CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

PAVEL CABAN CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ issues. Thus it is suggested that its draft General Comment does not properly reflect the current state of international law in this area. This also raises the question whether the HRC (and, as the case may be other expert bodies) always approaches its mandate with proper restraint, in accordance with relevant provisions of the treaty on the basis of which it was established, and adequately to the importance which is attributed to its practice. 46 There are no other human rights issues that are more sensitive than those concerning the beginning and end of life. It seems that, particularly the above described approach of the European Court of Human Rights, which provides states with wide margin of appreciation in this area (including the determination of when the right to life begins) and adopts legally more rigorous and nuanced approach to the interpretation of relevant human rights provisions (important part of which is taking into account other rights and interests involved, namely those of the unborn child in case of abortion), much more adequately reflects variability of attitudes to these issues and their ethical and legal complexity.

46 See Observations of the United States of America On the Human Rights Committee’s Draft General Comment No. 36 On Article 6 – Right to Life, October 2017, p. 1 et seq.; available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/GC36-Article6Righttolife.aspx (visited on 15 June 2018): “… the Committee provides little or no authoritative legal support or treaty analysis grounded in established rules of treaty interpretation under international law to support many of its positions. The Committee’s citations to its own work products … do not in and of themselves provide legal support under international law. They merely represent a collection of the Committee’s prior consistent, non-binding views and carry no greater weight or authority than when first published. …”. For general relevance of the pronouncements of expert treaty bodies see draft conclusion 13 [12], paras. 3 and 4 (with commentaries thereto), contained in the draft conclusions on subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties adopted by the Commission on first reading in 2016; in: Report of the International Law Commission, Sixty-eighth session (2016), U. N. doc. A/71/10, pp. 123 and 236-240.

198