CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 19 mars 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s903B0117 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-70.9pt; text-align:justify } .sB54F21D0 { width:1.54pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5A16F53 { width:18.2pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     151   19.3.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING ON ADMISSIBILITY AND THE MERITS   IN THE CASE OF PRETTY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   Tuesday 19 March 2002 at 9.30 a.m.   The applicant   Diane Pretty is a United Kingdom national, born in 1958 and living in Luton. She is dying of motor neurone disease, a degenerative disease affecting the muscles, for which there is no cure.   Summary of the facts   The disease is now at an advanced stage; the applicant is paralysed from the neck downwards and her life expectancy is very poor. However her intellect and capacity to make decisions are unimpaired. Given that the final stages of the disease are distressing and undignified, she   wishes to be able to control how and when she dies and be spared that suffering and indignity.   Although it is not a crime to commit suicide in English law, the applicant is prevented by her disease from taking such a step without assistance. It is however a crime to assist another to commit suicide under Section 2 § 1 of the Suicide Act 1961. Ms Pretty wishes to be assisted by her husband in committing suicide, but the Director of Public Prosecutions has refused her request to guarantee her husband freedom from prosecution if he does so. Her appeals against that decision have been unsuccessful.   Complaints   The applicant complains under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights that the United Kingdom Government is obliged not only to refrain from inflicting inhuman and degrading treatment itself, but also to take positive steps to protect persons within its jurisdiction from being subjected to such treatment. The only effective step available to protect the applicant in this way would be an undertaking not to prosecute her husband if he assisted her to commit suicide. She also complains under Article 2 (right to life) that it is for the individual to choose whether to live and that the right to die is the corollary of the right to live and also protected. Accordingly there is a positive obligation on the State to provide a scheme in domestic law to enable her to exercise that right.   She further relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private life), arguing that this explicitly recognises the right to self-determination, and Article 9 (freedom of conscience), complaining that the failure to give the undertaking and provide a lawful scheme for allowing assisted suicide violates her right to manifest her beliefs. Under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), she argues that the blanket prohibition on assisted suicide discriminates against those who are unable to commit suicide without assistance, whereas the able-bodied are able to exercise the right to die, under domestic law. Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 December 2001. The Court decided on 22 January 2002 to give priority to the case and to communicate the application to the United Kingdom Government as matter of urgency [1] . Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), judges , Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), substitute judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Christopher Whomersley , Agent , Jonathan Crow , and David Perry , Counsel , Alan Bacarese , Rebecca Cox and Simon Ray , Advisers ;   Applicant:   Philip Havers , QC assisted by Fenella Morris , Counsel and by Alex Gask , trainee solicitor .   Diane Pretty and her husband Brian Pretty will also attend the hearing.   *** After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A decision on admissibility will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] The Court has applied Rule 41 (case priority) and Rule 40 (urgent notification of an application) of the Rules of Court.