Coerced Sterilisation of Romani Women
I wanted to have lots of children, I’m
young, I’m 23. When I was 19 they sterilised
me without my knowing it. (Ms Helena F.)
young, I’m 23. When I was 19 they sterilised
me without my knowing it. (Ms Helena F.)
SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND DISCRIMINATION OF ROMANI WOMEN
Roma are the most marginalised ethnic group in Europe. They are affected by widespread
poverty, segregation in the areas of housing and education, lower school attainment levels,
high unemployment rates and limited access to health care as compared to the majority
population, often the result of discrimination. Due to the multiple discrimination they face
because of their gender and their ethnicity, the situation of Romani women is even worse
than that of Romani men. Romani women are often not given adequate information by
health care workers about their medical conditions. They are often excluded from the
decision-making process concerning their treatment. As regards their reproductive rights,
Romani women in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary have been sterilised without
their informed choice.
Roma are the most marginalised ethnic group in Europe. They are affected by widespread
poverty, segregation in the areas of housing and education, lower school attainment levels,
high unemployment rates and limited access to health care as compared to the majority
population, often the result of discrimination. Due to the multiple discrimination they face
because of their gender and their ethnicity, the situation of Romani women is even worse
than that of Romani men. Romani women are often not given adequate information by
health care workers about their medical conditions. They are often excluded from the
decision-making process concerning their treatment. As regards their reproductive rights,
Romani women in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary have been sterilised without
their informed choice.
COERCIVE STERILISATION AS A VIOLATION OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS
Reproductive rights are incorporated in basic international human rights principles,
such as the right to life; the right to health; the right to bodily integrity; the right not
to be subjected to torture; the right to liberty and security of the person; the right to
private and family life; the right to decide freely on the number and spacing of children;
the right to freedom of expression; the right to receive and impart information; the
right to marry and found a family; the right to be free from discrimination; and the
right to education, all of which are guaranteed by the Convention Against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; the International Covenant
of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The infringement of reproductive
rights is a grave violation of fundamental human rights.
Reproductive rights are incorporated in basic international human rights principles,
such as the right to life; the right to health; the right to bodily integrity; the right not
to be subjected to torture; the right to liberty and security of the person; the right to
private and family life; the right to decide freely on the number and spacing of children;
the right to freedom of expression; the right to receive and impart information; the
right to marry and found a family; the right to be free from discrimination; and the
right to education, all of which are guaranteed by the Convention Against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; the International Covenant
of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The infringement of reproductive
rights is a grave violation of fundamental human rights.
CZECH REPUBLIC
In 1983 I visited a counselling centre for expectant mothers while I was pregnant. They
suggested to me there that I should go for sterilisation. My social worker was also trying
to convince me to be sterilised. She claimed that if I didn’t undergo the sterilisation
they would take away the child I was about to have. They also threatened that if I
didn’t undergo sterilisation I would have to pay for all of my medical treatment for
the pregnancy. Since I didn’t agree, they called my mother to come to the counselling
centre and explained to her that I should undergo sterilisation. At the time I was 22
years old, I had reached majority, but for them the consent of my mother was enough. I
myself never signed anything. (Věra M.)
From the 1970s until 1990, the Czechoslovak government sterilised Romani women
programmatically, as part of policies aimed at reducing the “high, unhealthy” birth
rate of Romani women. This policy was decried by the Czechoslovak dissident initiative
Charter 77, and documented extensively in the late 1980s. Criminal complaints filed on
behalf of victims were dismissed by Czech and Slovak prosecutors in 1992 and in 1993.
In 1983 I visited a counselling centre for expectant mothers while I was pregnant. They
suggested to me there that I should go for sterilisation. My social worker was also trying
to convince me to be sterilised. She claimed that if I didn’t undergo the sterilisation
they would take away the child I was about to have. They also threatened that if I
didn’t undergo sterilisation I would have to pay for all of my medical treatment for
the pregnancy. Since I didn’t agree, they called my mother to come to the counselling
centre and explained to her that I should undergo sterilisation. At the time I was 22
years old, I had reached majority, but for them the consent of my mother was enough. I
myself never signed anything. (Věra M.)
From the 1970s until 1990, the Czechoslovak government sterilised Romani women
programmatically, as part of policies aimed at reducing the “high, unhealthy” birth
rate of Romani women. This policy was decried by the Czechoslovak dissident initiative
Charter 77, and documented extensively in the late 1980s. Criminal complaints filed on
behalf of victims were dismissed by Czech and Slovak prosecutors in 1992 and in 1993.
During 2003 and 2004, the ERRC and partner organisations in the Czech Republic
conducted field missions which concluded that Romani women had been subjected to
coercive sterilisation even after 1990. The cases documented include: Ø Cases in which consent was not provided at all prior to sterilisation; Ø Cases in which “consent” to sterilisation was secured during advanced stages of labour, including shortly before delivery; Ø Cases in which consent was provided absent explanations of the risks, consequences, and possible side effects of sterilisation, and absent adequate information on alternative methods of contraception; Ø Cases in which officials put pressure on Romani women to undergo sterilisation either through the use of financial incentives or threats to withhold social benefits (before 1990); and Ø Cases in which explicit racial motive played a role during doctor-patient consultations.
conducted field missions which concluded that Romani women had been subjected to
coercive sterilisation even after 1990. The cases documented include: Ø Cases in which consent was not provided at all prior to sterilisation; Ø Cases in which “consent” to sterilisation was secured during advanced stages of labour, including shortly before delivery; Ø Cases in which consent was provided absent explanations of the risks, consequences, and possible side effects of sterilisation, and absent adequate information on alternative methods of contraception; Ø Cases in which officials put pressure on Romani women to undergo sterilisation either through the use of financial incentives or threats to withhold social benefits (before 1990); and Ø Cases in which explicit racial motive played a role during doctor-patient consultations.
Complaints to the Ombudsman
In the Czech Republic, the Ombudsman investigated complaints of sterilisations
performed on women without their informed choice (87 women submitted complaints)
and issued his Final Statement on the matter in December 2005, recommending
the government apologise and establish a compensation programme for those coercively sterilised as part of the state’s official promotion of sterilisation, which ended in the early 1990s. The Ombudsman recommended that victims sterilised more recently turn to the courts. He also sent all of the allegations to the criminal justice authorities. (See: http://www.ochrance.cz/dokumenty/document.php?back=/cinnost/index.php&doc=400).
Shadow reporting to UN human rights bodies During 2006 and 2007, the Ombudsman’s Final Statement was submitted to various UN human rights treaty oversight bodies as part of the shadow reporting process during the regular review of the Czech Republic’s human rights performance.
The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Human Rights Committee all urged the Czech government to immediately implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations. As of mid-2008, the government has failed to act.
Something was always missing at home after that. I even had to explain to the children
why they would not have another sibling. I was constantly reminded of that unpleasant
moment after I gave birth and learned I had been sterilised, which was very painful for me.
I felt this psychological discomfort for a very long time, I feel it even today. […] My husband
and I very much wanted a little girl, we wanted one very much even though we are glad we
have two healthy sons. (Ms Elena G.)
why they would not have another sibling. I was constantly reminded of that unpleasant
moment after I gave birth and learned I had been sterilised, which was very painful for me.
I felt this psychological discomfort for a very long time, I feel it even today. […] My husband
and I very much wanted a little girl, we wanted one very much even though we are glad we
have two healthy sons. (Ms Elena G.)
Litigation
While there are some promising lower court verdicts in civil cases, the vast majority of
victims will be unable to achieve redress through the Czech criminal system due to the
statute of limitation. Renata K., for example, filed a criminal complaint against her illegal
sterilisation in Most in 2003; however it was dismissed without any effective criminal
proceedings. The police shelved most of the criminal complaints submitted to them by
the Ombudsman, although some are still under investigation.
In the civil suit of Ms Helena F. vs. Vitkovice Hospital, the court found the hospital had
violated Ms F.’s right to privacy by sterilising her without her informed choice and ordered
it to send a letter of apology, which it has done. Ms F.’s claim regarding compensation is
pending before the Supreme Court due to statute of limitations concerns.
In the civil suit of Ms Iveta Č. vs. City Hospital, in October 2007 the court ordered the
hospital to pay half a million Czech crowns (about 20,000 EUR) for sterilising Ms Č. without
her informed choice in 1997. The court cited precedents for waiving the statute of
limitations, but the hospital has appealed.
Since this verdict, the Czech Supreme Court has indicated that it will uphold the three-year
statute of limitations for those seeking compensation in civil court for rights violations, of
personality rights, meaning that Czech courts effectively provide no avenue for victims to seek
compensation for their suffering.
While there are some promising lower court verdicts in civil cases, the vast majority of
victims will be unable to achieve redress through the Czech criminal system due to the
statute of limitation. Renata K., for example, filed a criminal complaint against her illegal
sterilisation in Most in 2003; however it was dismissed without any effective criminal
proceedings. The police shelved most of the criminal complaints submitted to them by
the Ombudsman, although some are still under investigation.
In the civil suit of Ms Helena F. vs. Vitkovice Hospital, the court found the hospital had
violated Ms F.’s right to privacy by sterilising her without her informed choice and ordered
it to send a letter of apology, which it has done. Ms F.’s claim regarding compensation is
pending before the Supreme Court due to statute of limitations concerns.
In the civil suit of Ms Iveta Č. vs. City Hospital, in October 2007 the court ordered the
hospital to pay half a million Czech crowns (about 20,000 EUR) for sterilising Ms Č. without
her informed choice in 1997. The court cited precedents for waiving the statute of
limitations, but the hospital has appealed.
Since this verdict, the Czech Supreme Court has indicated that it will uphold the three-year
statute of limitations for those seeking compensation in civil court for rights violations, of
personality rights, meaning that Czech courts effectively provide no avenue for victims to seek
compensation for their suffering.
The Group of Women Harmed by Coerced Sterilisation
Since 2004, the Group of Women Harmed by Coerced Sterilisation, a group of Romani
women from Ostrava, has been working together in seeking reparations for having been
sterilised without their informed choice. The group has worked to raise public awareness of
the illegal sterilisation of women in the Czech Republic. Members of the group have testified
to the UN CEDAW Committee (2006) and the Council of Europe (2007), demonstrated in
front of one of the hospitals concerned, and exhibited photographs (some included here)
by their members around the country, from the Czech Parliament to a meeting with their
fellow coercive sterilisation survivors in the city of Most. In July 2008, members of the Group
distributed postcards demanding an apology and compensation for these violations to
members of the community, which were sent to members of the Czech government.
Since 2004, the Group of Women Harmed by Coerced Sterilisation, a group of Romani
women from Ostrava, has been working together in seeking reparations for having been
sterilised without their informed choice. The group has worked to raise public awareness of
the illegal sterilisation of women in the Czech Republic. Members of the group have testified
to the UN CEDAW Committee (2006) and the Council of Europe (2007), demonstrated in
front of one of the hospitals concerned, and exhibited photographs (some included here)
by their members around the country, from the Czech Parliament to a meeting with their
fellow coercive sterilisation survivors in the city of Most. In July 2008, members of the Group
distributed postcards demanding an apology and compensation for these violations to
members of the community, which were sent to members of the Czech government.
SLOVAKIA
In 2002, the European Roma Rights Centre, the Centre for Reproductive Rights and the
Centre for Civil and Human Rights carried out fact-finding missions on this issue in Slovakia.
For most of the approximately 200 women interviewed by the ERRC, the authenticity of
the consent they had given to their sterilisations was extremely questionable, and in some
cases the consent to sterilisation had obviously not been based on informed choice.
UN human rights bodies In 2003 and 2004 the UN Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination urged the Slovak government to investigate the coerced sterilisation alleged and to provide effective remedies, including compensation
and an apology to the victims.
Litigation
There are a number of lawsuits on behalf of coercively sterilised Romani women pending
before Slovak courts which were brought by the ERRC and other organisations. Cases
before the European Court of Human Rights have been filed by the Centre for Civil and
Human Rights. A number of these lawsuits had to address basic issues raising serious
concerns about the state of the rule of law in Slovakia. For example, numerous cases were
filed to Slovak courts on the refusal by hospitals to provide and/or allow access to medical
files. In other instances, police reportedly conducted interviews with alleged victims of statutory rape.
In 2002, the European Roma Rights Centre, the Centre for Reproductive Rights and the
Centre for Civil and Human Rights carried out fact-finding missions on this issue in Slovakia.
For most of the approximately 200 women interviewed by the ERRC, the authenticity of
the consent they had given to their sterilisations was extremely questionable, and in some
cases the consent to sterilisation had obviously not been based on informed choice.
UN human rights bodies In 2003 and 2004 the UN Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination urged the Slovak government to investigate the coerced sterilisation alleged and to provide effective remedies, including compensation
and an apology to the victims.
Litigation
There are a number of lawsuits on behalf of coercively sterilised Romani women pending
before Slovak courts which were brought by the ERRC and other organisations. Cases
before the European Court of Human Rights have been filed by the Centre for Civil and
Human Rights. A number of these lawsuits had to address basic issues raising serious
concerns about the state of the rule of law in Slovakia. For example, numerous cases were
filed to Slovak courts on the refusal by hospitals to provide and/or allow access to medical
files. In other instances, police reportedly conducted interviews with alleged victims of statutory rape.
HUNGARY
During research conducted in 2003, the ERRC documented cases of the sterilisation of
Romani women being performed absent informed consent in Hungary. Many Romani
women also reported being placed in separate, Roma-only maternity wards, often with
the justification of accommodating “lifestyle differences”.
During research conducted in 2003, the ERRC documented cases of the sterilisation of
Romani women being performed absent informed consent in Hungary. Many Romani
women also reported being placed in separate, Roma-only maternity wards, often with
the justification of accommodating “lifestyle differences”.
A.S. v. Hungary
What bothers me is that even if I would like to, I cannot. I cannot even try. The doctor said
that my life would be at stake. But I would try nevertheless. I would even risk my life for the
sake of being able to deliver again. (Ms A.S.)
What bothers me is that even if I would like to, I cannot. I cannot even try. The doctor said
that my life would be at stake. But I would try nevertheless. I would even risk my life for the
sake of being able to deliver again. (Ms A.S.)
Ms A.S. was sterilised during a caesarean section operation following a miscarriage at
a public hospital in 2001. On the operating table, in a state of shock due to the loss of
her child, she was asked to give signed consent to the caesarean section, to which the
doctor added the following handwritten statement: “Having knowledge of the death of
the foetus inside my womb I firmly request ‘my sterilisation’. I do not intend to give birth
again, nor do I wish to become pregnant.” Ms A.S. signed the form and the sterilisation
was performed. Only 17 minutes passed between the ambulance arriving at the hospital and the completion of both operations. Ms A.S. did not know the meaning of the word
“sterilisation”; she was given no information about the nature of sterilisation, its risks and
consequences, or about other forms of contraception. Ms A.S. only learned she would not
be able to give birth after she asked the doctor when she could try to have another baby.
a public hospital in 2001. On the operating table, in a state of shock due to the loss of
her child, she was asked to give signed consent to the caesarean section, to which the
doctor added the following handwritten statement: “Having knowledge of the death of
the foetus inside my womb I firmly request ‘my sterilisation’. I do not intend to give birth
again, nor do I wish to become pregnant.” Ms A.S. signed the form and the sterilisation
was performed. Only 17 minutes passed between the ambulance arriving at the hospital and the completion of both operations. Ms A.S. did not know the meaning of the word
“sterilisation”; she was given no information about the nature of sterilisation, its risks and
consequences, or about other forms of contraception. Ms A.S. only learned she would not
be able to give birth after she asked the doctor when she could try to have another baby.
After Hungarian courts failed to provide remedy, Ms A.S. filed a complaint to the CEDAW
Committee. In August 2006, the Committee concluded that Hungary violated the
Convention because of the illegal sterilisation of Ms A.S. The Committee stated that the
applicant “has a right […] to specific information on sterilisation and alternative procedures
for family planning in order to guard against such an intervention being carried out without
her having made a fully informed choice.” In connection with the sterilisation surgery
performed without informed consent, the Committee reiterated that according to Article 12
of the Convention, State parties shall “ensure to women appropriate services in connection
with pregnancy, confinement, and the post-natal period.” The Committee found that the
sterilisation surgery was performed on Ms A.S. “without her full and informed consent and
must be considered to have permanently deprived her of her natural reproductive capacity”.
In conclusion, the Committee recommended that the Hungarian government:
Ø Provide appropriate compensation to Ms A.S., commensurate with the gravity of the
violation of her rights;
Ø Review domestic legislation on the principle of informed consent in cases of sterilisation
and ensure its conformity with international human rights and medical standards;
Committee. In August 2006, the Committee concluded that Hungary violated the
Convention because of the illegal sterilisation of Ms A.S. The Committee stated that the
applicant “has a right […] to specific information on sterilisation and alternative procedures
for family planning in order to guard against such an intervention being carried out without
her having made a fully informed choice.” In connection with the sterilisation surgery
performed without informed consent, the Committee reiterated that according to Article 12
of the Convention, State parties shall “ensure to women appropriate services in connection
with pregnancy, confinement, and the post-natal period.” The Committee found that the
sterilisation surgery was performed on Ms A.S. “without her full and informed consent and
must be considered to have permanently deprived her of her natural reproductive capacity”.
In conclusion, the Committee recommended that the Hungarian government:
Ø Provide appropriate compensation to Ms A.S., commensurate with the gravity of the
violation of her rights;
Ø Review domestic legislation on the principle of informed consent in cases of sterilisation
and ensure its conformity with international human rights and medical standards;
Monitor public and private health centres, including hospitals and clinics that
perform sterilisation procedures, to ensure that fully informed consent is given
before any sterilisation procedure is carried out.
perform sterilisation procedures, to ensure that fully informed consent is given
before any sterilisation procedure is carried out.
WE SEEK
1. Effective investigation by the states concerned (independent, thorough, and capable
of ascertaining responsibility) of all allegations of sterilisation without informed
consent/choice.
2. Public acknowledgement and compensation by the states concerned of the reported
violations.
3. The establishment and strengthening of mechanisms to enable all women to give
their free and informed consent to sterilisation, by reviewing domestic legal orders to
ensure compliance with international standards and undertaking regular monitoring
of medical facilities.
Support the victims of coerced sterilisation in Czech Republic
and Hungary by sending our postcard to these governments
calling for apologies and compensation for the victims ORGANISATIONS INVOLVED/A KAMPÁNYBAN RÉSZTVEVŐ SZERVEZETEK:
Kényszersterilizáció Áldozataivá Vált Nők Csoportja (Group of Women Harmed by
Coerced Sterilisation): A Vzajemné soužití címén.
Európai Roma Jogok Központja (European Roma Rights Centre): www.errc.org
Peacework Development Fund: www.peacework.org
Vzajemné soužití (Élet Együtt): http://www.vzajemnesouziti.cz/en
Köszönetünket fejezzük ki a Nyílt Társadalom Intézet, a Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung és a
PRAMENÍ, o.p.s. szervezeteknek támogatásukért. Az angol eredetit fordította: Pacziga
Mónika. A fordítást ellenőrizte: Kiss Julianna, Udvari Márton és Horváth Éva.
We are grateful for support from the Open Society Institute, the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung
and PRAMENÍ, o.p.s. The original English text was translated into Hungarian by Mónika
Pacziga, Julianna Kiss, Márton Udvari and Éva Horváth.
1. Effective investigation by the states concerned (independent, thorough, and capable
of ascertaining responsibility) of all allegations of sterilisation without informed
consent/choice.
2. Public acknowledgement and compensation by the states concerned of the reported
violations.
3. The establishment and strengthening of mechanisms to enable all women to give
their free and informed consent to sterilisation, by reviewing domestic legal orders to
ensure compliance with international standards and undertaking regular monitoring
of medical facilities.
Support the victims of coerced sterilisation in Czech Republic
and Hungary by sending our postcard to these governments
calling for apologies and compensation for the victims ORGANISATIONS INVOLVED/A KAMPÁNYBAN RÉSZTVEVŐ SZERVEZETEK:
Kényszersterilizáció Áldozataivá Vált Nők Csoportja (Group of Women Harmed by
Coerced Sterilisation): A Vzajemné soužití címén.
Európai Roma Jogok Központja (European Roma Rights Centre): www.errc.org
Peacework Development Fund: www.peacework.org
Vzajemné soužití (Élet Együtt): http://www.vzajemnesouziti.cz/en
Köszönetünket fejezzük ki a Nyílt Társadalom Intézet, a Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung és a
PRAMENÍ, o.p.s. szervezeteknek támogatásukért. Az angol eredetit fordította: Pacziga
Mónika. A fordítást ellenőrizte: Kiss Julianna, Udvari Márton és Horváth Éva.
We are grateful for support from the Open Society Institute, the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung
and PRAMENÍ, o.p.s. The original English text was translated into Hungarian by Mónika
Pacziga, Julianna Kiss, Márton Udvari and Éva Horváth.
