By The European Times | Created at 2026-08-19 12:20:30 | Updated at 2026-08-19 12:32:38
29 minutes ago
The executive body, the Committee of Ministers, of the Council of Europe is in summer break amid the final review of the controversial possible new Additional protocol to the Convention on human rights and biomedicine (Oviedo Convention). The examination of the draft Additional protocol that aim at regulating involuntary measures in psychiatry has been marked by struggles with widely opposing views. A dozen countries among the Council’s 46 member states have caused further work to amend the draft version. The UN CRPD Committee, civil society groups representing the interest of more than 100 million people and the national human rights institutions in Europe have reiterated strong demands to withdraw the Additional Protocol clarifying it violates international human rights law.
The Committee of Ministers, consisting of the Ministers’ Deputies to the Council of Europe, has been discussing the Additional protocol to the Oviedo convention over the last months. By February 2026 the Ministers’ Deputies, had received all the data requested as part of the examination process on the draft Additional protocol from its subordinate and advisory bodies and thus could start the final review process.
The Parliamentary Assembly in its role as advisory to the Ministers’ Deputies in a unanimous vote in end January 2026 had rejected the draft additional protocol, and suggested that the Committee of Ministers prior to its final examination of the drafted possible new Additional protocol commission a study to determine the compatibility of it with the UN CRPD.
The actual point of the Assembly was to not continue the work on the Additional protocol, and to consider proceeding by means of a more flexible instrument than a protocol, for example a recommendation, and one in full compliance with the UN interpretation of the UN CRPD.
Confidential study commissioned
The Secretariat of the Ministers’ Deputies following this commissioned a legal study to be done by prof. Andreas Zimmerman, from the Potsdam University in Berlin. The legal analysis or opinion of prof. Zimmerman was made available to the members of the Ministers’ Deputies Rapporteur Group, GR-H, on the 5th of May under the internal number GR-H(2026)9. The GR-H is an informal group within the Ministers’ Deputies structures, consisting of the permanent representatives or their deputies.
The analysis of the UN CRPD and the compatibility of the Additional protocol to it is classified as “restricted” and has not been made public to the relevant bodies in the UN nor to civil society. It could be described as a positioning document for ongoing Ministers’ Deputies negotiations rather than a full, balanced compatibility assessment.
The legal analysis or opinion frame what is politically “in play” and while it may not be stated openly it is meant to defend the possibility of a new Additional protocol to the Oviedo Convention, and well justifying how that would not conflict with international human rights law.
The analysis does not appropriately consider all required UN documents on the UN CRPD, specifically the authoritative guidance about the provisions of the UN CRPD by the international monitoring body of the convention (UN CRPD Committee). It also does not appropriately consider the widespread and uniform interpretation and support it has within the UN system issued in numerous Guidances and training material from the WHO, reports of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, and Resolutions from the UN Human Rights Council.
Prof. Zimmermann also did not take contact to the body empowered by the convention itself to interpret the UN CRPD: The UN CRPD Committee. The work was even kept secret from the UN Committee. And in contradiction to the interpretation of the relevant UN bodies the legal opinion of prof. Zimmermann conclude that the draft Additional Protocol cannot be regarded as being precluded by, or running counter to, the UN CRPD.
Opposing views lead to new revision
The Ministers’ Deputies Rapporteur Group, GR-H, met on 27 May for the final review of the draft Additional protocol. The views on it were widely opposing. No final decision could be made as the view of the Ministers’ Deputies representative were too diverse and incompatible. One thing however was abandonly clear, the drafted version of the Additional protocol would not be able to be approved as it was.
In view of the so-called compatibility analysis of prof. Zimmermann which argued that the concept of the Additional protocol, that persons in certain circumstances can be involuntary detained in psychiatry, is not incompatible with UN CRPD, three possible options were then considered by the GR-H:
1. Discontinue the process
2. Proceed on a lex lata basis pursuing a reality-based approach, reflecting the continued existence of the involuntary measures and the need to strengthen the strict human rights conditions under which they may be considered as a very last resort subject to the principle of legality, necessity, proportionality and effective procedural safeguards.
3. Develop an instrument pursuing a normative approach with a new draft aimed at prohibition of involuntary measures.
A quarter of the member states dictate the future of all
Representatives of five member states were in favour of option 1 and twelve representatives supported option 2. One member state expressed support for option 3. In other word less than half of the 46 member states’ representatives who has voting rights and who regularly participate in the GR-H meetings voted.
And the result is that the dozen countries, just 26% of the Council’s members, those that either does not consider the authorized interpretation of the UN CRPD or for other reasons hesitate thus could take action with reference to the confidential legal analysis of prof. Zimmermann that provide a justifiable way to disregard the UN interpretation of the UN CRPD and the paradigm shift it initiated. With this they then could dictate the future direction of the Council of Europe, which they envisioned as a revised Additional protocol.
The Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers was instructed to have the revised version of the draft Additional protocol prepared so it could be examined at the following GR-H meeting, scheduled for 7 July.
The revision was to be done by the Steering Committee for Human Rights in the Fields of Biomedicine and health (CDBIO), as the competent body. The predecessor of the CDBIO, the Bioethics Committee (DH-BIO) with largely similar functions and the monitoring of the Oviedo convention, had drafted the original version of the possibly new Additional protocol over a decade-long process.
The revision was to address the preamble and Article 1 only in order to clarify that the Additional protocol itself was not contrary to disability rights, and that the measures described therein were a last resort.
Revision of Additional protocol would still violate the UN CRPD
The request to write a limited revision would not make the Additional protocol compatible with the UN CRPD. The Secretariat, which included the technical assistance provided by Laurence Lwoff, who was the Secretary of the DH-BIO during the entire drafting process of the possible new Additional protocol, was well aware through numerous communications received from the UN that the concept of a Protocol that regulate the use of involuntary measures in psychiatry would never be able to be in line with the text and spirit of the UN CRPD.
That the revision text would state that one should have regards to the UN CRPD when invoking involuntary interventions, even as a measure of “last resort” only would still be fundamentally incompatible with the UN CRPD. To make an assertion to the contrary is not simple ignorance considering the extent and content of the UN CRPD communications provided to the Council of Europe over the years.
The UN CRPD Committee had addressed this matter repeatedly during the drafting process of the Additional protocol and in the course of the subsequent review process. The Committee even issued an eight-page statement as late as in January 2026 addressing the Council of Europe on it. The UN CRPD statement detailed that, “the draft Additional Protocol is fundamentally incompatible with the [UN CRPD] Convention, and in contradiction to this we note repeated assertions to the contrary by the CDBI since 2011.”
And the statement of January 2026 further lays out how “The draft Additional Protocol ignores both the letter and the spirit of the Convention. Although explicit reference is made to the Convention in the preamble to the draft Additional Protocol, the provisions are insufficient or conflict with the human rights standards for persons with disabilities enshrined in the Convention and developed by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”
Biomedical Committee meeting
The CDBIO met a few days after the GR-H meeting, and on the 2nd June was informed by the Secretariat on the discussions on the Additional protocol held at the Ministers’ Deputies level.
The Secretary of the CDBIO, Laurence Lwoff, told the European Times that the information on the discussion at the level of the Committee of Ministers were only for information purposes. She stressed that the CDBIO was not called upon for anything since the beginning (which dates back to 2011), nor since it submitted the draft Additional protocol to the Committee of Ministers in November 2021. She specified that nothing was sent back to the CDBIO for revision.
Tomáš Doležal, the Chair of the CDBIO in line with this informed the European Times on the 2nd July that the draft Additional protocol sent by the CDBIO to the Ministers’ Deputies “is now at the level of the Committee of Ministers for decision.”
What really happened in that CDBIO meeting may not be important, but it is noted that it caused some upset. Several members understood the briefing to imply more than just data “for your information, because you have drafted this original text that is now to be revised.”
The CDBIO as a committee thus did not get involved with the writing of the revised text for the possible new Additional protocol.
The Secretary of the CDBIO, Laurence Lwoff, did after the CDBIO meeting of June. Having worked on this matter since 2002 as part of the Secretariat of the Bioethics Committee in its various forms she is a prominent advocate for the need of the Additional protocol, holding the belief that it does not violate the UN CRPD. Her involvement in writing the revision text was done as part of the Secretariat formally through the technical procedures related to Council of Europe treaties.
UN CRPD Committee addressed the Committee of Ministers directly
The UN CRPD Committee in view of information that the Ministers’ Deputies still struggled with uncertainties then issued an Open letter to the Committee of Minister prior to its last meeting before the summer break. The UN CRPD Committee urged the Member States of the Council to oppose and withdraw the draft Additional Protocol and to uphold their human rights obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The UN CRPD Committee pointed out that the UN CRPD “prohibits involuntary placement and involuntary treatment of persons with disabilities on the basis of disability, without exceptions. Involuntary placement and involuntary treatment, whether as measures of last resort or subject to certain safeguards are still incompatible with the human rights model of disability set out in the UN CRPD, which prohibits coercion in mental health services.”
The draft Additional protocol, the UN CRPD Committee noted, is “inconsistent with the UN CRPD, and its adoption and implementation will render States parties to the UN CRPD, which are Member States to the Council of Europe in breach of their obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”
The UN CRPD letter was followed up by a unified call by civil society groups across disability and human rights organisations, mental health service providers and the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI). They demand that the Council of Europe definitively abandon the draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention on mental health care.
The groups are representing the interest of more than 100 million people in Europe, more than 50 National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) – the state-mandated bodies, independent of government, with a broad constitutional or legal mandate to protect and promote human rights at the national level. It also included the European Association of Service Providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD) representing over 20,000 services in over 46 different countries. They argued that the Additional protocol would solidify the use of coercion and forced treatment in psychiatry.
How do we proceed in the face of failed system
The Ministers’ Deputies Rapporteur Group, GR-H, met for a second round of discussions on 7th July, now with the revised draft of the Additional protocol, but also with a strong pressure with reiterated calls from the UN CRPD Committee and stakeholders within disability rights, human rights and service providers all opposing the adoption of the revised Additional protocol.
The discussion again was not smooth now with more member states demanding that the UN CRPD should be taken in to consideration for real seemingly with a general consensus in favour of the UN CRPD and civil society.
A few countries still hesitate. The full implementation of the paradigm shift initiated by the UN CRPD is not a short-range process and what do we do right here and now? There are valid concerns, yet, the coercive psychiatric system has failed. Increasingly scientific studies and accounts are evidencing that trauma, harm and even death is caused by involuntary commitment and involuntary treatment and other coercive measures in psychiatry. And there are no therapeutic benefits and a lack of clinical evidence supporting use of coercion and involuntary institutionalization.
The nationwide scientific study undertaken by the internationally renowned Swedish research centre the Karolinska Institute, found that of the 72.275 persons committed in the decade 2010-2020, 2.104 died by suicide – well above any other psychiatric services and 55 times the rate of the general population. This led to the conclusion that there is “an excess suicide risk among involuntary psychiatric care patients compared to other clinical populations”. Another nationwide study from Denmark comparing several years in two decades show that “committed patients, in spite of the commitment, constitute a high-risk group for suicide, also in relation to psychiatric patients in general.” And it was concluded that “Consequently, involuntary measures cannot be used as prevention, even if the suicide risk is high.”
Ministers’ Deputies Rapporteur Group, GR-H, still undecided
The revised Additional protocol text was not agreed upon by the member states at their 7 July meeting. The position is still stalled with opinions that does not allow for a common agreement.
The Chair of GR-H then proposed that the Secretariat encourage a dialogue with representatives of civil society and Representatives of the UN CRPD Committee with the aim of drafting a new text that all delegations may agree upon. This is then to be discussed at the next GR-H meeting on 10 September.
The Secretary of the GR-H however left for summer break without taking any contact to civil society. None of the main civil society groups engaged with the Council of Europe process, the European Disabilities Forum (EDF) and the Mental Health Europe (MHE) were contacted about the revised Additional protocol nor invited for discussion or consultation on it. The Conference of INGOs to the Council of Europe also did not receive anything.
It is now to be seen how the few member states that hesitated will react to the impossibility of continuing the revision process if the UN CRPD and international human rights law have to be actually considered in the spirit they were formulated and as they are interpreted by a unified UN system, something the majority of states in Europe seem to favour.
