Re GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT (GLIHD)

Re GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT (GLIHD)

The Supreme Court held that restricting abortion services to state-approved medical doctors at hospitals does not violate the Constitution or international law. The restriction is justified by the need to ensure safe procedures and protect the health and life of women and girls. The law does not create...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RLR V.2-2022
Parties
Applicant: Great Lakes Initiative for Human Rights and Development (GLIHD); Respondent: Republic of Rwanda; Amicus Curiae: Health Development Initiative (HDI)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
24 October 2021
Case Number
RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2021/SC
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Abortion, Right to Health, Right to Life, Equality Before the Law, Non Discrimination, Privacy, Bodily Integrity
Constitutional Law Health Law Human Rights Law Abortion Right to Health Right to Life Equality Before the Law Non Discrimination +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Great Lakes Initiative for Human Rights and Development (GLIHD)

Applicant

Republic of Rwanda

Respondent

Health Development Initiative (HDI)

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Articles 125(2) and 126(3) of Law No. 68/2018 violate the right to life and right to health under the Constitution and international law.
  2. 2 Whether restricting abortion services to state-approved medical doctors violates the right to bodily integrity and freedom from inhuman treatment.
  3. 3 Whether the law creates discrimination or inequality before the law, particularly on the basis of gender or economic status.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that restricting abortion services to state-approved medical doctors at hospitals does not violate the Constitution or international law. The restriction is justified by the need to ensure safe procedures and protect the health and life of women and girls. The law does not create unconstitutional discrimination or inequality, as the requirements are based on objective medical considerations and apply equally. Privacy and confidentiality are protected by existing laws. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • The petition by GLIHD is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Articles 125(2) and 126(3) of Law No. 68/2018 are not unconstitutional.