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 human rights obligations. The limitation is justified by the need to ensure patient safety and quality of care. There is no unlawful discrimination or violation...

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 December 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, Reproductive Rights
Source Language
rw
Constitutional Law Health Law Human Rights Law Abortion Right to Health Right to Life Equality Before the Law Non Discrimination +3 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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 mental integrity.
  3. 3 Whether the law violates the right to equality before the law and non-discrimination, particularly for women and girls.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that restricting abortion services to state-approved medical doctors at hospitals does not violate the Constitution or international human rights obligations. The limitation is justified by the need to ensure patient safety and quality of care. There is no unlawful discrimination or violation of equality, as the law applies equally and is based on objective medical criteria. The right to privacy is not infringed, as confidentiality is protected by law. 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.