Category: Council of Europe

  • Council of Europe in a divided position on human rights

    The permanent representatives in the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Wednesday decided to move ahead on a review process collecting another opinion of a controversial draft text for a new additional protocol regulating the use of coercion in psychiatry. The permanent representatives prior to this had been notified of UN and civil society concern that this draft text violates international human rights law.

    The work on this possible new additional protocol has a long history, starting back in 2011. It has received strong and persistent criticism since before the first drafts were formulated.

    The drafted possible new legal instrument of the Council of Europe is stated to have an intend of protecting victims subjected to coercive measures in psychiatry which are known to be degrading and potentially amount to torture. The approach is through regulating the use of and preventing as much as possible such harmful practices. The critics which include the United Nations Human Rights mechanism, the Council of Europe’s own Commissioner on Human Rights, the Council’s own Parliamentary Assembly and numerous other experts, groups and bodies point out that allowing such practices under regulation is in opposition to the requirements of modern human rights, that simply ban them.

    In June 2022 the permanent representatives, sitting in the Council of Europe’s decision-making body, the Committee of Ministers, in consequence of the persistent high level criticism of this work decided it needed further information and suspended the work on the draft protocol. They requested information on the use of voluntary measures to be able to finalize their stand on the drafted text on coercion in psychiatry. These deliverables were recently provided to the permanent representatives by its subordinary body, the Steering Committee for Human Rights in the fields of Biomedicine and Health (CDBIO).

    Following this very important partners and authorities issued concerns on the seeming continuation of the process of the draft additional protocol. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee) reissued a statement to the Council of Europe, with further clarifications, on its concern of this Council of Europe draft additional protocol. The UN CRPD Committee reiterated the need for moving towards the end of the use of any form of coercion in the provision of mental health policies and services for persons with disabilities. And that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), ratified by everyone of the 47 member States of the Council of Europe, outlaws forced and involuntary institutionalization and any form of deprivation of liberty based on impairment, including in situations of persons with disabilities experiencing individual crisis.

    The Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers decided to not issue the UN CRPD Committee’s statement to the permanent representatives “since it was already publicly available.” The Secretariat informed the European Times that this was explained to the sender with a suggestion “to circulate it themselves.” The Secretariat however did inform the delegations of the permanent representatives about it during an information meeting prior to the Wednesday meeting. The preparatory meeting took place 23 January and was attended only by a smaller number of members of the Committee of Ministers.

    At its Wednesday meeting the Committee then decided to transmit to the Parliamentary Assembly the draft Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (ETS No. 164) concerning the protection of the human rights and dignity of persons with regard to involuntary placement and involuntary treatment within mental healthcare services and its draft Explanatory Report and invited the Parliamentary Assembly to give an opinion on the draft Additional Protocol as soon as possible.

    Whether the fact that the permanent representatives, as announced in their June 2022 decision, with which they suspended the work to collect further data for a proper review, now resumed the work on the additional protocol after having received the requested information will in fact listen to the UN and the broad representation of civil society and its own Parliamentary Assembly and Human Rights Commissioner is to be seen.

    The Parliamentary Assembly is now to review this extensive work and will most likely discuss it during the Spring session in April.

  • UN and Civil Society Warn the Council of Europe


    Both the United Nations and a coalition of Civil Society organizations and human rights bodies have issued Open letters to the Council of Europe prior to the Committee of Ministers meeting on the 5th of February. The Committee of Ministers at the meeting will be resuming work on a controversial draft text on regulations of use of coercion in psychiatry. This follows that the Committee had received the data it had asked for in June 2022 for it to be able to consider the matter appropriately and the possible need for these regulations in a broader perspective.

    The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities with its Open letter restated a concern that the Council of Europe with the continued work on the draft additional protocol to the Biomedical Convention is not moving towards the end of the use of any form of coercion in the provision of mental health policies and services for persons with disabilities. The UN Committee strongly recommends the Council to withdraw the draft Additional Protocol.

    At the same time a coalition of civil society organisations and human rights bodies submitted an open letter to the Council of Europe reiterating a profound concerns and request to withdraw the draft Additional Protocol to the Biomedical Convention. The organisations representing the concern in society at large urge the Council of Europe to focus on promoting voluntary, rights-based mental healthcare and to abandon the draft additional protocol. They request that the Council of Europe is aligning its regulative work on mental health practices with modern human rights standards.

    The International Human Rights standards in mental health

    The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee) in clear words noted that all Member States of the Council of Europe, which are as well States parties to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, are bound by the UN Convention. It is an international legally binding treaty, ratified by 192 States, and it as the Committee noted “outlaws forced and involuntary institutionalization and any form of deprivation of liberty based on impairment, including in situation of persons with disabilities experiencing individual crisis.”

    The UN Committee further stated that the Convention, likewise, “outlaws the use of coercion in the provision of mental health services, which should be available in the community and not in institutionalized settings and shall be provided upon the free and informed consent of persons with disabilities themselves and not through third parties.”

    The protection of persons with disabilities and their rights, the UN Committee pointed out, “shall never be achieved through involuntary or forced institutionalization and any other form of deprivation of liberty based on impairment or using coercion in mental health, but by embracing and implementing their right to live independently and being included in the community, access to community-based support services, including mental health services, and the restoration of their legal capacity.”

    The UN Committee stressed that “Respect for autonomy rights is central to the contemporary approach taken by the CRPD. This requires respect for one’s own choices shaped by individual will and preferences, and the promotion of personal autonomy through supported decision-making. It requires new models of mental health policy and practice that embrace non-coercion, personal choice, community living and peer engagement.”

    In extension of this the civil society organisations stressed that forced treatment and forced placement of persons on the basis of their disabilities, including persons with psychosocial disabilities and persons with mental health problems, even if regulated by law, breach the rights of non-discrimination, legal capacity, liberty and security, physical and mental integrity, and health enshrined in the UN CRPD.

    Several other bodies and mandate holders of the United Nations hold a similar position against involuntary treatment and placement, even when States try to justify these practices on the basis of a “medical necessity” or for the alleged security of the person or others. Instead, they have stressed that coercive practices amount to torture, calling for a paradigm shift to rights-based approaches through the involvement of persons with psychosocial disabilities and mental health issues, and through respect for their will and preferences.

    Opposition from civil society and users of mental health services

    The Civil society organisations in their Open letter noted that users of mental health services and survivors of psychiatry have strongly opposed the draft additional protocol since 2014.

    “While we understand the goals of the draft Additional Protocol, the draft Recommendation on respecting autonomy in mental healthcare achieves these objectives more effectively while avoiding unnecessary harm. The Additional Protocol risks entrenching coercion and institutionalization, worsening human rights abuses for people with psychosocial disabilities, and creating legal conflicts between Council of Europe obligations and the CRPD,” the coalition stated.

    A growing consensus against coercion within the provider community

    An increasing number of medical and scientific professionals are questioning coercive measures in mental healthcare, with some deeming them incompatible with human rights-based care, the civil society coalition noted. They highlight a lack of evidence supporting the generalisability or sustainability of such practices, while pointing to clear harm to physical and mental health, poorer outcomes, and significantly reduced life expectancy for those subjected to them. Researchers are also challenging the validity of justifications like dangerousness and proportionality, noting these assumptions are often unjustified and biased by factors such as race, gender, and disability.

    Human rights-based solutions are feasible and effective

    Since the suspension of work on the draft Additional Protocol in 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO) has launched the QualityRights initiative. The programme, based on the CRPD, has helped hospitals, regions, and countries evaluate their mental health systems and implement trainings for providers to address stigma and the use of coercion, as well as structural changes that improve service user satisfaction and treatment adherence by decreasing the use of coercion.

    The Civil Society coalition pointed out that programmes early successes across diverse countries demonstrate the feasibility and positive impacts, for persons and for health systems, of eliminating coercion in mental healthcare.

    The Civil Society coalition concluded that “Collectively, these references speak to the need for more investment and research as well as the feasibility and success of alternative practices in diverse settings and with diverse populations.”

  • 75 Years On: The Pioneering Steps Towards the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

    In the aftermath of the Second World War, Europe was a continent in search of peace, stability, and unity. Against a backdrop of devastation and division, visionary leaders recognized the urgent need for a forum to foster dialogue and cooperation across national boundaries. This year marks the 75th anniversary of a significant moment in this pursuit: the first meeting of the body that would eventually evolve into the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE).

    Historical Context of the Parliamentary Assembly

    The seeds of what would become the Council of Europe were planted amidst the ideological and physical ruins of a war-torn continent. The horrors of war underscored the necessity of a collective effort to ensure lasting peace and to safeguard human rights. Winston Churchill, in his famous 1946 Zurich speech, called for a “United States of Europe,” echoing a widespread sentiment for greater collaboration (Churchill, 1946: University of Zurich).

    In this milieu, the Treaty of London was signed on May 5, 1949, establishing the Council of Europe, the first European organization created to promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law (Council of Europe, 2023). Just a few months later, in August 10th 1949, the forerunner of today’s Parliamentary Assembly convened for its inaugural session in Strasbourg.

    The Inaugural Meeting

    The meeting in August 1949, then known as the Consultative Assembly, was a seminal event. It brought together 87 parliamentarians from the Council’s ten founding member states: Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Tasked with providing political guidance and a forum for debate, this gathering marked a novel experiment in supranational democracy (Heffernan, 2002).

    The symbolism of Strasbourg, chosen for its geographical and historical position straddling Europe’s cultural and national divides, was not lost on those present. The members embarked on an ambitious agenda: to bridge the divisions of Europe and to lay the groundwork for cooperation and unity.

    Foremost on the assembly’s agenda was the need to construct a common framework for human rights. This initial meeting contributed to the groundwork for the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, a landmark treaty that sought to enshrine and protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals—a cornerstone still active and vital today (Harris, O’Boyle, & Warbrick, 2009).

    Evolution of the Assembly

    Over the years, the Assembly has evolved from a consultative body into a more proactive force within the Council of Europe. Today, with 46 member states, PACE functions as a unique platform for dialogue across the spectrum of European politics. It elects key figures such as the Secretary General and the judges of the European Court of Human Rights, serves as a guardian of democratic standards, and tackles pressing issues facing the continent, from migration to digital privacy (Costa, 2013).

    The Assembly’s work today reflects the changing political landscape of Europe. It has been at the forefront of efforts to address contemporary challenges, such as the rise of populism, the rights of refugees, and the erosion of democratic principles in certain states. These efforts reaffirm the Assembly’s continuing relevance and commitment to a united and democratic Europe.

    A Robust Arena of Dialogue

    As we mark the 75th anniversary of the first gathering that would become the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, it is fitting to reflect on the progress and promise of this vital institution. What began as a modest consultation of European parliamentarians has matured into a robust arena for dialogue, advocacy, and action. Its enduring legacy is a testament to the power of cooperation and a beacon for the ongoing pursuit of peace, democracy, and human rights across Europe.

    References

    • Churchill, W. (1946). “United States of Europe”. Speech delivered at the University of Zurich. Available at: Churchill Society
    • Council of Europe. (2023). “History”. Available at: Council of Europe
    • Heffernan, M. (2002). “The European Experiment: Historical Reflections on 50 Years of European Integration”. Available at Wiley Online Library
    • Harris, D. J., O’Boyle, M., Bates, E. P., & Warbrick, C. (2009). “Law of the European Convention on Human Rights”. Oxford University Press. Available at: Oxford Academic
    • Costa, J.-P. (2013). “The Role of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe”. In European Journal of International Law. Available at: EJIL

  • Access to official documents held by public authorities: Council of Europe evaluates compliance with the Tromsø Convention in 11 states

    Strasbourg, 16.07.2024 – The Council of Europe’s Access Info Group (AIG), an independent group of experts created to monitor the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents by its parties, published today its first baseline evaluation reports on 11 states: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania, Montenegro, Norway, the Republic of Moldova, Sweden and Ukraine.

    The reports contain comprehensive analyses of the laws on freedom of information in these states and their compliance with the Tromsø Convention. In light of its findings, the AIG makes specific recommendations to each country on issues such as the exclusion of documents containing personal data or other content from the application of these laws, and limitations to the right to access official documents.

    Other recommendations concern excessive length of review proceedings in case of access denials and shortcomings in procedures for deciding on access requests, for example, excessive discretion provided to public authorities not to release the requested information or failure to provide assistance to applicants.

    The convention, in force since 1 December 2020, is the first-ever binding international legal instrument to recognise everyone’s right to access official documents held by public authorities upon request.

    It lays down minimum obligations for its parties to guarantee the right to access official documents, balancing the protection of the public interest in transparency with the protection of other legitimate interests, such as national security, defence and international relations.

    The treaty also establishes obligations on the procedures for handling requests for information and the review of denial decisions by an independent body or a court in case of request denials.

    Reports:

    Bosnia and HerzegovinaIcelandRepublic of Moldova
    EstoniaLithuaniaSweden
    FinlandMontenegroUkraine
    HungaryNorway

    * * *

    The Access Info Group (AIG) is a body established by the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents (also known as the Tromsø Convention) to evaluate the treaty’s implementation by the parties in law and practice and to make recommendations to fully comply with its provisions. It is composed of ten independent experts in the field of access to official documents. A second monitoring body, the Consultation of the Parties, complements its work. So far, 15 states have ratified the treaty and another six countries have signed it with a view to its ratification.