The Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA)’s report on Ireland concerns how Ireland prevents and prosecutes human trafficking. The report demonstrated that the total number of presumed trafficking victims in Ireland fell from 103 in 2017 to 44 in 2021. According to GRETA, sexual exploitation remains the primary form of exploitation in Ireland, but the number of people trafficked for labour exploitation in sectors including fishing, farming, construction, catering, and domestic work grew over the same period. However, GRETA noted that these figures may underestimate the situation in Ireland, partly due to the persisting limitations of the existing procedures for identifying victims. These limitations include the fact that the Human Trafficking Investigation and Coordination Unite of An Garda Síochána (Ireland’s police force) is the sole competent authority tasked with identifying the victims of human trafficking, and the obligation to speak with An Garda Síochána may discourage self-identification, according to the report. Highlighting certain areas where underreporting is likely, GRETA found that trafficking for labour exploitation remains under-recognised and under-reported, and trafficking for criminal exploitation is an area where victims are often not recognised as such. Nevertheless, the report notes a number of positive developments since GRETA’s last evaluation of Ireland in 2017. These include the establishment of a human trafficking stakeholders forum in 2020 (bringing together relevant state departments, agencies and civil society organisations) and the designation of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission as National Rapporteur for human trafficking. In sum, GRETA’s report urged the authorities in Ireland to take further action against human trafficking, notably by improving the prosecution of human traffickers and providing specialised shelters and compensation for victims. GRETA also urged the Irish authorities to adopt finalise a National Referral Mechanism, which ensures that different agencies are involved in identifying victims of all types of trafficking, and to provide trafficking victims with specialised assistance. Furthermore, GRETA noted that the number of investigations into human trafficking has been decreasing over the years, notes the report, and the number of prosecutions and convictions is very low. For instance, there have been no convictions for trafficking for labour exploitation in Ireland, despite the increasing number of identified suspected cases.
Women and Justice: Keywords
Reports
Evaluation Report: Ireland, Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (2022)
Legislation
Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institutions (Amendment) Act 2019 (2019)
The 2019 Act made the 2015 Act’s (available here) health benefits available to a broader group of women – including those who had worked in 'the institutions covered by the Magdalen Restorative Justice ex-gratia Scheme' while residing in certain adjoining institutions (Section 2).
Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institutions Act 2015 (2015)
The 2015 Act provides for free health services for women who worked in Magdalen laundries (institutions ostensibly intended to house and employ ‘fallen’ women). Its Schedule provides for the 'Relevant Institutions' for the purposes of identifying women entitled to the provision of services. The 2015 Act was updated in 2019 (available here) to expand the group of women eligible for benefits under the Act.
The 2018 Act permits (i) abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy by a medical practitioner who has a certified, reasonable good-faith opinion that the pregnancy has not exceeded 12 weeks (Section 12); (ii) where two medical practitioners have a good-faith opinion that that there is a risk to the life, or of serious harm to the health, of the pregnant woman, that the fetus has not yet reached viability, and that it is appropriate to carry out the termination of pregnancy to avert these risks (Section 9), or that there is a condition affecting the fetus that is likely to lead to the death of the fetus either before, or within 28 days of, birth (Section 11); or (iii) where a single medical practitioner has a good-faith opinion that there is an immediate risk to the life, or serious harm to the health, of the pregnant woman and that it is immediately necessary to terminate the pregnancy in order to avoid that risk (Section 10). The Act also makes certain services, like medical surgery and midwifery, available to women without charge for the purpose of terminating a pregnancy in accordance with Sections 9, 10, 11, or 12. Under the Act, it is an offense for anyone other than the pregnant woman herself to intentionally terminate a pregnancy, or supply the means for doing so, other than in accordance with the Act, or to aid or abet such an offense (Section 23(4)). Penalties for offenses include fines and imprisonment up to 14 years (Section 23); there are also provisions for offenses committed by a corporate body (Section 24). The 2018 Act also repeals the Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for Termination of Pregnancies) Act 1995 and the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013.
International Case Law
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd v. Stephen Grogan and others Court of Justice of the European Union (1991)
Pursuant to Article 177 of the European Economic Community treaty (“EEC treaty”), the High Court of Ireland requested a preliminary ruling on (i) whether abortion comes within the definition of “services” in Article 60 of the EEC treaty; (ii) whether a Member State can prohibit the dissemination of information about the identity, location, and means of communication with an abortion clinic in another Member State; and (iii) whether there is a right at Community law level to distribute such information. The underlying case was brought by an anti-abortion NGO against officers of student associations regarding the latter’s distribution of information on abortion clinics in another Member State in Ireland. The Court of Justice held that while medical termination of pregnancy, performed in accordance with the law of the State in which it is carried out, constitutes a “service” within the meaning of Article 60 of the treaty, Article 59’s prohibition of restrictions on the supply of “services” did not apply to the information-dissemination activity of the student associations (which was not done in cooperation with the clinics). The Court reasoned that the link between the dissemination of information with the clinics’ services was too tenuous for the prohibition on distribution of information to be regarded as a “restriction” on the provision of the services. In 2018, Ireland enacted the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act, which allows abortion (i) during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, (ii) when the fetus has a condition that is likely fatal, or (iii) to protect the life or health of the woman.
A, B and C v. Ireland European Court of Human Rights (2010)
In this case, the three applicants were Irish residents, but had abortions in the United Kingdom because abortion was unlawful in Ireland. Two of the applicants sought abortions for health and/or wellbeing-related reasons, while the third applicant was unable to establish her eligibility for a lawful abortion in Ireland. The third applicant was in remission for cancer and, due to a lack of information on the impact of the pregnancy on her remission and the effect of her treatment on the pregnancy, sought the abortion because of the risks involved with the pregnancy. The court found that while the European Convention of Human Rights did not confer a right to abortion, the prohibition of abortion in circumstances involving the applicant’s health and/or well-being, and the fact that the third applicant was unable to establish her eligibility came within the scope of the applicants’ right to their private lives under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court found no violation of Article 8 with respect to the first and second applicants because the interference with the right was in accordance with Irish law and “moral values deeply embedded in the fabric of society in Ireland”; however, the Court found that the prohibition violated the third applicant’s Article 8 right because there were no “effective and accessible procedures” that would allow the third applicant to establish that she qualified for a lawful abortion in Ireland. The State therefore had failed to comply with the “positive obligation to secure to the third applicant effective respect for her private life by reason of the absence of any implementing legislative or regulatory regime providing an accessible and effective procedure by which she could have established whether she qualified for a lawful abortion in Ireland.” In 2018, Ireland enacted the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act, which allows abortion (i) during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, (ii) when the fetus has a condition that is likely fatal, or (iii) to protect the life or health of the woman.
Valiulienė prieš Lietuvą (Valiuliene v. Lithuania) European Court of Human Rights (2013)
The applicant suffered continuous mental and physical abuse by her partner. She brought a complaint to the court, which was forwarded to the public prosecutor, after which the investigations were discontinued on multiple occasions. When the applicant tried to start a new request, it was refused because of the statute of limitations. The ECtHR ruled that the criminal investigation into the acts of violence was ineffective and breached Article 3 of the Convention, which dictates that no one should be “subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The applicant was awarded non-pecuniary damages.
Pareiškėja patyrė nuolatinį psichinį ir fizinį smurtą nuo savo partnerio. Ji pateikė teismui skundą, kuris buvo perduotas prokurorui, tačiau tyrimas buvo nutrauktas kelis kartus. Kai pareiškėja bandė pateikti naują prašymą, jis buvo atmestas dėl senaties termino. EŽTT nusprendė, kad baudžiamasis tyrimas dėl smurto veiksmų buvo neveiksmingas ir pažeidė Konvencijos 3 straipsnį, kuris diktuoja, kad niekas neturėtų būti „kankinamas ir nepatirtų nežmoniško ar žeminančio elgesio ar baudimo“. Pareiškėjai priteista neturtinė žala. Vertimas lietuvių kalba: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-175424
L. prieš Lietuvą (L. v. Lithuania) European Court of Human Rights (2007)
The applicant was born a female and given a female name; however, recognizing his gender as male, he underwent partial gender reassignment treatment and changed his name. Further process was halted since the Parliament had not passed legislation regulating full gender-reassignment treatment, and no transsexual rights were implemented for the following four years. This created issues for the applicant, such as applying for jobs, loans, seeking medical treatment, and crossing the border. The ECtHR ruled that the State’s failure to enact relevant legislation violated the right to private and family life (Article 8) and awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
Gimusio pareiškėjo lytis buvo įregistruota kaip mergaitės ir jam buvo suteiktas moteriškas vardas. Tačiau, pripažindamas savo lytį kaip vyro, jis atliko dalinę lyties pakeitimo operaciją ir pakeitė savo vardą. Tolesnis procesas buvo sustabdytas, nes Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas nepriėmė teisės aktų, reglamentuojančių lyties keitimo sąlygų ir tvarkos. Taip pat, byloje paminėta, jog per ketverius metus nuo civilinio kodekso nuostatų įsigaliojimo nebuvo įgyvendintos transseksualų teisės. Tai sukėlė problemų pareiškėjui, ypač kreipiantis dėl darbo, paskolos, gydymo ir kertant sieną. EŽTT nusprendė, kad valstybės nesugebėjimas priimti atitinkamų teisės aktų pažeidė pareiškėjo teisę į privatų ir šeimos gyvenimą bei priteisė pareiškėjui turtinę ir neturtinę žalą. Vertimas lietuvių kalba: http://lrv-atstovas-eztt.lt/uploads/L._2007_sprendimas.pdf
Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2006)
This case involved issues involving the exposure of vulnerable members of indigenous communities, particularly children, pregnant women, and the elderly. A petition was filed against Paraguay on behalf of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, alleging violations of, among other things, the right to fair trial and judicial protection, the right to property and the right to life. The petition noted that these violations placed children, pregnant women and the elderly in particularly vulnerable situations. The Court found Paraguay to be in violation of Articles 1(1), 2, 3, 4(1), 8, 19, 21 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Court ordered Paraguay to formally and physically convey to the Sawhoyamaxa their traditional lands, to establish a community development fund, to pay non-pecuniary damages, to provide the Sawhoyamaxa with basic necessities until their lands were restored, to provide the Sawhoyamaxa with the necessary tools for communication to access health authorities, and to domestically enact legislation creating a mechanism for indigenous communities to reclaim their traditional lands.
Domestic Case Law
KI 108/18 Gjykata Kushtetuese (Constitutional Court) (2018)
The applicant was registered as female at birth, but has always identified himself as male. He lived and appeared as a man in all areas of life, and had begun hormonal treatment to transition. The applicant filed a request with the Civil Status Office to change his name and gender marker to reflect his male gender identity, but the request was rejected. He appealed the decision to the Civil Registration Agency, which rejected the appeal on the grounds that the applicant provided no evidence that his current name prevented his integration in society, and no medical report supporting his request for a change of his gender marker. The applicant filed a claim with the Basic Court, and, only one week later and before a decision was rendered, referred the matter to the Constitutional Court. The applicant alleged the Civil Registration Agency’s decision violated his fundamental rights and freedoms, guaranteed by Articles 23 (Human Dignity), 24 (Equality Before the Law), and 36 (Right to Privacy) of the Constitution of Kosovo, and Article 8 (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant requested to be exempted from the legal obligation to exhaust all legal remedies before seeking a constitutional review on the grounds that the regular courts’ legal remedy would not be effective or sufficiently certain because of his special circumstances and the length of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court surveyed foreign constitutional courts via the Venice Commission for their respective relevant case law, confirming the general requirement for an applicant to exhaust his/her legal remedies before seeking constitutional review. The court noted the existence of a very similar and recently decided case, in which a person sued the Civil Status Office and Civil Registration Agency for their refusal to grant his request to change his name and gender marker from female to male after a successful gender reassignment surgery. The Basic Court ruled for the applicant and ordered the changes made, and the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The Constitutional Court therefore determined that the regular courts could furnish an effective and sufficiently certain legal remedy for the applicant. Moreover, the court noted that the applicant was not seeking review of an already lengthy court proceeding, but merely of the possibility of one, and in any event the Basic Court and Court of Appeals disposed of the above mentioned precedent in reasonable time. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court ruled the applicant’s referral inadmissible because it was premature. (Also available in Srpski and English.)
A., R.H. and other v. E.N. M Seguridad – P.F.A. and others Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Contenciosos Administrativo Federal (National Appeals Court for Federal Administrative Litigation) (2011)
The plaintiff daughters, R.H. and V.C., filed suit against the State government and certain police officials requesting damages for the loss of the lives of their mother, Mrs. S., and father, Mr. A. The day after her decision to flee her home together with her daughters and reside with other family members, Mrs. S. filed a civil proceeding against Mr. A. for domestic violence. Mr. A. was prohibited from approaching Mrs. S. and his daughters, and Mrs. S. obtained permission to remove her and her daughters’ personal belongings from their previous home while escorted by police officers. While accompanied by police officers and her sister to remove the belongings, Mr. A. killed Mrs. S. with a knife and subsequently committed suicide. In finding for the daughters in the case of Mrs. S., the appellate court identified the following factors in support of its finding: (1) the existence of a real and immediate risk that threatened the rights of Mrs. S. and her daughters that had the potential to materialize immediately and which was expressly referenced by the Office of Domestic Violence, (2) the risk related to a specific threat against a woman and was therefore particular, (3) the State knew of the risk or should have reasonably known of the risk and (4) the State could have reasonably prevented and avoided the materialization of the risk.
Las hijas de la demandante, RH y VC, presentaron una demanda contra el gobierno del estado y ciertos oficiales de policía que solicitaron daños por la pérdida de la vida de su madre, la Sra. S. y el padre, el Sr. A. El día después de su decisión de huir de la casa junto con sus hijas, la Sra. S. presentó un proceso civil contra el Sr. A. por violencia doméstica. Al Sr. A. se le prohibió acercarse a la Sra. S. y a sus hijas, y la Sra. S. obtuvo permiso para retirar a ella y las pertenencias personales de sus hijas de su hogar anterior mientras estaba escoltada por agentes de policía. Mientras estaba acompañada por oficiales de policía y su hermana para retirar las pertenencias, el Sr. A. mató a la Sra. S. con un cuchillo y posteriormente se suicidó. Al encontrar a las hijas en el caso de la Sra. S., la corte de apelaciones identificó los siguientes factores que respaldan su descubrimiento: (1) la existencia de un riesgo real e inmediato que amenazaba los derechos de la Sra. S. y sus hijas que tenía el potencial de materializarse de inmediato y que la Oficina de Violencia Doméstica hacía referencia expresamente, (2) el riesgo relacionado con una amenaza específica contra una mujer y, por lo tanto, era particular, (3) el Estado sabía del riesgo o debería haberlo hecho razonablemente conocido del riesgo y (4) el Estado podría haber prevenido y evitado razonablemente la materialización del riesgo.