See, e.g., eUropean coMMittee for tHe prevention of tortUre and inHUMan or degrading treatMent (cpt), tHe cpt standards: "sUBstantive" sections of tHe cpt's general reports 55 (2004), Doc. No. CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1-Rev. 2004. 10. See Mental disaBility rigHts international (Mdri) & asociación pro derecHos HUManos, HUMan rigHts and Mental HealtH in perU 12-14 (2004); Mental disaBility advocacy centre, cage Beds: inHUMan and degrading treatMent in foUr eU accession coUntries (2003); aMnesty international, roMania: MeMorandUM to tHe governMent concerning inpatient psycHiatric treatMent (2004).

No abstract

In 2011, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) issued two landmark decisions. In Alyne da Silva Pimentel v. Brazil, the first maternal death case decided by an international human rights body, it confirms that States have a human rights obligation to guarantee that all women, irrespective of their income or racial background, have access to timely, non-discriminatory, and appropriate maternal health services. In L.C. v. Peru, concerning a 13-year-old rape victim who was denied a therapeutic abortion and had an operation on her spine delayed that left her seriously disabled as a result, it established that the State should guarantee access to abortion when a woman's physical or mental health is in danger, decriminalise abortion when pregnancy results from rape or sexual abuse, review its restrictive interpretation of therapeutic abortion and establish a mechanism to ensure that reproductive rights are understood and observed in all health care facilities. Both cases affirm that accessible and good quality health services are vital to women's human rights and expand States' obligations in relation to these. They also affirm that States must ensure national accountability for sexual and reproductive health rights, and provide remedies and redress in the event of violations. And they reaffirm the importance of international human rights bodies as sources of accountability for sexual and reproductive rights violations, especially where national accountability is absent or ineffective.

The Universal Periodic Review is a comprehensive, state-to-state peer-review mechanism of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council. Created in 2006, the mechanism scrutinizes the human rights record of all UN Member States, including their efforts to realize the right to health. However, the mechanism is relatively under-used in global health governance compared to treaty-based procedures, such as those overseen by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. We suggest that the Universal Periodic Review could be used to support the monitoring and review processes of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). The review could offer a unique perspective for other actors on how to ensure accountability for the complex and intertwined SDGs, including their commitments for health. This article provides an overview of how health-related rights have been addressed in the Universal Periodic Review process and how the review can contribute to advancing global commitments to health, including those embodied in the SDGs. We present some of the current limitations in the way health is addressed in the Universal Periodic Review. We also consider what role specialized UN agencies, such as the World Health Organization, might play during the Universal Periodic Review process and how this involvement can contribute towards the comprehensive realization of health and wellbeing for all.

Editorials 79Reducing the world's maternal mortality ratio by three quarters between 1990 and 2015 is one objective of Millennium Development Goal 5. However, progress towards this objective has been slow,

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract