illnesses to end their lives early, because they know they won’t be able to seek a doctor’s help if they become debilitated later. He said the federal government is forcing those patients to make a cruel choice between suicide and suffering. “The choice for those people is, if they comply with the law, they will suffer, and for some of the people the suffering could be tantamount to torture,” Arvay told a three-judge appeal panel.
Robert Francis, the inquiry chairman, said that one of his top priorities was for the NHS constitution to be rewritten, making it explicit that “patients are put first” and “everything done by the NHS should be informed by this ethos”. He recommended that the Health Secretary also consider stipulating that NHS staff “put patients before themselves”.
In a decision released Friday, Madam Justice Lynn Smith says the Criminal Code provisions “unjustifiably infringe the equality rights” of the plaintiffs in the case, including Gloria Taylor, who suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Joseph Arvay, who represented Ms. Taylor, said that his client cried with relief on hearing the decision. He said that he does not know what her plans are. Mr. Arvay said he imagined that the government would appeal the ruling, but hoped they would not. A spokesperson for the federal government said the minister needed time to read the extensive ruling, but that they would be reviewing the judgment.
The claim that the legislation infringes Ms. Taylor’s equality rights begins with the fact that the law does not prohibit suicide. However, persons who are physically disabled such that they cannot commit suicide without help are denied that option, because s. 241(b) prohibits assisted suicide. The provisions regarding assisted suicide have a more burdensome effect on persons with physical disabilities than on able-bodied persons, and thereby create, in effect, a distinction based on physical disability. The impact of the distinction is felt particularly acutely by persons such as Ms. Taylor, who are grievously and irremediably ill, physically disabled or soon to become so, mentally competent, and who wish to have some control over their circumstances at the end of their lives. The distinction is discriminatory, under the test explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Withler, because it perpetuates disadvantage.
British Columbia’s Supreme Court ruled last week [in Carter v AG Canada] that provisions of the Criminal Code that ban physician-assisted suicide are unconstitutional. Madam Justice Lynn Smith suspended her ruling for one year to give Parliament time to draft new legislation. A government spokeswoman said Ottawa is still reviewing the judgment, but her reminder that Parliament voted not to change the physician-assisted suicide law just two years ago has only added to the sense that there will be an appeal. Ms. Taylor – a 64-year-old who suffers from Lou Gehrig’s disease – was granted a constitutional exemption that permits her to proceed with physician-assisted suicide during the one-year period, though she must meet a number of conditions.
OTTAWA, July 13, 2012 – The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, made the following statement today concerning the British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Lee Carter and Hollis Johnson et al. v. Attorney General of Canada. "After careful consideration of the legal merits of the June 15, 2012 ruling from the British Columbia Supreme Court, the Government of Canada will appeal the decision to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, and will seek a stay of all aspects of the lower court decision. The Government is of the view that the Criminal Code provisions that prohibit medical professionals, or anyone else, from counselling or providing assistance in a suicide, are constitutionally valid.
European Court judges in Strasbourg have ruled against Germany in an assisted suicide case, saying a widower's rights were infringed. Ulrich Koch challenged the German ban on actively helping someone commit suicide. His paralysed wife died after taking poison in Switzerland in 2005. The judges did not rule on the ban, but said the German courts should have examined Mr Koch's complaint. On assisted suicide, the judges said it was up to individual nations to decide. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ordered Germany to pay Mr Koch 2,500 euros (£1,600; $2,460) in damages and 26,736 euros for legal costs. There was a violation of Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life) because of the German courts' refusal to examine the merits of Mr Koch's complaint, the ruling said.
Ms. Taylor, the British Columbia woman who was the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit that challenged laws against physician-assisted deaths, died unexpectedly Thursday of an infection resulting from a perforated colon. Ms. Taylor died peacefully and painlessly, as she had hoped, Ms. Pastine said. She was 64. In June, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that physician-assisted deaths are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and granted Ms. Taylor a personal exemption that would have allowed her the right to seek a physician-assisted death. The federal government appealed that decision, as well as the exemption that applied to Ms. Taylor. The B.C. Court of Appeal in August upheld that exemption. The lawsuit is now headed for the B.C. Court of Appeal and a hearing is scheduled for March, 2013. Four plaintiffs – three individuals and the BCCLA – remain part of the proceedings.
[2013] IEHC 2 In the 75 years since the Constitution was enacted both this Court and the Supreme Court have been required to examine a vast proliferation of issues in a huge corpus of case-law. Over that period few cases have emerged which are more tragic or which present more difficult or profound questions than the issues presented for adjudication here. At the heart of this application lie novel and difficult questions as to whether constitutional provisions which guarantee personal liberty and autonomy in Article 40 of the Constitution are interfered with by a statutory prohibition which prohibits even a citizen in deep personal distress and afflicted by a terminal and degenerative illness to avail of an assisted suicide and, if they do, whether such an absolute statutory prohibition passes a proportionality test.
Marcia Angell was an editor of the most prestigious medical journal in the world for two decades. She currently gives monthly lectures on ethics to faculty at Harvard Medical School. And she served on a panel that gave advice on medical issues to the White House. But Dr. Angell’s credentials were challenged, Wednesday, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia when a lawyer for the federal Department of Justice tried to prevent her affidavit from being entered in a case concerning physician-assisted suicide.
Last week, the European Court of Human Rights decided in the case of Haas v. Switzerland (judgment in French only) that the right to private life is not violated when a state refuses to help a person who wishes to commit suicide by enabling that person to obtain a lethal substance. The applicant in the case, Ernst Haas, had for two decades been suffering from a serious bipolar affective disorder (more commonly known as manic depression). During that time he attempted to commit suicide twice. Later, he tried to obtain a medical prescription for a small amount of sodium pentobarbital, which would have allowed him to end his life without ain or suffering. Not a single psychiatrist, of the around 170 (sic!) he approached, was willing to give him such a prescription. This would have been necessary, under Swiss law, which allowed for assisted suicide if it was not done for selfish motives (in the opposite case, the person assisting could be prosecuted under the criminal code).
In 1994, the Georgia legislature enacted OCGA § 16-5-5 (b), which provides that any person “who publicly advertises, offers, or holds himself or herself out as offering that he or she will intentionally and actively assist another person in the commission of suicide and commits any overt act to further that purpose is guilty of a felony.” Violation of the statute is punishable by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years. OCGA § 16-5-5 (b). The issue in this case is whether §16-5-5 (b) is constitutional under the free speech clauses of the federal and state constitutions.
Biobanks are increasingly seen as new tools for medical research. Their main purpose is to collect, store, and distribute human body materials. These activities are regulated by legal instruments which are heterogeneous in source (national and international), and in form (binding and non-binding). We analyse these to underline the need for a new model of governance for modern biobanks. The protection initially ensured by respect for fundamental rights will need to focus on more interactions with society in order to ensure biobanks' sustainability. International regulation is more oriented on ethical principles and traces the limits of the uses of genetics, while European regulation is more concerned with the protection of fundamental rights and the elaboration of standards for biobanks' quality assurance. But is this protection adequate and sufficient? Do we need to move from the biomedical research analogy to new forms of legal protection, and governance systems which involve citizen
The Claimant seeks three declarations, namely: i) A declaration that it would not be unlawful, on the grounds of necessity, for Mr Nicklinson's GP, or another doctor, to terminate or assist the termination of Mr Nicklinson's life. ii) Further or alternatively, a declaration that the current law of murder and/or of assisted suicide is incompatible with Mr Nicklinson's right to respect for private life under Article 8, contrary to sections 1 and 6 Human Rights Act 1998, in so far as it criminalises voluntary active euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. iii) Further or alternatively, a declaration that existing domestic law and practice fail adequately to regulate the practice of active euthanasia (both voluntary and involuntary), in breach of Article 2.
A 22-stone ex-policeman trying to persuade a health authority to fund obesity surgery started the latest round of his legal fight today. Grandfather Tom Condliff, of Talke, Staffordshire, who is 62 and 6ft 2in, says he needs stomach surgery to save his life. But the North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust (PCT) refuses to fund a laparoscopic gastric bypass operation. In April, the High Court refused to quash the PCT's decision not to provide the surgery. Today, Mr Condliff's lawyers sought to overturn the High Court ruling in the Court of Appeal.
US military medical ethics evolved during its involvement in two recent wars, Gulf War I and the War on Terror. Norms of conduct for military clinicians with regard to the treatment of prisoners of war and the administration of non-therapeutic bioactive agents to soldiers were set aside because of the sense of being in a ‘new kind of war’. Concurrently, the use of radioactive metal in weaponry and the ability to measure the health consequences of trade embargos on vulnerable civilians occasioned new concerns about the health effects of war on soldiers, their offspring, and civilians living on battlefields. Civilian medical societies and medical ethicists fitfully engaged the evolving nature of the medical ethics issues and policy changes during these wars. Medical codes of professionalism have not been substantively updated and procedures for accountability for new kinds of abuses of medical ethics are not established. Looking to the future, medicine and medical ethics have not articul
A 22-stone ex-policeman has lost his Court of Appeal fight to force a health authority to fund obesity surgery. Tom Condliff, 62, said he needed a gastric bypass operation to save his life after becoming obese due to the drugs he takes for long-term diabetes. The Stoke-on-Trent man challenged a decision by North Staffordshire PCT to refuse to fund the procedure. Court judges expressed "considerable sympathy" but ruled the funding policy did not breach human rights laws. Lord Justice Toulson, one of three judges sitting on Wednesday, said: "Anyone in his situation would feel desperate." Mr Condliff, of Talke, who has a body mass index (BMI) of 43 - not high enough under his PCT's rules to qualify for surgery - lost a High Court battle over the decision in April. But his lawyers had argued the PCT had applied a funding policy which was legally flawed and breached his human rights.
Russel Ogden has seen enough people end their own lives to convince him that a planned and fully accountable suicide is a right all Canadians should have. This week in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Mr. Ogden and the Farewell Foundation For The Right To Die will be fighting both the provincial and federal governments to make “self-chosen death” a legal option.
Nearly two decades after the country’s highest court ruled against a B.C. woman who wanted to be euthanized, another B.C. woman’s case has laid the groundwork for a challenge to Canada’s assisted-suicide laws. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association – along with a daughter who helped arrange her elderly mother’s death – announced the lawsuit at a news conference in downtown Vancouver Tuesday morning. In a notice of claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court, the parties argued that Criminal Code provisions against physician-assisted death are unconstitutional because they deny individuals the right to control their physical, emotional and psychological dignity.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is awaiting a decision that could fast-track the lawsuit of a dying woman pleading for help to end her life before she gets even sicker. A judge is expected to rule Wednesday on whether Gloria Taylor can fast-track a lawsuit to gain the right to doctor-assisted suicide. The Kelowna resident, who has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, is part of one of two challenges in B.C. to the laws against assistant suicide. The last challenge was 18 years ago, when B.C. woman Sue Rodriguez narrowly lost her bid to end her suffering from the same disease.
SAN JOSE — Costa Rica, a nation that takes pride in its respect for civil liberties, is being sued for failing to lift a ban on in-vitro fertilization (IVF), as it remains the only country in the Americas that prohibits the procedure. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights said on Monday it will take Costa Rica to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for not legalizing IVF after the commission twice extended its previous deadline for the country to do so. In-vitro fertilization was banned in Costa Rica in 2000 under pressure from the Catholic Church. Some couples have taken their cases to the Inter-American Court, which is based in Washington, and 50 couples have joined to file the petition. President Laura Chinchilla has made efforts to prevent the case from reaching the court, but she was met with sluggish action on the part of Costa Rican lawmakers.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association says it wants to challenge Canada's assisted-suicide laws alone. The BCCLA represents four plaintiffs seeking to change Canada's assisted-suicide laws, including a dying woman who won the right to have her trial expedited because her health is failing. Gloria Taylor suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. On Wednesday, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled Taylor's trial should be heard in November because of the woman's rapidly deteriorating condition. A similar lawsuit is simultaneously being brought forward by the Farewell Foundation. The group's co-founder Russell Ogden is lobbying to join the BCCLA's lawsuit if its own challenge is struck down. Ogden argues testimony from his application should be part of the civil liberties association's case because it's unfair to assess the quality of either challenge.
Terminally ill patients who want to commit suicide should be able to receive medical help to die, a government adviser on care for the elderly has said. Martin Green, a dementia expert for the Department of Health, said patients who were too frail to take their own lives were being denied “choice” and “autonomy” because assisted suicide is illegal in the UK. In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he urged ministers to review the law and suggested that a referendum or a free vote in Parliament should be called to settle policy on the issue. “If you’re going to give people ‘choice’, it should extend to whether or not they want to die,” he said.
A man who is almost completely paralysed is taking legal action in a bid to end his life. His solicitors have told the BBC that they believe his case could have major implications for the way prosecutors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland deal with assisted suicides.
Frances Swaine and Merry Varney are instructed by David Tracey, whose wife, Janet Tracey, sadly died in Addenbrooke’s Hospital on 7 March 2011. Following her admission to Addenbrooke’s, a ‘Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation Order’ (known as a DNACPR or DNR) was placed on Janet’s medical notes. Janet was unaware of the DNACPR and when she became aware of it several days later, she clearly stated it was against her wishes and that she wanted to be resuscitated. As a result the DNACPR was cancelled. Several days later however a further DNACPR was entered onto her records. We have issued a judicial review and human rights claim against the NHS Trust responsible for Addenbrooke’s and against the Secretary of State for Health seeking Declarations from the Court that the Trust’s policy on the use of DNACPR is unlawful, and for the Secretary of State for Health to issue national guidance for patients and their families to know their rights concerning the use of DNACPRs.
In the case of V.C. v. Slovakia the Court found a violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and of the right to respect for private and family life concerning the sterilisation of a young Slovakian woman of Roma origin.
In this report, Professor Knaplund discusses the Montana Supreme Court case of Baxter v. State of Montana (2009 MT 449), which ruled on the issue of a doctor's liability in a physician aid in dying (PAD) situation. In this case, the plaintiff was suffering from mutual symptoms related to his terminal lymphocytic leukemia and the chemotheraphy treatments he was receiving for it. Along with several other named plaintiffs, including board-certified physicians and the group Compassion and Choice, Mr. Baxter sued to have the state's homicide statute declared to of the constitutional rights of those who are dying to seek a physician's aid in achieving death.
Today, the Court decided in the case of Haas v. Switzerland (judgment in French only) that the right to private life is not violated when a state refuses to help a person who wishes to commit suicide by enabling that person to obtain a lethal substance. The applicant in the case, Ernst Haas, had for two decades been suffering from a serious bipolar affective disorder (more commonly known as manic depression). During that time he attempted to commit suicide twice. Later, he tried to obtain a medical prescription for a small amount of sodium pentobarbital, which would have allowed him to end his life without ain or suffering. Not a single psychiatrist, of the around 170 (sic!) he approached, was willing to give him such a prescription. This would have been necessary, under Swiss law, which allowed for assisted suicide if it was not done for selfish motives (in the opposite case, the person assiting could be prosecuted under the criminal code).
Most law school courses approach reproductive rights law from a purely domestic perspective, as an extensive survey of casebooks and course material reveals. The authors argue that a transnational perspective can enhance the teaching of sexual and reproductive health in all of the law school courses and doctrinal settings in which this topic in treated. While the topic of “Global Sexual and Reproductive Rights” can be presented in a free-standing course, transnational perspectives should also be integrated across the curriculum where sexual and reproductive rights are discussed. Expanding reproductive rights pedagogy to address transnational perspectives will aid in exposing a wide range of students to transnational material, will expand students’ preparedness to analyze such materials, and will better reflect the debates on sexual and reproductive health currently taking place outside of law school classrooms.
Despite appearances in public debate, there is a surprising amount of consensus across the political spectrum on two basic components of reproductive rights: the O.S.I. (the offspring selection interest) and the B.I.I. (the bodily integrity interest). In this article, Colb suggests that it is important to keep these two often-overlapping interests distinct in thinking about calls for reproductive rights. To illustrate the pitfalls of conflating the O.S.I. and the B.I.I., Colb takes up frozen embryo disputes between sperm and egg donors and intra-couple conflicts about abortion. She concludes that although opponents on the abortion issue are unlikely to reach a consensus, the scope of their disagreements can be narrowed and better defined by treating the O.S.I. and the B.I.I. as the independent and severable interests that they truly are.
The Supreme Court in Montana has ruled that nothing in the state's law prevents patients from seeking medical assistance to commit suicide. The ruling paves the way for Montana to become the third US state alongside Washington and Oregon to allow patients to seek the procedure. The decision comes a year after a lower court ruled it constitutional. Doctors will now be able to prescribe the necessary drugs to the terminally ill without fear of prosecution. The state's Supreme Court said there was nothing in its precedent showing that doctor-assisted suicide was against public policy. However, it did not go as far the district court, which ruled last year that the right of terminally-ill patients to ask their doctors to help them die was protected by the state's constitution.
The House of Lords in Purdy forced the DPP to issue offence-specific guidance on assisted suicide, but Jacqueline A Laing argues that the resulting interim policy adopted last September is unconstitutional, discriminatory and illegal. In July 2009, the law lords in R (on the application of Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] All ER (D) 335 required that the DPP publish guidelines for those contemplating assisting another to commit suicide. The DPP produced a consultation paper (23 September 2009) seeking to achieve a public consensus, albeit outside Parliament, on the factors to be taken into account in determining when not to prosecute assisted suicide. Although the consultation exercise is hailed by proponents of legislative change as a democratic, consensus-building and autonomy-enhancing initiative, there is much to suggest that, on the contrary, the guidance is unconstitutional, arbitrary and at odds with human rights law, properly understood.
In September 2008, the European Court of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECtHR) upheld a breach of Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), in that the UK failed to provide RK and AK with an effective legal remedy for the removal of their child from their care as a result of medical misdiagnosis. The case throws into focus the approach the domestic UK courts have on the rights of third parties, in particular, the rights of parents where their children are subjected to negligent medical treatment.
In Tysiac v. Poland (2007) the Strasbourg Court ruled in favour of the applicant (who had been denied access to a lawful therapeutic abortion), finding that Poland had failed to comply with its positive obligations to safeguard the applicant's right to effective respect for her private life under Article 8. Exploring this controversial judgment, the author assesses the claim that Tysiac marks a 'radical shift' on the part of the Court in creating a 'right to abortion'. The author argues that while Tysiac makes an important addition to abortion jurisprudence, the notion it founds such a 'right' greatly overstates the legal significance of this case.
A lesbian couple has won a landmark case against a Californian clinic, where doctors allegedly cited their religious beliefs as grounds to refuse the couple IVF (in vitro fertilisation) treatment. Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside, and her spouse, Joanne Clark, sued doctors Douglas Fenton and Christine Brody, at North Coast Women's Medical Group in Vista for discrimination in 2001. The doctors treated Ms Benitez with fertility drugs and provided her guidance about self-insemination but allegedly told her they would not inseminate her, due to their religious objections. The couple was, however, referred to another clinic by the North Coast doctors, which they were told would have no moral objections. Ms Benitez underwent treatment and the couple have since had three children. The discrimination case was finally settled after eight years for undisclosed sum of money.
The NHS Constitution was published on 21 January 2009. It was one of a number of recommendations in Lord Darzi’s report ‘High Quality Care for All’ which was published on the 60th anniversary of the NHS and set out a ten-year plan to provide the highest quality of care and service for patients in England. The NHS belongs to us all. The NHS Constitution brings together in one place for the first time in the history of the NHS, what staff, patients and public can expect from the NHS. As well as capturing the purpose, principles and values of the NHS, the Constitution brings together a number of rights, pledges and responsibilities for staff and patients alike. These rights and responsibilities are the result of extensive discussions and consultations with staff, patients and public and it reflects what matters to them.
The Handbook to the NHS Constitution is here to give NHS staff and patients all the information you need about the NHS Constitution in one place. It acts as a guide to: - patients’ rights and pledges - responsibilities of patients and the public and staff - staff rights and NHS pledges to its staff At the back of this Handbook is an appendix, which outlines the legal source for both the patient and staff rights in the NHS Constitution.
Debbie Purdy, who wants her husband to accompany her to Switzerland for an assisted suicide without fear of prosecution, took her case to the United Kingdom’s highest court, the House of Lords, for a final appeal this week. Ms Purdy, who has progressive multiple sclerosis, scored an important victory on the first day of the two day hearing, when the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, conceded that article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to respect for private life, applies to cases like hers.
Predictive testing for Huntington’s disease was introduced in the late 1980s. It was offered reluctantly, however, because of the lack of treatment available for identified gene carriers and the potential for genetic discrimination—that is, the unfair and inappropriate treatment of a person or group on the basis of genetic information. In the linked cross sectional survey (doi:10.1136/bmj.b2175), Bombard and colleagues assess the nature and prevalence of genetic discrimination in a cohort of asymptomatic genetically tested and untested people at risk for Huntington’s disease.
Typically anorexia nervosa is diagnosed as a condition of teenage girls where the rates of mortality and morbidity are very high and recovery rates very low. This chapter discusses the condition as experienced in Australia by older women who have either lived with anorexia during adolescence and as young women or who have been diagnosed later in life. The discussion traverses issues of consent to treatment or its refusal, capacity to provide consent, and the application of human right protections arising from various human rights instruments.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 was granted Royal Assent in the UK on 18 November 2008. This article will look at two specific areas addressed in the new Act and ask what the human rights issues were under the old law and whether the changes adequately address these issues. By looking at case law under the European Convention on Human Rights, the article will attempt to evaluate whether either the old law or the new law can be considered compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This report provides concrete evidence of continuing obstacles to access to remedy for victims of business-related human rights abuses, based on five well-documented cases. It also sets out seven areas for practical reform, arguing that the UN negotiations for a binding treaty on business and human rights offers a clear opportunity to improve the situation for victims going forward.
Dive into the world of The Probe, where investigative journalism meets in-depth news analysis. Explore exclusive stories, uncover hidden truths, and gain unparalleled insights into issues of public interest.
M. Nyanchama, und S. Osborn. Proceedings of the IFIP WG11.3 Working Conference on Database Security VII, Seite 37--56. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, The Netherlands, North-Holland Publishing Co., (1994)
A. Mehta, R. Bhagat, H. Chheda, und S. Sanghani. International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication, 3 (2):
866--868(Februar 2015)