Fundamento destacado: 58. En particular, el Tribunal considera que no deben subestimarse los riesgos de abuso inherentes a un sistema que facilita el acceso al suicidio asistido. Al igual que el Gobierno, opina que la restricción del acceso al pentobarbital sódico tiene por objeto proteger la salud y la seguridad públicas y prevenir la delincuencia. A este respecto, comparte la opinión del Tribunal Federal de que el derecho a la vida garantizado por el artículo 2 del Convenio obliga a los Estados a establecer un procedimiento capaz de garantizar que la decisión de poner fin a la propia vida corresponde efectivamente a la libre voluntad del individuo afectado. Considera que la exigencia de una prescripción médica, emitida sobre la base de una evaluación psiquiátrica completa, es un medio que permite cumplir esta obligación. Además, esta solución corresponde al espíritu del Convenio de las Naciones Unidas sobre sustancias psicotrópicas y de los convenios adoptados por algunos Estados miembros del Consejo de Europa.
[Traducción LP]
58. In particular, the Court considers that the risks of abuse inherent in a system that facilitates access to assisted suicide should not be underestimated. Like the Government, it is of the opinion that the restriction on access to sodium pentobarbital is designed to protect public health and safety and to prevent crime. In this respect, it shares the view of the Federal Court that the right to life guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention obliges States to establish a procedure capable of ensuring that a decision to end one’s life does indeed correspond to the free will of the individual concerned. It considers that the requirement for a medical prescription, issued on the basis of a full psychiatric assessment, is a means enabling this obligation to be met. Moreover, this solution corresponds to the spirit of the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the conventions adopted by certain member States of the Council of Europe.
[Idioma Original]
CASE OF HAAS v. SWITZERLAND
(Application no. 31322/07)
In the case of Haas v. Switzerland,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 31322/07) against the Swiss Confederation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Swiss national, Mr Ernst G. Haas (“the applicant”), on 18 July 2007.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr P.A. Schaerz, a lawyer practising in Uster (Canton of Zürich). The Swiss Government (“the overnment”) were represented by their Agent, Mr F. Schürmann, Head of the Human Rights and Council of Europe Section at the Federal Office of Justice.
3. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complained that his right to decide how and when to end his life had been breached.
4. By a decision of 20 May 2010, the Court declared the application admissible.
5. The Government filed further observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1 of the Rules of Court). In addition, third-party comments were received from Dignitas (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention), a Swiss private-law association whose aim is to ensure that its members are able to live and to die with dignity.
[Continúa…]
