Re_GLIHD

Re_GLIHD

Restricting abortion services to state-approved medical doctors does not violate constitutional rights to life, health, bodily integrity, equality, non-discrimination, or privacy. The restriction is justified by medical safety and does not constitute discrimination or infringement of privacy. The challenged...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RLR V.2-2022
Parties
Applicant: Great Lakes Initiative for Human Rights and Development (GLIHD); Applicant Representative: Mulisa Tom; Applicant Advocate: Twizeyimana Théophile; Applicant Advocate: Umulisa Vestine; Respondent: Republic of Rwanda; Amicus Curiae: Health Development Initiative (HDI)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
24 December 2021
Case Number
S/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2021/SC
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge / Final Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Abortion, Right to Health, Right to Life, Non Discrimination, Privacy, Bodily Integrity
Source Language
rw
Constitutional Law Health Law Human Rights Law Abortion Right to Health Right to Life Non Discrimination Privacy +1 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 5 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Great Lakes Initiative for Human Rights and Development (GLIHD)

Applicant

Mulisa Tom

Applicant Representative

Twizeyimana Théophile

Applicant Advocate

Umulisa Vestine

Applicant Advocate

Republic of Rwanda

Respondent

Health Development Initiative (HDI)

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Articles 125(2) and 126(3) of Law No 68/2018 violate constitutional rights to life, health, bodily integrity, equality, non-discrimination, and privacy by restricting abortion services to state-approved medical doctors only

Ratio Decidendi

Restricting abortion services to state-approved medical doctors does not violate constitutional rights to life, health, bodily integrity, equality, non-discrimination, or privacy. The restriction is justified by medical safety and does not constitute discrimination or infringement of privacy. The challenged provisions are consistent with the Constitution and international obligations.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim by GLIHD is dismissed as unfounded.
  • Articles 125(2) and 126(3) of Law No 68/2018 are not inconsistent with the Constitution of Rwanda.