TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): Les mots précis, c'est pas exactement l'embryon, des cellules qui sont dérivées des embryons qui ont perdu leur potentialité de vie.
GR1 (Government): Quand on utilise ces cellules souches.
GR1 (Government): Alors, il dit, mais ça serait hypocrite parce qu'on permet de faire la recherche sur les cellules souches.
GR1 (Government): Mais je dis, alors, si on protège la potentialité des vies, et ça, c'est le choix, dans le sens du choix dans lequel va l'ordre juridique italien, alors si on utilise les cellules souches, on n'est pas en contradiction avec cette direction, c'est-à-dire de protéger la potentialité des vies.
GR1 (Government): Lorsque les cellules souches sont désormais des cellules qui ont des potentialités énormes de se développer, mais jamais elles pourraient donner origine à l'être humain.
GR1 (Government): Bien sûr, l'ordre juridique considère la différence, les différentes tapes de ce développement de la vie.
GR1 (Government): Et donc, la protection accordée est différente.
GR1 (Government): En vue de cette potentialité de développement, on peut parler de protection ou de recherche.
GR1 (Government): On peut parler de protection ou de respect.
GR1 (Government): Mais après, quand il y a la grossesse, alors la question change, parce qu'il y a même à comparer la situation de la mère, l'intérêt de la mère, la future mère, et de l'être qui va naître et qui sera une fois né, il sera sûrement un sujet de droit à plein titre.
GR1 (Government): On peut même prévoir que déjà, celui qui va naître peut être, je dis, entre guillemets, sujet.
GR1 (Government): Mais tout est...
GR1 (Government): Il s'agit d'une situation en attendant l'avènement de la naissance qui est protégée.
GR1 (Government): Mais elle sera définitivement acquise seulement quand il aura la naissance.
GR1 (Government): Donc, c'est une ordre juridique qui se passe, se bouche les yeux sur les problèmes de différentes étapes du développement de la vie humaine.
GR1 (Government): Pour ce qui concerne les embryons, son choix est de protéger la potentialité des vies.
GR1 (Government): C'est pour ça qu'utiliser des cellules souches pour la recherche, c'est autre chose, qu'utiliser un embryon dont on doit supprimer la potentialité des vies humaines.
GR1 (Government): C'est dans le point de vue de l'État.
GR1 (Government): C'est très, très différent.
GR1 (Government): Je viens maintenant à une question qui a été posée.
GR1 (Government): Elle regarde l'article...
GR1 (Government): Elle regarde, au gouvernement italien, les champs d'application de l'article 8.
GR1 (Government): Comment il les considère?
GR1 (Government): Bon, auparavant, je dis qu'en effet, le premier protocole doit être exclu.
GR1 (Government): Avec quelques efforts, on pourrait considérer les champs d'application de l'article 8 seulement de façon indirecte.
GR1 (Government): C'est-à-dire, lorsque la récréante avait ses projets de se faire une famille avec son compagnon, et malheureusement, son compagnon est décédé, d'un certain côté, ça est lié à ses projets qui ont échoué.
GR1 (Government): Mais c'est seulement dans un sens indirect.
GR1 (Government): Ce que je doute vraiment, et en répondant à la question qui a été expressement posée, je vais vous faire connaître mes doutes, c'est en effet de la qualité des victimes.
GR1 (Government): Mais pourquoi?
GR1 (Government): Si nous examinons comment s'est passée la chose, nous voyons que la récréante s'était soumise à des pratiques de procréation médicalement assistée en 2002.
GR1 (Government): Malheureusement, en 2003, elle a perdu son compagnon.
GR1 (Government): Jusqu'en 2004, c'est-à-dire jusqu'en mars 2004, avant l'entrée en vigueur de la loi numéro 40, elle pouvait en effet donner ses embryons à la recherche parce qu'il n'y avait pas une situation réglée en Italie sur ces sujets.
GR1 (Government): Elle ne l'a pas fait, on peut dire que c'est un choix qui doit mourir.
GR1 (Government): Si on l'a fait d'emblée tout de suite après cet événement terrible, on peut l'accepter.
GR1 (Government): Mais moi, j'attire l'attention sur l'effet qu'avant le recours à la cour, c'est-à-dire en 2011, la partie récréante n'a rien fait pour manifester son désir de donner ses embryons à la recherche.
GR1 (Government): Moi, je dis enfin, je laisse la parole à mon collègue qui va parler des autres aspects.
GR1 (Government): Mais j'insiste que nous sommes appelés à évaluer si nous voulons vraiment aller au fond de l'affaire parce qu'il y a des considérations qui pourraient arrêter l'examen à la phase de la récevabilité.
GR1 (Government): Parce que si nous avons vu, donc, il ne s'agit pas de voir la liberté de la recherche scientifique parce que la récréante n'est pas porteuse de cet intérêt directement, mais elle a seulement ses désirs.
GR1 (Government): Donc, la difficulté même de les lier à la ville, à le champ d'application de l'article 8, on pourrait bien conclure, pour la récevabilité de la requête.
GR1 (Government): Mais enfin, si la cour désirait trancher l'affaire dans les fonds, il faut vraiment considérer que l'OG c'est lui.
GR1 (Government): La cohérence avec les choix de l'Italie dans lesquels elle a un plein marge d'appréciation, comme je venais de le rappeler, sur la base de la jurisprudence de la cour.
GR1 (Government): Si ce choix est cohérent, il faut s'arrêter à ça.
GR1 (Government): Il faut se rappeler qu'il n'y a pas une notion médicale sur la nature de l'embryon précis de laquelle les travaux préparatoires sont partis, sans doute pour arriver, celle qui était une solution des compromis dans des différentes opinions.
GR1 (Government): Mais le choix de privilégier la potentialité des vies de l'embryon, ça constitue un but légitime auquel le gouvernement italien peut attendre.
GR1 (Government): Je rappelle aussi que les situations de point de vue de la protection juridique de l'embryon, du fœtus et de l'enfant né, elles sont bien différentes, mais elles ne sont pas en contradiction avec cette protection que l'ordre juridique italien, à présent, va accorder à l'embryon dans ses potentialités de vie.
GR1 (Government): Merci beaucoup, c'était un plaisir.
GR2 (Government): Good morning, Mr. President.
GR2 (Government): Good morning, Mrs. and Mr. Judges.
GR2 (Government): I've heard with great interest the intervention of Professor DeLuca before.
GR2 (Government): He made us a very interesting lesson about regenerative medicine.
GR2 (Government): He discussed about whether embryos shall be considered or not individuals.
GR2 (Government): He tried to demonstrate us that cell lines taken by embryos are fundamental for the scientific research.
GR2 (Government): This is very interesting.
GR2 (Government): But here, now, we are not discussing about the question whether the scientific research shall be protected or not in Italy.
GR2 (Government): We are discussing about something different.
GR2 (Government): The discussion today is whether the rights protected by the applicants, protected by Article 1 of Protocol 1 and by Article 8 of the Convention have been violated or not.
GR2 (Government): Nevertheless, I see from some question made by the court before that there is still some need to clear again, which is the difference between embryos and cell lines.
GR2 (Government): I hope to try.
GR2 (Government): I try to be as clear as possible.
GR2 (Government): I want to point out that the scientific research is made with cell lines.
GR2 (Government): It's not made on embryos.
GR2 (Government): To produce cell lines, the destruction of an embryo is needed because cell lines are taken by embryos.
GR2 (Government): Once a cell line has been produced, the cell line may be reproduced without any limit.
GR2 (Government): It reproduces automatically without any limitation.
GR2 (Government): So we have thousands and thousands and thousands of cell lines.
GR2 (Government): I beg the professors if my technical language is not very precise.
GR2 (Government): In Italy, the research on cell lines is allowed.
GR2 (Government): We do make research on cell lines.
GR2 (Government): The research is made using cell lines produced abroad, produced in those countries where it's permitted to take cell lines from an embryo.
GR2 (Government): But this could seem incoherent.
GR2 (Government): And that's why I have to point out one thing more.
GR2 (Government): The production of these cell lines used for research in Italy is not made on request of the Italian authorities or of the Italian scientists.
GR2 (Government): Cell lines are available for the scientific community all over the world whenever they are produced.
GR2 (Government): So if cell lines are produced by destroying an embryo in the country X, all the scientists of any other country of the world may have access to these cell lines and use it for the research.
GR2 (Government): So this means that there is never a request from the Italian authorities to destroy embryos to produce cell lines for scientific research.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Monsieur Mauro Pellegrini, votre temps de parole est déjà largement expiré.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Donc je vous prie peut-être de conclure.
GR2 (Government): I said this because there were two questions, as far as I remember, made by Judge Caracas and Judge Bucinich.
GR2 (Government): That is to say, which are the aim pursued by Article 13 of the Italian legislation, Law 40 of 2004?
GR2 (Government): Well, the aim of the law is not to protect the embryo as it is.
GR2 (Government): The aim is to protect the embryo in relation to its potentiality to become a human being.
GR2 (Government): The potentiality.
GR2 (Government): The applicant tries to convince us that the destiny of cryopreserved embryos is the extinction.
GR2 (Government): This is not true.
GR2 (Government): Since 2005, as already my colleague said before, the National Committee for Bioethics posed a problem of the destiny of the embryos cryopreserved and never more used by the couple who generated them.
GR2 (Government): The solution proposed in 2005 by this committee was the so-called adoption for birth.
GR2 (Government): That is to say, the possibility of using this embryos, cryoconserved, for procreation of infertile couples.
GR2 (Government): This possibility, so this solution, has now became a reality.
GR2 (Government): Since last week, there is this very important judgment made by the Constitutional Italian Court, which established that from now on it's possible in Italy the non-partner fertilization.
GR2 (Government): That is to say that the possibility of using this cryopreserved embryos for use of fertilization of couple non-fertile for procreation, sorry, for non-fertile couples is now a reality.
GR2 (Government): This is the legitimate scope pursued by Article 13 of Law 40 of 2004.
GR2 (Government): And this is the answer that we can give to the question number two of the Court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Monsieur Mauro Pellegrini, je dois encore une fois vous rendre attentif que vous avez déjà dépassé le temps imparti.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Vous êtes à 20 minutes. Normalement, c'est 10 minutes. Il y a eu des questions, c'est vrai, mais je vous prie de conclure.
GR2 (Government): If you want, I have to answer to some question already made by the court.
GR2 (Government): I try to do it briefly.
GR2 (Government): What happened before 2004?
GR2 (Government): Before 2004, there was no legislation in force concerning this matter in Italy.
GR2 (Government): This matter was unregulated.
GR2 (Government): So no rules, no monitoring.
GR2 (Government): There was a far west.
GR2 (Government): What else?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Monsieur Mahwapedi, je dois vous arrêter malheureusement maintenant parce que le temps est expiré largement et je donne la parole au requérant.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): 20 minutes pour vous également, puisque le gouvernement a pu répliquer pendant 20 minutes, donc vous aurez 20 minutes pour faire vos développements.
AP4 (Applicant): Well, I try to be very, very short, OK?
AP4 (Applicant): Because the time will be very, because there will be lots of issues.
AP4 (Applicant): That the embryonic stem cell lines are different from the embryo is simply not correct.
AP4 (Applicant): Because the embryo, the in vitro fertilized embryo, is a cluster of cells, right?
AP4 (Applicant): And if you take out one of these, you make a line, that's an ES cell line.
AP4 (Applicant): Each of these cells has the potentiality to become a human being.
AP4 (Applicant): As has been shown in a recent paper in Nature, where people have taken the in vitro fertilized cells, took one of the cells, and developed independently as something that could become a human being.
AP4 (Applicant): Therefore, you have to destroy so-called a cluster of cells to make an ES cell line.
AP4 (Applicant): And if you do this in Switzerland, in England, or in Sweden, you can take the cells and use it in Italy.
AP4 (Applicant): But you cannot use the embryos in Italy.
AP4 (Applicant): This is inconsistent, in my opinion.
AP4 (Applicant): Donation to a third party.
AP4 (Applicant): In the case, specifically in the case of Parillo, the heterologous donation become available since a few months.
AP4 (Applicant): At the time where the in vitro fertilization was done, all the tests that are needed for a donor to give rise to an embryonic stem cell to donate it to somebody were not done.
AP4 (Applicant): Because for the autologous in vitro fertilization, they are not requested.
AP4 (Applicant): And therefore, in any case, Parillo cannot give its embryos to a third party.
AP4 (Applicant): So it's not possible to do it.
AP4 (Applicant): One question was, what's the difference between the embryo in terms of in vitro fertilization and the fetus?
AP4 (Applicant): There is a tremendous difference.
AP4 (Applicant): As I said at the beginning, the in vitro fertilization give rise to what is called an embryo, which is a cluster of cells which are identical to each other.
AP4 (Applicant): There are no difference between those cells.
AP4 (Applicant): There is no development of any tissue or any organs.
AP4 (Applicant): The fetus is something that is much more similar to a human being than a cluster of cells.
AP4 (Applicant): In the fetus, you can start to see feet, hand, trunk, probably a certain point the brain, and the heart.
AP4 (Applicant): So you cannot compare.
AP4 (Applicant): And in fact, you cannot freeze down a fetus.
AP4 (Applicant): But you can make abortion.
AP4 (Applicant): It's another inconsistency.
AP4 (Applicant): And you can make abortion not in the interest of the baby, so of the fetus.
AP4 (Applicant): You can make abortion in the interest of the mother that becomes, at that point, a patient.
AP4 (Applicant): The other question that was raised, also from one of you, was the meaning of life.
AP4 (Applicant): Well, if we go in the philosophy of the meaning of life, we can stay here for hours.
AP4 (Applicant): OK?
AP4 (Applicant): I would call these cells viable.
AP4 (Applicant): All the cells in our body are viable.
AP4 (Applicant): Even the embryonics themselves are viable.
AP4 (Applicant): Is life, from a philosophical point of view, I don't know.
AP4 (Applicant): What is true, though, and this is exactly what they said, is they have the potential to become alive.
AP4 (Applicant): This is out of question.
AP4 (Applicant): Think about what other cells have the potential to become alive in the sense of a human being.
AP4 (Applicant): The sperm cell, of course.
AP4 (Applicant): The oocyte, they have this potentiality.
AP4 (Applicant): You have to manipulate them.
AP4 (Applicant): You mix them together.
AP4 (Applicant): You make an in vitro fertilization.
AP4 (Applicant): They acquire the potentiality to become a human being.
AP4 (Applicant): You just have to implant in the uterus.
AP4 (Applicant): The same thing, it happens with the in vitro reprogramming, with the autologous IPS, the Yamanaka cells.
AP4 (Applicant): If you take a skin, for instance, cell, which is viable in vital, and you make another type of manipulation, which is different from the in vitro manipulation.
AP4 (Applicant): It's another type of manipulation.
AP4 (Applicant): You make exactly a pluripotent stem cell.
AP4 (Applicant): Embryonic-like.
AP4 (Applicant): Embryonic-like, they're not identical because in terms of the biology, there are differences that people should address very carefully.
AP4 (Applicant): But that cell implanted into a uterus will become a human being.
AP4 (Applicant): Therefore, also the IPS have the potentiality of becoming a human being and alive.
AP4 (Applicant): And if the IPS have the potentiality of becoming a human being in IPS, also my skin cell have the possibility and the potentiality to become a human being if manipulated and if implanted into uterus.
AP4 (Applicant): So all these cells, after manipulation, they have the potentiality of becoming life.
AP4 (Applicant): I can work on the adult cells, yes.
AP4 (Applicant): I can make science on the IPS, yes.
AP4 (Applicant): Can I work on, can I make research on the in vitro fertilization?
AP4 (Applicant): No.
AP4 (Applicant): This is inconsistent because all of them have the potentiality to become life.
AP4 (Applicant): In the case of parrillo, in the case of many of these donated or sovereign numerare embryonic or embryos that are in the fridge, that are frozen down, in practical terms, because nobody's going to insert in the uterus of any woman one of these embryos that are there for four or five years or whatever.
AP4 (Applicant): What is the potentiality of this cluster of cells that are in the fridge?
AP4 (Applicant): They have two potentiality.
AP4 (Applicant): One is to lose their viability with time.
AP4 (Applicant): Or even if they don't lose, they can stay alive, whatever, or viable forever.
AP4 (Applicant): So we finally got immortality.
AP4 (Applicant): But they would never be used for anything.
AP4 (Applicant): They just lay down in the fridge.
AP4 (Applicant): Or the other potentiality of those cells is to make research to find out a way to help all the humanity to find a solution for a certain number of disease, like other countries are doing this.
AP4 (Applicant): It is true that we have cell lines all around the world because we are still in a situation of research.
AP4 (Applicant): But the moment those cells will become really useful from a clinical point of view, as Lawrence Studer, Bjorklund, and other people are showing around the world, we will need that.
AP4 (Applicant): We will need to develop this in each country to help our people with the Parkinson's disease, our people with retinal blindness.
AP4 (Applicant): And therefore, we need to have access to this and to use as a donation those embryos.
AP4 (Applicant): I'm not talking about making embryo on purpose.
AP4 (Applicant): I'm not talking about this, even though you could do this for therapeutic cloning.
AP4 (Applicant): But forget about it.
AP4 (Applicant): I'm talking about those embryos that are lying down in the fridge and can be, should be donated for research.
AP4 (Applicant): Because the potentiality, I said again, the potentiality of those specific embryonic stem cells, a cluster of cells, is either to die out during time and never be used for any reason, or to be used to do research and science that can be useful for the entire community.
AP4 (Applicant): Avoid this, not allowing donation in my mind.
AP4 (Applicant): Paton is wrong, but it's not ethical.
AP4 (Applicant): It goes against the human rights, from my point of view.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci, professeur De Luca.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Est-ce qu'il y a quelqu'un d'autre qui veut encore prendre la parole?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ou non, la requérente?
AP2 (Applicant): Presidente, volevo rispondere alla domanda riguardante il fatto se la ricorrente aveva scelto di non avere impiantati gli embrioni per non essere una madre singola. In realtà i tempi in cui sono avvenute le cose non le hanno
AP2 (Applicant): proprio permesso neanche di prendere in considerazione questa scelta.
AP2 (Applicant): Il compagno della ricorrente è morto nell'attentato a Nassiria presso la base italiana che è avvenuto il 12 novembre 2003. La legge del 19 febbraio 2004 è
AP2 (Applicant): entrata in vigore il 10 marzo, quindi sono intercorsi meno di quattro mesi tra la morte del compagno e l'entrata in vigore della legge che le vietava tale eventuale impianto, quindi non è stata proprio presa in considerazione.
AP2 (Applicant): Colgo l'occasione, visto che si tratta di questioni temporali, di precisare una cosa riguardo la risposta del centro dove sono crioconservati gli embrioni riguardo il fatto che non possono essere utilizzati, risposta successiva alla proposizione del ricorso. In realtà è una mera formalità, l'avremmo anche
AP2 (Applicant): potuta non produrre, abbia stata formalizzata una risposta scritta a quella che era stata un'istanza orale e comunque c'era una legge che precludeva il tutto. Grazie.
AP1 (Applicant): Vorrei rispondere alla domanda se esisteva un contratto o meno fra il ricorrente e il centro che ha effettuato la fecondazione assistita.
AP1 (Applicant): A quell'epoca in effetti non era entrata ancora in vigore la legge 40 e quindi tutto questo, l'eventuale contratto non c'è stato, c'è stato un accordo di tipo medico per effettuare questa fecondazione assistita che era libera a quell'epoca, come era libera anche la ricerca scientifica sugli embrioni.
AP1 (Applicant): La domanda conteneva anche un'altra richiesta, cioè la signora è sottoposta a un pagamento, attualmente non paga, non ha mai pagato, però proprio in questi periodi molti centri che hanno presso di loro gli embrioni priori conservati stanno chiedendo, mettendo fatture e chiedendo pagamento ai titolari di questi embrioni e quindi potenzialmente la ricorrente potrebbe essere debitrice di questo centro.
AP1 (Applicant): Attualmente però non ne è stata fatta alcuna richiesta di pagamento.
AP1 (Applicant): Per quanto riguarda la normativa precedente al 2003, l'ha già detto anche il Governo, c'era massima libertà, non c'era nessuna limitazione e successivamente con la legge 40 sono intervenute tutte le varie limitazioni che sono state in gran parte eliminate dall'ordinamento giuridico con la decisione della Corte Costituzionale.
AP1 (Applicant): È rimasta ancora la possibilità di donare gli embrioni per la ricerca scientifica, ma qualcosa è pendente di fronte alla Corte Costituzionale e, come ho detto all'inizio, è stata rinviata l'udienza che era stata fissata per l'8 aprile proprio in attesa della vostra decisione.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Est-ce qu'il y a encore des...
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): La requérante veut encore faire d'autres développements ou vous avez terminé?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Vous avez terminé.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Nous en arrivons alors au terme de l'audience.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je remercie les comparants qui ont assisté la Cour par leurs interventions et leurs réponses à ces questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): La Cour va maintenant délibérer sur la recevabilité le fonds.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Les partis seront informés de toute décision que la Cour prendra sur l'affaire en objet.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Garib versus the Netherlands.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on 28 July 2009 under Article 34 of the Convention by a Netherlands national, Mrs. Rohiniedevie Garib.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): It was allocated to the third section of the court, person to rule 52, paragraph 1 of the rules of the court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The application was communicated to the government on 7 October 2014.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 23 February 2016, a chamber constituted within the third section delivered the judgment in the case.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): It held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 2 of Protocol Number 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 23 May 2016, the applicant requested that the case be referred to the ground chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): And the panel of the ground chamber accepted the request on 12 September 2016.