University of Botswana Law Journal - PULP

74 UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA LAW JOURNAL DECEMBER 2010
the lack of an Optional Protocol, which would authorize it to receive
complaints from individuals, groups and organizations alleging violations.” 127
Today this has changed, and with the ratification of the CEDAW Optional
Protocol, individuals are now able to bring complaints against governments
that are parties to the CEDAW Optional Protocol. 128 With 99 states parties to
the CEDAW Optional Protocol as of today, this is an extremely valuable
mechanism to enforce the right to maternal health care. 129 The CEDAW
Optional Protocol provides a “communications procedure” through which
individuals, groups and organizations can file complaints in writing about
violations of rights. 130 Further, the CEDAW Optional Protocol allows the
CEDAW Committee to conduct inquiries into grave or systematic abuses by
states parties to the Optional Protocol with an “inquiry procedure.” 131
In 2007, the Center for Reproductive Rights, along with the Brazilian
group Advocaci, filed a complaint before the CEDAW Committee on behalf
of Alyne da Silva Pimentel against the government of Brazil. 132 “Alyne, a 28-
year-old Afro-Brazilian woman, died of complications resulting from
pregnancy after her local health center misdiagnosed her symptoms and
delayed providing her with emergency care;” Alyne da Silva Pimentel v Brazil
is the first maternal mortality case to be brought before the CEDAW
Committee. 133 The Center for Reproductive Rights alleged that “by failing to
implement effective policies and programs that address the high rates of
maternal mortality, Brazil is violating its obligations under national and
international human rights law that guarantee women's rights to life, health
and equality,” and cited both Brazil’s Constitution and international human
rights treaties including CEDAW as creating legal obligations for Brazil to
protect the right to maternal health care. 134 The CEDAW Committee gave the
Brazilian government until August 2008 to render a decision regarding the
case, and the CEDAW Committee planned to analyze the case following the
presentation of facts and official arguments. 135 As of the writing of this paper,
127 Sadasivam, supra note 6, p. 334.
128 The General Assembly adopted the Optional Protocol to the CEDAW on October 6, 1999 in resolution
54/4 (A/RES/54/4). See CEDAW Optional Protocol, http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/
protocol/sigop.htm (last visited 6 March, 2010).
129 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,
G.A. Res. 54/4, 2131 Treaty Series 83, Status available at http://treaties.un.org/ [hereinafter Optional
Protocol Status].
130 CEDAW Optional Protocol, supra note 144.
131 Id.
132 Center for Reproductive Rights, Alyne de Silva Pimentel v Brazil (10 December, 2008), http://
reproductiverights.org/en/case/alyne-da-silva-pimentel-v-brazil-committee-on-the-elimination-ofdiscrimination-against-women.
133 Id.
134 For an English translation of the full text of the Center for Reproductive Rights petition in the Alyne de
Silva Pimentel case, see Latin American and Caribbean Women’s Health Network, Case of maternal
morbidity in Brazil goes before the CEDAW committee, The Free Library by Farlex (2008), http://
www.thefreelibrary.com/Case+of+maternal+morbidity+in+Brazil+goes+before+the+CEDAW+
committee.-a0198415431.
135 Id.