C Explanatory memorandum by Ms Carmen
Leyte, rapporteur for opinion
1. I would like to welcome the
report prepared by Ms Thorhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir (Iceland, SOC)
for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. I am particularly
grateful to the rapporteur for taking into account the position
of the World Health Organization (WHO), as well as the previous
positions of the Parliamentary Assembly: on how to beat Covid-19
with public health measures in
Resolution 2424 (2022), adopted in January, and on how to fight vaccine-preventable
diseases in
Resolution
2455 (2022), adopted in June, both of which were adopted with an
overwhelming majority. I thus see no need to revisit these issues
in this opinion.
2. I must admit, however, that I would have preferred a greater
focus on the overriding interests of public health, and the necessity
to shield vulnerable persons from infection and health-care systems
from collapsing. The right to life and the right to health weigh
more than possible “vaccine discrimination” in travelling and access
to public venues. This is why, in paragraph 9.2.2.3 of
Resolution 2424 (2022), the Assembly put such an emphasis on the necessity
of “shielding highly vulnerable persons from infection, including
by legislating for vaccination mandates for healthcare or social-care
personnel in contact with them, and ensuring that the necessary
financial, logistical and other support is in place for the measures
to be effective, and that their economic and social rights enshrined
in the European Social Charter are guaranteed”.
3. Indeed, much evidence has emerged in the last 18 months, since
Covid-19 vaccines became widely available in most of our member
States, on which public health measures are the most effective in
preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission and the development of severe
forms of the disease Covid-19. Those vaccines which have been approved
either by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or by the WHO have
been shown to dramatically reduce the chance of developing severe
forms of the disease, and to cut the risk of developing “long Covid”
by half. In addition, the viral load is much reduced, leading to
less transmission and shorter periods of infectiousness. Vaccinated
individuals thus not only protect their own health, but also the
health of others due to the reduction in infectiousness and by posing
less of a burden to health-care systems, which were close to collapse
in some member States in the early stages of the pandemic.
4. Nevertheless, vaccination is not a panacea, and there are
more immediately effective measures than vaccination which pose
less of an interference with the right to give free and informed
consent to any intervention in the health field (as protected by
the Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Dignity of
the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine:
Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, “Oviedo Convention”,
ETS No. 164). This is why the Assembly, in
Resolution 2424 (2022), recommended “putting in place a timely and staggered
response to rising infection rates in accordance with WHO guidance,
adapted to the local circumstances in pandemic hotspots, while implementing
appropriate measures to offset any negative impact and respecting
the principle of proportionality”, in particular, by “developing
production capacity, distribution and considering mandating the
use of high-quality masks (progressively moving to masks of FFP2
standard if possible) in high-risk situations (such as on public transport,
in crowded spaces inside and outside and in schools); and providing
such masks free of charge for vulnerable groups if possible”.
5. I agree with the main thrust of the draft resolution and the
draft recommendation but would like to propose a small number of
mostly technical amendments to further reinforce and align the text
with the Assembly’s adopted positions.
6. With amendment A, I am seeking to clarify that
new public health measures may be necessary in the future. It is
these measures which risk leading to infringements on human rights
and fundamental freedoms, not the evolution of the pandemic itself.
7. In
Resolution 2424
(2022), the Assembly made very clear that it opposed discrimination
against those who have not or cannot be vaccinated because of medical
reasons, or because they are minors. I am thus proposing
amendment B, to bring the text
in line with our Assembly’s adopted position. I can see no reason to
deviate from this position which we adopted with an overwhelming
majority in January 2022, only 8 months ago.
8. I am proposing the deletion of sub-paragraph 12.7 (amendment C) because it is redundant:
the same point is made in sub-paragraph 12.3, and that sub-paragraph
is better worded. WHO evaluation of a vaccine under the EUL procedure
needs to be the benchmark against which vaccines are measured, so
that they are both safe and effective.
9. There can be all kinds of legitimate purposes; however, I
am certain that we all agree that when it comes to the use of Covid
passes or pandemic-related restrictions to free movement, the only
legitimate purpose should be a public health one. I would not want
Covid passes to, for example, be used and abused in the legitimate
fight against terrorism, for example. This is why I suggest making
clear that, when it comes to Covid passes and pandemic-related restrictions
to free movement, only public health purposes are legitimate (amendments F and H).
10. Blanket travel bans and non-acceptance of proof of vaccines
from certain countries, despite vaccines being listed under WHO’s
EUL procedure, are ineffective and interfere with the right to family
life. Rich countries, including the European Union block, have undermined
access to Covid-19 vaccines for poorer countries, thus resulting
in inequitable distribution, particularly with regard to vaccines
that have been granted EMA authorisation. Thus, such restrictions
disproportionately affect individuals and families from poorer countries.
Member States should rather adopt alternative measures that are
more effective from a public health perspective, upon arrival to
their territory, such as testing and social distancing, taking into
account the
Resolution
2424 (2022)(amendment E).
11. Currently there exists a technical solution to transfer proof
of vaccination from one country’s covid pass to that of another
country. However, this does not apply to proof of recovery from
Sars-CoV-2. In situations of scarce resources, it would be a waste
to administer vaccines to persons who are normally regarded as having sufficient
antibodies for a certain period. This is even more so, because lack
of a technical solution seems to be the only obstacle (amendment I).
12. At our committee meeting on 23 September 2022, Mr Pierre-Alain
Fridez (Switzerland, SOC), former Chairperson of the Committee on
Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, put forward two additional amendments (amendments D and G) to safeguard
the rights of refugees and migrants, in particular of unaccompanied
migrant or refugee children. Both the Committee on Social Affairs
and myself fully support these amendments.
