TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP2 (Applicant): Quindi abbiamo l'articolo 5 della legge 40 del 2004 che stabilisce che non possono essere impiantati quando uno dei componenti, la coppia, è deceduto, quindi nel caso di specie la signora Parrillo non avrebbe potuto cedere al suo impianto, motivo per il quale si è determinata a donarli.
AP2 (Applicant): Non possono essere utilizzati per la ricerca scientifica, vietata appunto dall'articolo 13 che la sanziona penalmente, e sono destinati a rimanere crioconservati.
AP2 (Applicant): Riguardo le contraddittorietà, inutile tornare sul fatto che il nostro ordinamento prevede appunto che non possa essere utilizzato e distrutto un embrione, laddove invece riconosce il diritto della gestante di abortire sino al termine del terzo mese.
AP2 (Applicant): Codessa Corte è già entrata nel merito, ed ha riconosciuto che la legge ha delle contraddittorietà, con la sentenza Costa-Pavanne, nella quale, con riferimento all'esame diagnostico preimpianto, ha stabilito testualmente, è giocoforza constatare che in materia il sistema legislativo italiano manca di coerenza.
AP2 (Applicant): Da un lato, esso vieta l'impianto limitato ai soli embrioni, non effetti dalla malattia di cui i ricorrenti sono portatori sani, dall'altro autorizza i ricorrenti ad abortire un feto affetto da quella stessa patologia.
AP2 (Applicant): L'altra contraddittorietà è quella riguardo il fatto che, come ha messo sia dal Governo al paragrafo 75 della sua memoria che nell'intervento della professoressa Morresi, nel nostro ordinamento si possono importare cellule staminali embrionali prodotte all'estero.
AP2 (Applicant): Quindi, in estrema sintesi, in base alla nostra normativa, si possono distruggere gli embrioni purché ciò avvenga all'estero.
AP2 (Applicant): Mi soffermo ulteriormente su ciò che stabilisce il protocollo addizionale alla Convenzione di Oviedo sulla ricerca biomedica del 2005, che all'articolo 2 stabilisce testualmente che tutti i divieti all'attività di ricerca sugli umani non si applicano alla ricerca sugli embrioni in vitro.
AP2 (Applicant): Altro punto importante è quello di tenere conto che si tratta di embrioni in vitro, non di embrioni impiantati.
AP2 (Applicant): Così come la Corte Interamericana dei diritti dell'uomo, con sentenza del 20 dicembre 2012 resa nel caso Murillo e altri contro Costa Rica, ha stabilito testualmente che l'embrione non può essere inteso come persona agli effetti dell'articolo 4.1 della Convenzione americana,
AP2 (Applicant): in quanto il concepimento ai sensi dell'articolo 4.1 avviene dal momento in cui l'embrione
AP2 (Applicant): si impianta nell'utero, ragionque il cui, prima di quest'evento, non può aver luogo l'applicazione dell'articolo 4 della Convenzione.
AP2 (Applicant): A questo punto, nell'insistere affinché il ricorso venga accolto, passo la parola al professor Michele De Luca, professore universitario, tra i massimi esperti mondiali di ricerca sulle cellule staminali e direttore del Centro di Medicina Rigenerativa.
AP4 (Applicant): I will obviously address mainly scientific issues.
AP4 (Applicant): I'm not my role to get into this legal stuff that I barely understand, obviously.
AP4 (Applicant): But there are a few things I would like to say.
AP4 (Applicant): What is in vitro fertilization?
AP4 (Applicant): In vitro fertilization is the union of a sperm cell with the nocites.
AP4 (Applicant): And that give rise basically to a cluster of cells.
AP4 (Applicant): That's what is originating in in vitro fertilization.
AP4 (Applicant): Which is basically the same thing that occurs in vivo when you have natural fertilization.
AP4 (Applicant): Now this cluster of cells that are generating during vitro fertilization are not individuals.
AP4 (Applicant): Is a cluster of cells.
AP4 (Applicant): And they are all identical.
AP4 (Applicant): Each other.
AP4 (Applicant): They are all alike.
AP4 (Applicant): They are not specialized.
AP4 (Applicant): This is not the heart, a leg, a trunk, a brain, or a heart.
AP4 (Applicant): Is a group of cells.
AP4 (Applicant): Those are the embryonic stem cells.
AP4 (Applicant): So what is called the in vitro embryo?
AP4 (Applicant): It is basically a group of pluripotent stem cells.
AP4 (Applicant): That have the potentiality of becoming a fetus or a human being after implantation in the universe.
AP4 (Applicant): But you can easily judge this by yourself because you can freeze down a cluster of cells.
AP4 (Applicant): We do this all the time in the lab.
AP4 (Applicant): But try to freeze down a human being or to freeze down a fetus.
AP4 (Applicant): It is not possible.
AP4 (Applicant): And in fact actually what has been said that there is a difference between the embryo and the embryonic cell lines that are derived from the embryo.
AP4 (Applicant): It is basically not true because the embryo in vitro embryo itself is a cluster of cells.
AP4 (Applicant): Each of these cells have the potentiality of becoming an embryo.
AP4 (Applicant): This has been shown in animals and recently has been also shown that you can take one of these embryonic stem cells and make another cluster of embryonic stem cells.
AP4 (Applicant): Therefore what we are talking about is embryonic stem cells which are not different from the embryo.
AP4 (Applicant): They are the embryo that we are talking about.
AP4 (Applicant): Which is not an individual.
AP4 (Applicant): It becomes an individual only after implantation and only after development.
AP4 (Applicant): Become then a fetus and then a human being.
AP4 (Applicant): And this is true for each of these all alike identical clusters of cells that we have in vitro.
AP4 (Applicant): Now are these cells useful?
AP4 (Applicant): These cells are tremendously useful because the embryonic stem cells, and I'm not working with them so I have no interest in working with embryonic stem cells.
AP4 (Applicant): I'm working with different cells.
AP4 (Applicant): But I can tell you that embryonic stem cells are essential for research because those are the only pluripotent stem cells we have in nature and they're the only cells that in principle can make tissues.
AP4 (Applicant): Then can help people with severe invalidating or deadly disease.
AP4 (Applicant): As a matter of fact, there are clinical trials done by excellent scientists, not by quacks, by excellent scientists like Lawrence Studer, by Anders Bjorklund.
AP4 (Applicant): They are using in clinical phase one and two clinical trials those embryonic stem cells derived tissues for spinal cord injury, for retina disease, and for Parkinson's.
AP4 (Applicant): And if we don't do research, basic research, we will never be able to show that those cells would help many people with untreatable disease.
AP4 (Applicant): This is why the donation of embryos or I call it better clusters of cells that are frozen down and they will lose viability by definition is crucial, is important.
AP4 (Applicant): Because only with the donation and with the science we can go to those clinical trials that eventually will show one day that it is useful for clinical benefit for the entire world population.
AP4 (Applicant): It is what people are doing in countries where this is allowed.
AP4 (Applicant): And I tell you more, there is this possibility of getting pluripotent embryonic, embryonic cell-like stem cells from in vitro reprogramming.
AP4 (Applicant): It's the famous IPS or the Yamanaka protocol.
AP4 (Applicant): Of course this is important.
AP4 (Applicant): This is important for one specific reason, because those cells would be autologous, would be made by cells from the same patients.
AP4 (Applicant): But we will never know whether those cells can be used at the clinical level, can do the same tissues, can do the same job that an embryonic stem cell, a natural embryonic stem cell can do if we cannot work on the embryonic stem cells, if we cannot compare those embryonic stem cells with the IPS.
AP4 (Applicant): And only research will tell this.
AP4 (Applicant): That's why donation is important.
AP4 (Applicant): Donation which is allowed in many other countries other than Italy and a few others.
AP4 (Applicant): I heard somebody speaking about respect.
AP4 (Applicant): Now in your mind, what is more respectful for a cluster of cells that is frozen down and has never been used, will never be used?
AP4 (Applicant): It is true that we don't know officially what will be the cell viability in the long term.
AP4 (Applicant): We need to do this.
AP4 (Applicant): It is a matter of research.
AP4 (Applicant): If we don't touch this, we will never know how long it will be viable in the liquid nitrogen.
AP4 (Applicant): But the current tendency of most of the people that do in vitro fertilization is that they will not use it anyway after a certain number of months or years that it has been frozen.
AP4 (Applicant): So respect.
AP4 (Applicant): What is more respectable for a cluster of cells, not a human being, a cluster of cells, assuming that the cluster of cells need respect, what is more respectful for a cluster of cells?
AP4 (Applicant): To let them lose viability slowly and progressively during years.
AP4 (Applicant): And don't use them.
AP4 (Applicant): Just leave it then.
AP4 (Applicant): They are then at a certain point, 20 years later, take and put in the sink.
AP4 (Applicant): Or to use them to do something that can be useful for the entire population of people, for all the people with the macular dystrophy, all the people with Parkinson's, all the people that could benefit from the research.
AP4 (Applicant): I don't know what is more respectable.
AP4 (Applicant): So I just want to point out just two things that have been already said, so it will be very brief.
AP4 (Applicant): Think about it.
AP4 (Applicant): Parillo cannot, in any case by our law, cannot implant the embryo in his uterus.
AP4 (Applicant): What has been suggested that she could donate this embryo to a third party, to people that cannot generate procreate.
AP4 (Applicant): If she does that, in principle, that couple could make abortion three months later and decide to kill the fetus.
AP4 (Applicant): But Parillo cannot donate the cluster of cells to do a fundamental research for all the human beings, for all the humanity.
AP4 (Applicant): But as scientists in Italy, it is not true that in Italy we cannot make research on embryonic stem cells.
AP4 (Applicant): We can make it as long as the embryo, from where the cells are derived, is not produced in our country.
AP4 (Applicant): I don't know what the logic of this.
AP4 (Applicant): What is a Danish or a Swedish embryo needs less respect than an Italian embryo.
AP4 (Applicant): But we can do, because any embryonic stem cells must come from an embryo.
AP4 (Applicant): So if I can take an embryonic stem cell coming from a Swedish embryo or English embryo, I can use it.
AP4 (Applicant): This is basically nonsense.
AP4 (Applicant): I'm going to stop there.
AP3 (Applicant): Mi collego a quanto detto dal professor De Luca, che ringrazio molto per il suo intervento di grandissimo interesse, per parlare della recentissima decisione della Commissione europea del 28 maggio scorso, con la quale è stata rigettata l'iniziativa dei cittadini europei, denominata Uno di noi.
AP3 (Applicant): Iniziativa che chiedeva all'Unione europea di introdurre un divieto e porre fine al finanziamento di attività presupponenti la distruzione di embrioni umani.
AP3 (Applicant): Ebbene, la Commissione europea con tale decisione in primo luogo ha affermato dei principi, ha dimostrato l'erroneità, questa decisione dimostra l'erroneità di quanto ha sostenuto il Governo italiano nella sua memoria, in relazione alla sentenza della Corte di giustizia, la nota sentenza nel caso Brustle, contro Greenpeace, nella quale secondo il Governo italiano si sarebbe affermato un divieto di ricerca scientifica che utilizzi gli embrioni umani.
AP3 (Applicant): La Commissione invece afferma nella sua decisione, l'ha cito testualmente, la cosiddetta sentenza Brustle della Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea dichiara che la direttiva Biotech non è intesa a disciplinare l'utilizzazione di embrioni umani nell'ambito di ricerche scientifiche, essa ha ad oggetto esclusivamente la brevettabilità delle invenzioni biotecnologiche.
AP3 (Applicant): La sentenza non verte sulla possibilità di fare ricerca in questo ambito né sul relativo finanziamento.
AP3 (Applicant): E in effetti la sentenza della Corte di giustizia, affermando il divieto di brevettabilità dei risultati della ricerca scientifica sugli embrioni in quanto ciò implicherebbe un loro sfruttamento industriale e commerciale, ammette che tale ricerca possa essere fatta, poiché come ovvio per esserci un risultato vi deve essere una ricerca.
AP3 (Applicant): In secondo luogo, la decisione della Commissione europea del 28 maggio scorso definitivamente chiarisce che la ricerca scientifica che utilizzi gli embrioni umani è libera e sono vietate esclusivamente tre attività di ricerca, anche qui cito testualmente l'attività di ricerca vietate sono quelle finalizzate alla clonazione umana a fini riproduttivi, le attività di ricerca volte a modificare il patrimonio genetico degli esseri umani che potrebbero rendere ereditabili tali modifiche e le attività di ricerca volte a creare embrioni umani soltanto a fin di ricerca o per l'approvvigionamento di cellule staminali.
AP3 (Applicant): In terzo luogo, la Commissione europea nella medesima decisione del 28 maggio scorso ha sottolineato l'importanza fondamentale della ricerca scientifica sulle cellule staminali e embrionali che si ricorda è stata finanziata dall'Unione europea e viene effettuata nella stragrande maggioranza degli Stati membri, inizialmente in base al settimo programma quadro e ora in base al programma Orizzonte 2000. La Commissione ha affermato testualmente
AP3 (Applicant): in questa decisione che la ricerca sulle cellule staminali e embrionali umane può potenzialmente contribuire alla prossima generazione di trattamenti sanitari sotto forma di cure o possibilità di cura per malattie incurabili e o letali come il morbo di Parkinson, il diabete, l'ictus, le malattie cardiache e la cecità. Questo l'ha ricordato giustamente anche in maniera
AP3 (Applicant): egregia il professor De Luca. E quindi occorre che venga riconosciuto il diritto della ricorrente
AP3 (Applicant): a donare i propri embrioni a un laboratorio italiano che già effettua la ricerca sulle cellule staminali e embrionali importate dall'estero e che li possa utilizzare per tale ricerca.
AP3 (Applicant): Grazie.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup pour vos développements.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je me tourne maintenant vers mes collègues pour demander s'il y a des questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Alors, la juge Keller.
Helen Keller (Judge): I have a question to the representative of the applicant, in particular to Maître Paoletti.
Helen Keller (Judge): Did I understand the facts correctly that our applicant never asked for an in vitro fertilization after her partner has died?
Helen Keller (Judge): Did I understand it correctly that she never wished to pursue the pregnancy because she didn't want to become a single mother?
Helen Keller (Judge): My second question concerns also the applicant.
Helen Keller (Judge): Did the applicant receive, before she went into in vitro fertilization treatment, a contract by the hospital in which she was informed about the fact that the embryos created by in vitro fertilization could only be used for the fertilization, but not for anything else?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup, le juge Casadevall.
Josep Casadevall (Judge): Merci, M. le Président.
Josep Casadevall (Judge): Je m'adresse aux deux parties pour leur demander si pourrait-elle nous donner son point de vue sur deux aspects moins scientifiques et plus techniques pour moi.
Josep Casadevall (Judge): Le premier étant, quel est votre point de vue sur l'applicabilité de l'article 8 de la Convention au fait de l'affaire qui est présente devant nous.
Josep Casadevall (Judge): Et le deuxième point, d'une certaine façon lié au premier, sur la qualité des victimes de la requérante.
Josep Casadevall (Judge): Merci.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup, juge Sajó.
András Sajó (Judge): My questions are partly overlapping the questions which were already raised.
András Sajó (Judge): My first question is, what was the legal system applicable in 2003 when the embryos were created concerning conservation and, in particular, research in Italy?
András Sajó (Judge): Secondly, it is argued by government that embryo is life.
András Sajó (Judge): My question is this, assuming that you are right and this is life, is it a life comparable to that of the fetus?
András Sajó (Judge): Is the in vitro embryo that was called a cluster of cells by Professor De Luca, is this entity, a person, in view of Italian law, having regard to the position of the Constitutional Court which said in 75, "persona che deve ancora diventare"?
András Sajó (Judge): To the applicants, if I understand correctly, the in vitro entity is 11 years old.
András Sajó (Judge): Is there any research advantage to use these cells for research purposes given the age and given the doubts expressed?
András Sajó (Judge): To the government, is an Italian scientist subject to criminal prosecution if he or she carries out research abroad on in vitro embryo?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci, juge Sajó et la juge Karakaş.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Oui, merci, Monsieur le Président.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): J'aimerais que le gouvernement clarifie le but légitime de l'interdiction de l'article 13 de la loi 40 2004, tout en considérant que les laboratoires peuvent pratiquer des recherches sur les lignes embryonnaires importées de l'étranger, donc après la destruction de ces embryons.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): D'après cela, j'ai une question plus simple.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Est-ce qu'il y a une interdiction de destruction des embryons?
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Ça, on le sait, mais que devient-il s'il existe une interdiction?
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Alors, est-ce que les institutions gardent à l'infini?
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): C'est ma deuxième question. Merci beaucoup.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup, la juge Yudkivska.
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): I have one question to the representative of the applicants.
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): It's a factual question.
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): Is the applicant obliged to maintain contacts with the embryo storage bank whilst her embryos are cryopreserved?
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): For instance, should she still pay for cryopreservation of her embryo?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup, le juge Pinto de Albuquerque.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): This question goes to the government.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): I would like to know if there is any available data on the number of sterile couples who have benefited from fertilization with cryopreserved embryos of third couples who did not want to become parents.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): Do we have already any available data on these third couples who have benefited from this possibility?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup, le juge Vučinić.
Nebojša Vučinić (Judge): Thank you, Mr. President.
Nebojša Vučinić (Judge): I have two questions for both parties.
Nebojša Vučinić (Judge): As we saw from hearing, the main purpose and object of the law from 2004 is to protect the life of the embryo.
Nebojša Vučinić (Judge): In this context, is there any, I would say, internal inconsistency or contradiction concerning this main object of the law?
Nebojša Vučinić (Judge): I mean, in any case, embryo will be extinct, will be perished after the lapse of some time.
Nebojša Vučinić (Judge): Or more precisely, whether the holding embryo in cryopreserved status on the temperature absolute zero amounts also some sort of scientific experiment.
Nebojša Vučinić (Judge): And the second question is whether the prohibition of scientific research is motivated by other reason, not only to protect the life of the embryo.
Nebojša Vučinić (Judge): Thank you.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup, la juge Ann Power-Forde.
Ann Power-Forde (Judge): Thank you, President.
Ann Power-Forde (Judge): My question is of a philosophical nature, and I would like both parties to comment on the philosophical underpinnings of each other's submissions.
Ann Power-Forde (Judge): If I understand correctly, the submission of the government is founded upon a philosophical understanding of the embryo as a value in itself under Italian law, that the embryo is the subject of rights or is a value in itself, an end in itself.
Ann Power-Forde (Judge): And if I understand correctly, the submissions of the applicant, the embryo, or as Professor De Luca has put it, may be seen as a cluster of cells, that this entity, this embryo or cluster of cells, may become a value for others.
Ann Power-Forde (Judge): So not necessarily an end in itself, but perhaps a means towards some other end.
Ann Power-Forde (Judge): And you mentioned some of the types of research and benefits that can accrue from the research on embryos.
Ann Power-Forde (Judge): So I would like each side to consider the philosophical underpinning in terms of value, means end, and comment on the correlation of each party's position with the rights protected under Article 8 of the Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): J'aurais aussi une question qui rejoint celle qui a été posée par la juge Karakaş et qui concerne le gouvernement au regard de l'article 8 de la convention, paragraphe 2.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Au paragraphe 73 des observations du mémoire du gouvernement du 28 mars 2014, vous mentionnez, au titre du but légitime, celui de protéger la vie des embryons.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Au regard de la terminologie, au regard de l'article 8, paragraphe 2, sous quelle rubrique des limitations est-ce que vous classeriez cette justification?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Et au niveau de la question de la proportionnalité aussi, si vous pourriez développer votre argumentation qui est mentionnée au paragraphe 73 de votre mémoire.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Voilà.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): S'il n'y a pas d'autres questions, je propose qu'on se revoie à 10 h 45.
GR1 (Government): Donc, je voudrais avant tout bien définir l'EG de l'examen de la Cour.
GR1 (Government): Je voudrais attirer l'attention sur les faits qu'aujourd'hui, la Cour n'est pas appelée à trancher des problèmes scientifiques, c'est-à-dire, elle ne doit pas dire qu'elle, théoriquement scientifique, doit avoir plus de crédits.
GR1 (Government): Et donc, il faut vraiment se concentrer sur les problèmes, qui est la cohérence du système.
GR1 (Government): Je rappelle que la Cour a déjà déclaré irrécevable la requête pour ce qui concerne les champs d'application de l'article 10 de la Convention.
GR1 (Government): Bon, en même temps, je réponds à la dernière question, qui était celle posée du président.
GR1 (Government): Et particulièrement, elle a été adressée à la défense du gouvernement italien.
GR1 (Government): Je dis, à part l'expression employée, je dois dire que les mémoires déposées en avril dernier n'étaient pas rédigées par moi.
GR1 (Government): J'étais chargée au dernier moment de la défense de l'affaire.
GR1 (Government): Donc, c'est seulement cette partie dernière.
GR1 (Government): Mais à part les problèmes employés, la ligne 7, celle-ci, en rapport à la question de la protection accordée par le système juridique italien, à l'embryon, si le commun le considère.
GR1 (Government): Bon, il s'agit d'une protection en fonction de sa potentialité.
GR1 (Government): Si on regarde même les problèmes, la loi numéro 40, et la ligne directrice, c'est la potentialité des vies qu'a en soi l'embryon.
GR1 (Government): Il s'agit d'un embryon humain.
GR1 (Government): Donc, sa naturelle destination est serrée de devenir une vie.
GR1 (Government): Le système italien fait le choix d'accorder cette protection en fonction de leur vie.
GR1 (Government): Cette précision permet même d'aborder une question qui ressort de l'intervention du professeur De Luca, que, franchement, j'ai bien appréciée.
GR1 (Government): Alors, il dit, mais il serait hypocrite d'utiliser des lignes cellulaires.
GR1 (Government): Je précise maintenant qu'il s'agit des lignes cellulaires, des cellules souches, je crois.