UPR Sexual Rights Database

National Report:
Para 53) In 2005, Slovakia adopted legislative measures with respect to the rights of patients to comply with international standards. Women allegedly affected by shortcomings in connection with sterilization prior to 1 January 2005 can seek compensation before the courts in civil proceedings. In relation to the call for the thorough investigation of all cases of forced sterilizations, Slovakia refers to the report of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights on Slovakia of March 2006 (CommDH(2006)5) stating that considerable effort has been made to investigate allegations about involuntary and forced sterilizations of Roma women in Slovakia. A professional medical inspection was established beyond the framework of criminal investigation, and an expert opinion of the Faculty of the Medicine of the Comenius University in Bratislava was requested. It was not confirmed that the Government supported an organized discrimination sterilization policy. The Government adopted legislative and practical measures with a view to eliminate administrative shortcomings identified during the investigation, and to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future. In his findings, the Commissioner did not require Slovakia to conduct any further investigation. His recommendations were only related to the issue of compensation of victims of violations according to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as a result of performing illegal sterilizations.

Para 54) The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered judgments against Slovakia in three cases related to sterilization of women without their informed consent (V.C. against Slovakia (judgment of 8 November 2011 which became effective on 8 February 2012), (N.B. against SR (judgment of 12 June 2012 which became effective on 12 September 2012) and (I.G., M.K. and R.H. against Slovakia (judgment of 13 November 2012 which became effective on 29 April 2013). In the case of V.C. against Slovakia, the ECtHR did not require national authorities to initiate criminal proceedings on their own initiative, as it did not find that medical staff acted with the intention of ill-treatment of the applicant. The ECtHR declared non-violation of procedural part of Article 3 of the ECHR in the case of V.C. against Slovakia related to the inefficiency of the investigation. Similarly in the case of N.B. against Slovakia, the ECtHR did not accept the applicant's allegation on ineffective investigation of her sterilization. It stated that the complaint had been reviewed at three levels of proceedings, and the General Prosecutor acknowledged that the applicant had been sterilized contrary to the relevant law, as her legal representative had not given consent. The ECtHR only concluded that Article 3 of the ECHR in its procedural part had been violated in the case of I.G., M.K. and R.H. against Slovakia, namely due to the particular subject-matter of the case. The ECtHR stated that the manner in which national authorities had been acting was not in compliance with the requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition. The submitted evidence did not, however, convince the ECtHR that it could have been a part of an organized policy, or that the behaviour of the medical staff had been racially motivated. The rulings of the ECtHR in these cases did not confirm the allegations of numerous illegal sterilizations of Roma women.

Para 55) Measures applied by Slovakia in relation to the execution of the judgments (legislative and other) are currently supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The applicants were paid the financial compensation awarded by the ECtHR. Judgments in the case of V.C. and N.B. against Slovakia were sent to the President of the Constitutional Court and to Presidents of all District and Regional Courts. The agent before the ECtHR familiarises judges and prosecutors with the judgments as a part of educational activities. For domestic courts, the judgment in the case of V.C. against Slovakia (as well as the other two cases) provides an important guidance on reviewing claims for compensations for women affected by sterilization and on awarding compensations.

National Report Annex 1:
Constitutional Act no. 161/2014 Coll., effective from 1 September 2014, strengthened the status of marriage between a man and a woman. It added the definition of marriage as “a unique union between a man and a woman” to the text of the constitution. Along with this definition, it added the Slovak Republic’s commitment to the statement that marriage comprehensively protects it and serves its best interest.
However, it is important to point out that under the applicable and effective Act on the Family, and under provision No. 41 (1) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, marriage, parenthood and family are protected by law. Article 2 of the Act on the Family explicitly states that “the society comprehensively protects all forms of family”.
The recommendation has been implemented.

National Report:
Para 9) Slovakia signed and ratified several UN and Council of Europe human rights instruments during the period under review. In May 2010, Slovakia became a State party to the CRPD and its OP.