Publications by Type: Case

2016
Africa: Legal Grounds: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in African Courts. University of Toronto Faculty of Law [Internet]. 2016. Publisher's VersionAbstract

http://www.law.utoronto.ca/programs-centres/programs/irshl-reproductive-and-sexual-health-law/irshl-legal-grounds-updates

These publications include summaries and analyses of cases pertaining to reproductive and sexual rights, including gender-based violence, HIV discrimination, property and family law, abortion, and claims of fetal interests. They examine how African national courts interpret and apply regional and international human rights laws. 

2013
Case of Mudric v. The Republic of Moldova. European Court of Human Rights [Internet]. 2013. Publisher's VersionAbstract

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-122375#{"itemid":["001-122375"]}

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 74839/10) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Moldovan national, Ms Lidia Mudric (“the applicant”), on 21 December 2010.

2.  The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms D. Străisteanu, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.

3.  The applicant alleged, in particular, that the authorities had not discharged their positive obligations under Articles 3, 14 and 17 of the Convention to protect her from domestic violence and to punish her aggressor.

4.  On 18 March 2011 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).

5.  Third-party comments were received from the Equal Rights Trust, a non-governmental organisation based in London, the United Kingdom, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2 of the Rules of Court). The Government replied to those comments (Rule 44 § 5).