“The main rule within international human rights law is that vaccination, like any other medical intervention, must be based on the recipient’s free and informed consent. This rule is, however, not absolute. In Solomakhin v Ukraine, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) held that mandatory vaccination interferes with a person’s right to integrity protected under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Nevertheless, the Court concluded such interference may be justified if considered a ‘necessity to control the spreading of infectious diseases’ (para 36).”— Nilsson, Anna. “Is Mandatory Vaccination Against COVID-19 Justifiable Under the European Convention on Human Rights?” GC Human Rights Preparedness, 15 April 2021.

ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS SIDE

Okay, so let’s get this part out of the way from early: Yes, the opening quote above is directly relevant for the European Union & its ECHR. So yes! It does not set any binding precedent for the Caribbean; and specifically, it does not set the pace here in Belize. At best, these extra-regional judgments could only carry “persuasive” weight, as I’ve been informed by legal minds.

Nonetheless, let’s face it: many binding Human Rights treaties cite the same source—the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the other conventions that collectively give us the so-called “international bill of rights.”

Therefore, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) shares a similar “foundation” with other conventions such as the AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS. And, it must be said, whether countries have signed onto these conventions or not, there is no secret that they have been known to carry some influence in domestic and regional legal deliberations.

So, on the human rights side of things, more and more courts are going to be asked to rule on this matter, and one ought not be surprised when the judgments come back tilting in favor and support of context-specific state-sponsored mandatory COVID vaccination policy.

Continue reading →