<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EstiloCorreo18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor=white lang=ES-CO link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>FYI<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#404040'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#404040'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#E36C0A'>Paola Soler Amaya<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#E36C0A'>Asistente de Coordinación Regional REPEM<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#E36C0A'>Telefax:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#E36C0A'> (571) 4801620<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#E36C0A'>Bogotá-Colombia<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=ES style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>De:</span></b><span
lang=ES style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
WUNRN_ListServe@LISTS.WUNRN.COM [mailto:WUNRN_ListServe@LISTS.WUNRN.COM] <b>En
nombre de </b>WUNRN ListServe<br>
<b>Enviado el:</b> miércoles, 21 de abril de 2010 08:32 a.m.<br>
<b>Para:</b> WUNRN_ListServe@LISTS.WUNRN.COM<br>
<b>Asunto:</b> Argentina - Supreme Court Decriminalises Abortion in Case of
Rape<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>WUNRN</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><a
href="http://www.wunrn.com">http://www.wunrn.com</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Via
University of Toronto, Canada</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Reproductive
Health & Law</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>From
Paola Bergallo - Argentina:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><a
href="mailto:pbergallo@udesa.edu.ar">pbergallo@udesa.edu.ar</a> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><strong>ARGENTINA - TWO JUDICIAL DECISIONS REGARDING</strong><b><br>
<strong>ABORTION IN THE CASE OF RAPE</strong></b><br>
<br>
Summarized by Paola Bergallo and Agustina Ramón Michel<br>
Argentina - Universidad de San Andrés and Centro de Estudios de Estado y
Sociedad (CEDES)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><strong>The Supreme Court of Chubut argued that </strong><b><br>
<strong>Section 86.2 of the NCC decriminalises abortion </strong><br>
<strong>in case of rape of any woman.</strong></b><br>
<br>
In March 2010, the Supreme Court of Chubut <br>
and a panel of the Court of Appeals of the same <br>
province decided two cases regarding abortion in <br>
case of rape. In their decisions in the cases of <br>
A.G. and of M., the courts found that Section <br>
86.2 of the National Criminal Code (NCC) <br>
establishes that abortion is never punishable in <br>
case of rape. The decisions are of particular <br>
importance because they accept the reading of <br>
Section 86.2 of the NCC establishing that the <br>
decriminalization of abortion in case of rape <br>
extends to all raped victims and not exclusively <br>
to mentally retarded women. The two new <br>
precedents overturn the prevalent restrictive <br>
understanding of Section 86.2 of the NCC accepted <br>
by the courts and the health system in several <br>
prior cases where non-mentally-retarded rape <br>
victims had been denied their requests for abortions.<br>
<br>
The A.G. case:<br>
<br>
In December 2009, AG, a 15-year-old girl <br>
accompanied by her mother, reported to the local <br>
police that her mother's partner had raped her. A <br>
few weeks later, AG learned she was pregnant. <br>
Since then, and for more than two months, AG and <br>
her mother faced several obstacles to obtain an <br>
abortion that was finally performed ten days ago <br>
after the Supreme Court of Chubut authorized it.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
In late December 2009, immediately after <br>
realizing about the pregnancy, AG and her mother <br>
requested a legal abortion before the Chubutean <br>
public health system. At the same time, AG's <br>
mother filed a judicial request to preserve the <br>
evidence of the rape upon performance of the <br>
abortion. The criminal judge that first received <br>
the request considered that his court did not <br>
have jurisdiction over the petition. A month <br>
later, a judge in charge of a family court of <br>
first instance intervened. After submitting AG to <br>
various studies and interviews the new judge <br>
denied the authorization for the abortion. Her <br>
decision was taken in spite of several <br>
psychological reports that had declared that AG's <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>health was at a severe risk.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
A week after the first court decision, a <br>
panel of the Court of Appeals confirmed the <br>
denial of the authorization. Finally, on March <br>
8th, the Supreme Court of the Province reversed <br>
its predecessors and issued an unprecedented <br>
decision authorizing the abortion in compliance with<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Section 86.2 of the NCC.<br>
<br>
The decision:<br>
<br>
The judgments by the first two courts <br>
rejected the authorization of the abortion on the <br>
grounds that (i) abortion in case of rape was not <br>
permitted when the rape victim was not mentally <br>
retarded, (ii) it could cause more damage for the <br>
health of the girl than the risk offered by the <br>
continuation of pregnancy, and (iii) that the <br>
right to life of the fetus prevailed over the right <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>of the teenager.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
Unlike its predecessors, in its decision in <br>
AG the <strong>Supreme Court of Chubut argued that </strong><b><br>
<strong>Section 86.2 of the NCC decriminalises abortion </strong><br>
<strong>in case of rape of any woman.</strong></b> As a result, the <br>
decision confirmed that the only interpretation <br>
of Section 86.2 compatible with the Constitution <br>
and human rights treaties subscribed by Argentina <br>
is that Section 86.2 abortions should proceed <br>
whenever a rape victim requests them. This should <br>
be the case independently from whether the raped <br>
victim is or is not mentally retarded.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
The three judges of the Chubutean Supreme <br>
Court grounded their separate votes on several <br>
sources of law. References were made to the <br>
provisions of the Constitution and international <br>
human right treaties. From a constitutional <br>
standpoint, the Court emphasized the <br>
constitutional protection of the rights to <br>
physical, mental and personal dignity and, <br>
autonomy of AG. The judges also considered that <br>
the permissions to terminate the pregnancy <br>
established in the NCC are the result of the <br>
recognition of the prevalence of the right to <br>
health and the right to dignity of the woman vis <br>
a vis the interest in the protection of fetal <br>
life reflected by the criminalization of abortion.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
In addition, the Court abundantly quoted <br>
international human rights sources. The judges <br>
referred to CEDAW and the CRC. In particular, the <br>
Court clarified the discussion regarding Section <br>
4.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights <br>
and it followed the position of the <br>
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights' <br>
opinion in case 2141 (Baby Boy). Moreover, the <br>
Court draw attention to a series of <br>
recommendations issued by human rights treaty <br>
monitoring bodies, such as the CEDAW, General <br>
Recommendation 19, the Recommendations made to <br>
Argentina by the Human Rights Committee <br>
(CCPR/CO/70/ARG) on the relationship between <br>
restrictive abortion laws, clandestine abortions <br>
and threats to women's lives; and the Report of <br>
the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> (E/CN.4/1999/64/ADD.4).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
The Court warned that Section 86 abortions <br>
did not require judicial authorizations and that <br>
judicial intervention generated the risk of <br>
incurring in international responsibility due to <br>
the country's lack of compliance of its human <br>
rights commitments. After emphasizing the <br>
multiple victimization suffered by AG, the Court <br>
found that denying the request for an abortion to <br>
a rape victim would entail the imposition of a <br>
heroic conduct incompatible with Argentine law.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
Finally, the Court ordered that the <br>
abortion be performed and suggested that in order <br>
to avoid future uncertainties the province of <br>
Chubut should regulate and guarantee access to <br>
non-punishable abortions through the approval of <br>
a local protocol or adherence to the National Protocol<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>approved in 2007.<br>
<br>
New key voices heard in the case:<br>
<br>
The decision in the case of AG stands as an <br>
important precedent because it clarified the <br>
conditions for accessing Section 86 legal <br>
abortions. Yet the case is also valuable because <br>
multiple voices helped to articulate the defence <br>
of AG throughout its development. With the <br>
exception of women's organizations organized <br>
under the national campaign for the legalization <br>
of abortion (Campaña por el Derecho al Aborto <br>
Legal, Gratuito y Seguro), such voices had been <br>
absent from prior discussions of Section 86 abortions.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
Unlike in earlier judicial confrontations, <br>
this time the National Reproductive Health <br>
Program, the National Anti-Discrimination Agency <br>
and the Human Rights Secretary made the Court <br>
hear their opinions supporting AG's claim through <br>
three amicii briefs. Briefs and statements were <br>
also filed with the Court or distributed widely <br>
by (a) prestigious feminist organizations such as <br>
CLADEM and Catholics for a Free Choice, (b) <br>
national human rights organizations such as <br>
Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (a sort of <br>
Argentine ACLU) and Centro de Estudios Legales y <br>
Sociales (CELS), and (c) international human <br>
rights players such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>International. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
Moreover, Justice Carmen Argibay from the <br>
federal Supreme Court and prestigious federal <br>
judges, as well as Mr. Das Neves, governor of the <br>
Province of Chubut, publicly supported the decision.<br>
<br>
The M. case:<br>
<br>
While the AG case was being litigated, <br>
another case with similar facts reached the <br>
Chubutean health system. The 15-year-old M. was <br>
another pregnant rape victim. In March 12th, four <br>
days after the Supreme Court of Chubut had <br>
approved the abortion for AG, a judge of first <br>
instance denied the request filed by M and her <br>
mother. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Yet, a week later, the Court of Appeals <br>
that a month before had not authorized the <br>
abortion demanded by AG changed its precedent and <br>
following the Supreme Court decision in AG case <br>
authorized the abortion. On March 20th, M. <br>
finally obtained the abortion she had also awaited for <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>almost three months.<br>
* * *<br>
The AG and M stories are sad tales about <br>
the suffering of two adolescents and their <br>
mothers who underwent a tortuous judicial <br>
procedure to access a legal abortion. The two <br>
older men who raped them were the first to <br>
infringe their rights. The health and the <br>
judicial systems helped to reinforce their <br>
victimization denying and delaying the provision <br>
of the abortions they should have received the <br>
moment they first requested them. Yet the court <br>
precedents their cases generated give us reasons <br>
for a moderate celebration because the suffering <br>
of AG and M may pave the way for the changes that <br>
would lead to avoid future denials of Section 86 legal<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>abortions.<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>More information on the cases can be found <br>
in Spanish at: <a href="http://www.despenalizacion.org.ar">www.despenalizacion.org.ar</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
================================================================<br>
To contact the list administrator, or to leave the list, send an email to:
wunrn_listserve-request@lists.wunrn.com. Thank you. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>