CHAPTER 3: INTEGRATING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: INNOVATIONS AND EMERGING GOOD PRACTICES Afghanistan and Jordan: Mediating complaints of violations of reproductive rights Mediation, with its focus on resolving conflict and repairing relations rather than addressing underlying problems, may not be the optimal method for dealing with allegations of severe human rights violations. However in some cases and in some countries, mediation may offer the only opportunity to improve individual situations. The Afghanistan Commission noted that because of serious weaknesses in public administration, even the most egregious violations of reproductive rights occurring in that country often remain unresolved. In attempting to respond to these challenges, the Commission has had some success with mediating cases involving violations of reproductive rights. Particularly when such cases involve close family members (e.g. a dispute over child marriage or a forced marriage) the Commission is able to provide a confidential and safe environment for a discussion that can lead to resolution of the problem. The National Centre for Human Rights of Jordan has adopted a flexible approach to handling complaints that appears to be well suited to addressing some violations of reproductive rights. In responding to a complaint involving family relations (e.g. a husband’s insistence on a certain number of children over the wishes of his wife) the Centre will seek to contact the husband directly in order to informally mediate the complaint. If a complaint concerns lack of access to essential services (the example was given of a humidicrib for a premature infant), the Centre will try to intervene directly with the service provider. In addition to resolving the particular case, the Centre will also seek to address underlying causes by contacting the relevant ministry. Australia: Protecting the reproductive rights of women and girls with a disability The Australian Human Rights Commission has worked to promote measures to prevent unnecessary sterilising procedures being performed on persons with disabilities, particularly girls and young women. In a series of court cases (including In re Marion in the High Court of Australia in 1992) the Commission argued for improved legal scrutiny of decisions to perform sterilising medical or surgical procedures. The Commission subsequently monitored the implementation of the important legal principles that emerged from this case, publishing major research papers in 1997 and 2001 about sterilisation being performed on young women with disabilities for various purposes. The Commission has continued to argue for improvement in the legal framework that applies to decision-making in respect of sterilisation of children. Its research provided commentary on the distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic sterilisation and the key principles of best interests of the child and procedure of ‘last resort’. The research analysed the reasons that are commonly given in support of the sterilisation of girls and young women and identified alternative and less invasive procedures by which similar outcomes might be achieved. Australia: Responding to pregnancy-related discrimination More than one in five complaints received by the Australian Human Rights Commission relate to pregnancy-based discrimination (2008-2009 figures). In addition to dealing with these complaints, the Commission has highlighted the issue of pregnancy-related discrimination in its “Gender Equality Blueprint 2010” which makes specific recommendations for legislative and policy reform. 27