欧州人権裁判所の判決
n第八条 (個人の生活が尊重を受ける権利)
–プリティ: この条項は自己決定権、とくにいつ死ぬかを決める権利を与える
–判決: 英国自殺法の自殺幇助の禁止は弱者の生命権を守るためのものとして適切であり、第八条に抵触していない
n第九条 (良心の自由)
–プリティ: 自分の信念を実践することを妨げられている
–判決: 第九条は主に宗教的信念にかかわるもの
Article 8 (right to respect for private life) - no violation
Mrs Pretty claimed that this article clearly gave her a right to self-determination, in particular the ability to choose how to end it.
The ruling stated: "The law in issue in this case, section 2 of the Suicide Act, was designed to safeguard life by protecting the weak and vulnerable and especially those who were not in a condition to take informed decisions against acts intended to end life or to assist in ending life.
"The Court did not consider that the blanket nature of the ban on assisted suicide was disproportionate.
"It did not appear to be arbitrary for the law to reflect the importance of the right to life, by prohibiting assisted suicide while providing for a system of enforcement and adjudication which allowed due regard to be given in each particular case to the public interest in bringing a prosecution, as well as to the fair and proper requirements of retribution and deterrence."
Article 9 (freedom of conscience) - no violation
Mrs Pretty said that the failure to provide a scheme to allow her to end her life violated this act by preventing her from exercising her beliefs.
The ruling stated: "The applicant's claims did not involve a form of manifestation of a religion or belief, through worship, teaching, practice or observance as described in the second sentence of the first paragraph.
"The term "practice" did not cover each act which was motivated or influenced by a religion or belief."
Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) - no violation.
Mrs Pretty said that the current law discrimated against her, as an able-bodied person would be legally able to commit suicide, whereas she could not without help.
The ruling stated: "There was, in the Court's view, objective and reasonable justification for not distinguishing in law between those who were and those who were not physically capable of committing suicide.
"Cogent reasons existed for not seeking to distinguish between those who were able and those who were unable to commit suicide unaided.
"The borderline between the two categories would often be a very fine one and to seek to build into the law an exemption for those judged to be incapable of committing suicide would seriously undermine the protection of life which the 1961 Act was intended to safeguard and greatly increase the risk of abuse."