Ave Law Professor Ligia Castaldi testified last month in a landmark human rights case before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Beatriz et al. v. El Salvador. The plaintiffs in the high-profile case are asking the Court to declare the right to an abortion to be an internationally recognized human right.

Beatriz was a 21-year-old pregnant woman from El Salvador who suffered from lupus and gestated an anencephalic baby girl. Due to apparent risks to her health, her pregnancy was interrupted at 28 weeks via c-section; her baby was delivered alive and survived for several hours. She was given neonatal care, issued a birth certificate, and named Leylani Beatriz. Plaintiffs in the case argue that Beatriz should have been given an induced abortion rather than a c-section and that the said procedure should be vindicated as a human right. Plaintiffs include organizations funded by the IPPF (International Planned Parenthood) and based in the United States, such as Ipas, which is also an abortion provider.

Castaldi is recognized as a leading expert in comparative abortion law and international human rights law. She was asked by the Court to testify as an expert witness for the state about which international legal standards should be applied in the case in light of regional human rights standards. Her written report addressed how Latin American and Caribbean states parties to the American Convention on Human Rights do not legally require induced abortion to terminate a pregnancy where the mother’s life is at risk, how they distinguish induced abortion from other medical procedures to terminate a pregnancy where medical necessity so requires, and how most states parties to the American Convention have rejected decriminalization of eugenic abortion on the grounds of fetal unviability.

In her written testimony, Castaldi said that the American Convention does not contain an international obligation to induce the abortion of so-called non-viable children such as Leilany Beatriz, and that state practice confirms this understanding. She indicated that state practice also supports the inexistence of a state obligation to order induced abortions rather than other methods of pregnancy termination where the mother’s life is at risk. She showed that no Latin American or Caribbean country criminalizes non-abortifacient medical procedures to induce labor or terminate a pregnancy where a mother’s life is at risk.

The case may be decided by the end of 2023. If the Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it would be the first time that any court has ever recognized abortion as an international human right. The impact would be felt not only in El Salvador, but in all of the 25 countries that are part of the Inter-American human rights system. The United States is a signatory, albeit not a party to this treaty.

###