译者｜胡晨曦 北京大学国际法学院J.D. & J. M.
审稿｜王槐语 上海交通大学‍‍‍
         孙济民 中国人民大学‍‍‍
编辑｜余卓妍 西安交通大学‍‍‍
责编｜扎恩哈尔·阿黑哈提 新疆农业大学‍‍‍‍‍‍
安乐死效力之辩：莫蒂尔诉比利时案（Mortier v. Belgium）

译者前注：
莫蒂尔诉比利时案是由欧洲人权法院（European Court of Human Rights，缩写ECtHR）就安乐死问题做出的具有里程碑意义的判决。一名60多岁的女性病人，有两个显然关系疏远的成年子女，多年来她一直在与慢性抑郁症作斗争，但没有任何改善的迹象。在患有严重抑郁症时，病人接受了安乐死程序，而病人的儿子或女儿没有得到适当的通知。[1] 基于此，病人儿子汤姆·莫蒂尔（Tom Mortier）主张，比利时政府未能保护病人的生命权（《欧洲人权公约》第2条）和病人私生活和家庭生活受到尊重的权利（《欧洲人权公约》第8条）。[2]
欧洲人权法院由《欧洲人权公约》第19条[3]设立，任何人只要认为自身权利受到本公约缔约国的侵害时，皆可向欧洲人权法院提起诉讼。该法院的判决虽然并非自动具有法律上的拘束力，但该法院仍有权力去判定损害赔偿。建立一个保护个人的人权免于受到侵害的法院，对于国际人权公约而言为创新之举，使个人在国际舞台上（过去只有国家被认为可以参与国际法的形塑）扮演了更积极主动的角色。[4]
（图片源于网络）
判决原文与翻译如下：
一
事实介绍[5]
This was the first case in which the Court had been called upon to examine the compliance with the Convention of an act of euthanasia.
莫蒂尔诉比利时案是第一个由欧洲人权法院（ECtHR）审查的有关安乐死行为是否合乎《欧洲人权公约》（ECHR，以下简称“公约”）的案件。[6]
Facts – The applicant’s mother had been diagnosed as suffering from chronic depression for about forty years. On 19 April 2012 she underwent euthanasia, which was carried out by Professor D. The Federal Monitoring and Assessment Board (the Board), which was responsible for verifying compliance with the procedure and the conditions laid down in the Euthanasia Act (the Act), found no breach of the law. A criminal complaint lodged by the applicant was dropped for lack of evidence. After notice of the present application had been given to the Government, the criminal investigation was reopened. In 2020 it ended with a discontinuance order on the ground that the euthanasia carried out in the case of the applicant’s mother had complied with the statutory requirements.
申请人Mortier的母亲被诊断患有慢性抑郁症约四十年。2012年4月19日，她接受了由D教授实施的安乐死。联邦监测与评估委员会（the Federal Monitoring and Assessment Board）（以下简称“委员会”）负责核查该程序是否符合《安乐死法案》（the Euthanasia Act）（以下简称“法案”）规定的程序和条件时，认为该程序并未违反法律。有关本申请的通知被送达政府后，刑事调查重新开始。2020年，由于对申请人的母亲实施的安乐死符合法定要求，刑事调查以中止令结束。
二
主要法律依据
案件主要涉及《欧洲人权公约》的第2条（生命权）与第8条（私生活和家庭生活受到尊重的权利）：
ARTICLE 2
Right to life
1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
第 2 条 生命权
1.任何人的生命权应当受到法律的保护。不得故意剥夺任何人的生命，但是，法院依法对他所犯的罪行定罪并付诸执行的除外。
2.在使用武力是绝对必要的情况下，其所导致的对生命的剥夺不应当视为与本条的规定相抵触:
(a) 防卫任何人的非法暴力行为；
(b) 为执行合法逮捕或者是防止被合法监禁的人脱逃；
(c) 镇压暴力或者是叛乱而采取的行动。
（图片源于网络）
ARTICLE 8
Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
第 8 条 私生活和家庭生活受到尊重的权利
1. 人人有权享有使自己的私人和家庭生活、住所和通信得到尊重的权利。
2. 公共机构不得干预上述权利的行使，但是，依照法律规定的干预以及基于在民主社会中为了国家安全、公共安全或者国家的经济福利的利益考虑为了防止混乱或者犯罪，为了保护健康或者道德为了保护他人的权利与自由而有必要进行干预的不受此限。
三
判决结果[7]
Article 2 Positive obligations
Substantive aspect Death by euthanasia of applicant’s mother, who had suffered from depression for about 40 years, as authorised by legal framework: no violation
Procedural aspect Lack of independence of board subsequently reviewing all acts of euthanasia, allowing doctor who carried out specific act to vote on its legality, and excessive length of criminal investigation: violation
就《欧洲人权公约》第2条（生命权）的实质性问题，本院认为，申请人患有抑郁症约40年之久的母亲在法律框架授权下安乐死一事，不构成对该条规定的违反；就《欧洲人权公约》第2条（生命权）的程序性问题，本院认为，安乐死后续就针对安乐死行为进行审查的委员会缺乏独立性一事，以及委员会允许实施具体行为的医生对安乐死行为合法性投票一事，以及刑事调查时间过长一事，违反了该条规定。
Article 8 Positive obligations Article 8-1 Respect for private life
Doctors’ failure to involve son in procedure leading to mother’s death by euthanasia, in the absence of her wish to do so, in accordance with law: no violation
就《欧洲人权公约》的第8-1条（Respect for private life）的具体权利义务规定，本院认为，依照法案，基于母亲没有通知家属之意愿，医生未让儿子参与其安乐死之程序一事，不构成对该条规定的违反。
（图片源于网络）
四
争议焦点[8]
（一）
《公约》第二条（生命权）
Law – Article 2: This was the first case in which the Court had been called upon to examine the compliance with the Convention of an act of euthanasia. It therefore considered it necessary to clarify the nature and scope of a State’s obligations under Article 2 in this context before examining whether those obligations had been fulfilled in the present case. The Court therefore had to begin by determining whether such an act could, in certain circumstances, be carried out without contravening Article 2. The question which arose was whether the euthanasia carried out under the Act, by which it was authorised, at the request of the applicant’s mother, had been in accordance with Article 2.
本案是首例由本院审查的安乐死行为是否合乎《公约》的案件。因此，本院认为有必要首先对该案背景下第2条规定的国家义务之性质和范围予以澄清，接着再审查这些义务在本案中是否得到了履行。据此，本院必须首先裁定能否在特定情境中，在不违反第2条的前提下实施该行为。随之而来的问题是，在申请人母亲的要求下根据该法授权实施的安乐死，是否符合第2条的规定。
（图片源于网络）
1. Application of principles of end-of-life case-law to an act of euthanasia
1、对安乐死行为适用临终案例法原则（principles of end-of-life case-law）
(a) Interpretation of Article 2
（1）对第2条的解释
The Court was required to take account, in examining a possible violation of Article 2, of Article 8 of the Convention and of the right to respect for private life, and of the notion of personal autonomy which it encompassed. The right of an individual to decide how and when his or her life should end was one aspect of the right to respect for private life. The decriminalisation of euthanasia was intended to give individuals a free choice to avoid what in their view might be an undignified and distressing end to life.
本院在审查可能违反第2条的行为时，必须考虑到《公约》第8条尊重私生活的权利以及该条所包含的个人自主权的概念。个人决定如何以及何时结束自己生命的权利是尊重私生活权利的一个方面。安乐死非刑罪化的目的是让个人有自由选择的权利，以避免在他们看来可能是不体面和令人痛苦的生命终结。
While it was not possible to derive a right to die from Article 2, the right to life enshrined in that provision could not be interpreted as per se prohibiting the conditional decriminalisation of euthanasia.
虽然不可能从第2条中推导出死亡自决权，但本院认为，该条规定的生命权不能被当然地被解释为禁止对安乐死作有条件的非罪化处理。
In order to be compatible with Article 2, the decriminalisation of euthanasia had to be accompanied by the provision of suitable and sufficient safeguards to prevent abuse and thus ensure respect for the right to life. In this connection, the United Nations Human Rights Committee had held that euthanasia did not in itself constitute an interference with the right to life if it was accompanied by robust legal and institutional safeguards to ensure that medical professionals were complying with the free, informed, explicit and unambiguous decision of their patient, with a view to protecting patients from pressure and abuse.
为与第2条保持一致，安乐死的非罪化必须伴有适当和充分的保障措施，以防止滥用，从而确保对生命权的尊重。在这方面，联合国人权事务委员会（UNHRC）认为，在伴有强有力的法律和制度保障，以确保医疗专业人员遵守病人自由、知情、明确和清晰的决定，从而保护病人免受压力和虐待的条件下，安乐死行为本身并不构成对生命权的干涉。
The Court’s assessment of the effects of such a measure in relation to the Convention could be made only after an examination of the particular circumstances of the case at hand.
本院只有在审查了当前案件的具体情况后，才能评估这种措施对《公约》的影响。
（图片源于网络）
(b) The context of the Court’s examination
（2）本院审查的背景
In the context of a case concerning an act of euthanasia alleged to violate Article 2, the applicant’s complaints fell to be examined under the positive obligations of the State to protect the right to life within the meaning of the first sentence of paragraph 1 of that provision. The Court took into account the following factors:
当一个案件涉嫌实施了违反第2条的安乐死行为时，申请人的诉求应根据国家保护该条第1款第1句[9]所规定的生命权的积极义务进行审查。本院考虑了以下因素：
(i) whether there had been, in domestic law and practice, a legislative framework for pre-euthanasia procedures which met the requirements of Article 2;
(i) 在国内法律和实践中，是否存在一个符合第2条规定的安乐死行为实施前置程序的法律框架；
(ii) whether the legislative framework had been complied with in the present case;
(ii) 该立法框架在该案中是否得到遵守；
(ii) whether the subsequent review had afforded all the guarantees required by Article 2.
(ii) 后续审查是否提供了第2条所要求的所有保障。
(c) The applicable margin of appreciation
（3）适用（第2条）的自由裁量权限度
Matters of end-of-life care, and in particular euthanasia, raised complex legal, social, moral and ethical issues. The legal opinions and responses among the States Parties to the Convention varied greatly, and there was no consensus as to the right of an individual to decide how and when his or her life should end.
临终关怀问题，特别是安乐死，涉及复杂的法律、社会、道德和伦理问题。《公约》不同缔约国的相关法律意见和应对措施大相径庭，在“个人是否享有决定如何及何时结束生命的权利”这一问题上也未曾达成共识。
Accordingly, in this area, which concerned the end of life and the way in which a balance must be struck between the protection of the patient’s right to life and that of the right to respect for his or her private life and personal autonomy, the States must be afforded a margin of appreciation. It was not, however, unlimited, and the Court reserved its power to review the State’s fulfilment of its obligations under Article 2.
因此，在涉及生命的终结以及如何在保护病人的生命权与尊重其私生活和个人自主权之间取得平衡这一领域，各国必须享有一定的裁量余地。但这一自由裁量权并不是无限制的，本院保留审查缔约国履行第2条所规定义务的权力。
（图片源于网络）
2. Substantive aspects:
2、实质方面：
(a) The legislative framework for pre-euthanasia procedures
（1）安乐死前程序的立法框架
The legislature had chosen not to provide for any independent prior review of specific acts of euthanasia. Accordingly, the Court was required to look more closely at the existence of substantive and procedural safeguards. In the Court’s view, the legislative framework governing pre-euthanasia procedures had to ensure that the patient’s decision to request such an end to life was taken freely and with full knowledge.
立法机构选择不对具体的安乐死行为进行任何独立的事先审查。因此，法院需要更仔细地研究是否存在实质性和程序性保障措施。本院认为，针对安乐死前管理程序的立法框架必须保障病人在自由和完全知情的情况下做出要求结束生命的相应决定。
The request for euthanasia had been made in the present case because of mental, not physical, suffering, in the context of which the death of the applicant’s mother had clearly not been expected to occur in the short term, within the meaning of the law. In such circumstances, the law had to provide for enhanced safeguards in the decision-making process.
在本案中，提出安乐死请求的原因是精神痛苦而非肉体痛苦，因为在该案中，申请人母亲的死亡显然不会在短期内发生。在这种情况下，法律必须加强在决策过程中的保障措施。
The decriminalisation of euthanasia was subject to conditions strictly regulated by law, which provided for a number of substantive and procedural safeguards.
安乐死的非罪化必须符合法律严格规定的一系列实质性和程序性保障措施所设定的条件。
Thus, a doctor could only carry out euthanasia if the adult or emancipated minor was conscious at the time of his or her request, if it was made of his or her own free will, in a considered and constant manner, and provided that it was not the result of external pressure. Furthermore, euthanasia was permitted only if the patient was in a hopeless medical situation and experienced sustained and intolerable physical or mental suffering which could not be alleviated and was the result of a serious and incurable accidental or pathological illness.
因此，本院认为，只有当成年人或已脱离监护的未成年人在提出请求时是清醒的，并且是出于本人的自由意愿、经过深思熟虑后以持续不断的方式提出的，同时并非迫于外部压力的情况下，医生才能实施安乐死。此外，只有当病人囿于病情绝望，并且其身体或精神持续遭受无法忍受的痛苦，而这种痛苦无法减轻并由严重的、无法治愈的意外或疾病所致时，才允许实施安乐死。
（图片源于网络）
In addition, the law provided for additional safeguards where death would not otherwise occur in the short term, such as where the requesting patient alleged mental suffering. At least one month had to elapse between the patient’s written request and the act of euthanasia, thus ensuring that the request was the result of a considered and constant wish. The main doctor was also required to consult a second doctor, who again had to be satisfied that the suffering was constant and intolerable and could not be alleviated and that the request had been made of the patient’s own free will, in a considered and constant manner. The second doctor had to be independent, in relation to both the patient and the principal doctor, and had to be competent as regards the pathology concerned.
此外，法律还针对病人在短期内不会去世的情况，如病人声称正遭受精神痛苦等，规定了额外的保障措施。从病人提出书面请求到实施安乐死至少需要一个月的时间，从而确保病人的请求是经过深思熟虑后的真实意愿。主治医生还必须咨询第二位医生，后者也必须确信病人的痛苦是持续的、无法忍受的、无法减轻的，而且病人是出于自己的自由意愿，经过深思熟虑后以持续不断的方式提出请求的。要求第二位医生独立于病人和主治医生，而且必须具备相关病理学方面的能力。
……
……
Lastly, the law had been subject to a number of reviews by the higher authorities, both prior to enactment, by the Conseil d’État[10], and subsequently by the Constitutional Court, which had found, following a thorough analysis, that it remained within the limits imposed by Article 2.
最后，该法在颁布前曾多次接受上级部门的审查，包括行政法院和宪法法院，宪法法院在进行了全面分析后认为该法仍在第2条规定的范围内。
Having regard to all the above considerations and to the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the State, as regards the acts and procedure prior to euthanasia, the provisions of the Act had constituted in principle a legislative framework capable of ensuring the protection of a patient’s right to life as required by Article 2.
考虑到上述所有因素以及国家在安乐死前的行为和程序方面享有的自由裁量权，本院认为，该法的具体规定原则上构成了一个能够满足第2条所需保护病人生命权的法律框架的要求。
Conclusion: no violation (five votes to two).
结论：没有违反（五票对两票）。
（图片源于网络）
(b) Compliance with the legal framework in the present case
（2）本案合乎该法律框架
With regard to the medical situation of the applicant’s mother, in accordance with the law, Professor D. had consulted two other psychiatrists. They had examined whether the applicant’s mother was lucid, whether the request had been made of her own free will and in a considered and constant manner, whether she had been pressured by third parties and whether she was experiencing unbearable and hopeless suffering, before concluding that she could be assisted in ending her life. In the absence of any specific evidence calling into question the competence of the doctors consulted or the accuracy of their medical conclusions, the medical situation of the applicant’s mother fell within the scope of the law.
关于申请人母亲的医疗状况，D教授依法咨询了另外两名精神病医生。他们审查了申请人母亲的神志是否清醒、是否出于自愿并经过深思熟虑和以持续不断的方式提出安乐死请求、是否受到第三方的施压，以及是否正在经受无法忍受和无望的痛苦，最终得出结论认为可以协助该病人以安乐死的形式结束生命。因此，在没有任何具体证据质疑所咨询医生的能力或其医疗结论之准确性的情况下，申请人母亲的病情属于法律规定可以实施安乐死的对象范围。
As regards the donation of EUR 2,500 made by the applicant’s mother to the association LEIF (LevensEinde InformatieForum, working for a dignified end to life for all) a few weeks before she died, this had occurred several months after the informal request for euthanasia and fifteen days after the formal request. Moreover, having regard to the amount of the donation, it could not be considered, in the circumstances of the case, to indicate a conflict of interest. Nor was there anything in the case file to suggest that the applicant’s mother had made such a donation in order to obtain the doctors’ consent to euthanasia.
至于申请人母亲在临终前几周时向LEIF（LevensEinde InformatieForum，致力于为所有人提供有尊严的生命终结服务）协会捐赠2500欧元一事，其发生在非正式请求安乐死的数月后及正式请求的15天后。此外，鉴于捐款金额，在该案情境下，不能认为存在利益冲突。案卷中也没有任何证据表明申请人母亲是为了获得医生对安乐死的同意才进行了这样的捐赠。
（图片源于网络）
As regards the alleged lack of independence of the two doctors consulted vis-à-vis Professor D., given their membership of the same association, the positive obligations arising under Article 2 implied that there should not only have been a lack of hierarchical or institutional connection, but also formal and practical independence both between the various doctors consulted and vis-à-vis the patient. In the present case, a large number of doctors, including those who assumed responsibility for euthanasia requests, had received training provided by the LEIF association. In that context, the fact that the doctors consulted were members of the same association did not suffice, in the absence of other evidence, to prove a lack of independence.
有关基于两名咨询医生与D教授属于同一协会这一事实而认为两名咨询医生缺乏独立性的指控，根据第2条规定产生的独立性积极义务意味着受咨询的医生不仅应当在等级或机构层面上没有联系，而且在形式上和实际上，受咨询的医生之间以及他们与病人之间都应当是独立的。在本案中，包括涉案医生在内的大量医生都接受了LEIF协会提供的培训。在这种情况下，由于缺乏其他证据，涉案医生属于同一协会这一事实并不足以证明他们缺乏独立性。
The act of euthanasia had ultimately been carried out on the applicant’s mother some two months after her formal request for euthanasia and after Professor D. had ascertained that her request had been made of her own free will and in a constant and considered manner, without external pressure, that she was in a hopeless medical situation and that she was experiencing constant and intolerable mental suffering which could no longer be alleviated and stemmed from a serious and incurable illness. That conclusion had subsequently been confirmed following the criminal investigation conducted by the judicial authorities, which had decided that the euthanasia in question had indeed complied with the substantive and procedural conditions prescribed by law.
最终，在提出正式申请后约两个月，且D教授确认病人的请求是自愿的，并且是出于其病情无望且长期遭受无法忍受的病痛带来的无法缓解的精神折磨，而在经过深思熟虑后持续提出，并不存在外部施压的情况下，安乐死行为最终得以实施。该结论随后在司法机关进行的刑事调查中得到确认，并认定安乐死符合法律规定的实质性和程序性条件。
Consequently, the act of euthanasia, which had been carried out on the applicant’s mother in accordance with the established legal framework, had not contravened the requirements of Article 2.
因此，在符合既定法律框架的情况下进行的对申请人母亲的安乐死行为没有违反第2条的要求。
Conclusion: no violation (five votes to two).
结论：没有违反（五票对两票）。
（图片源于网络）
3. Procedural aspects:
3、程序方面：
The general principles had previously been set out in Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC]. In the Court’s view they were also to be applied in cases where an act of euthanasia was the subject of a criminal complaint by a relative of the deceased, plausibly indicating the existence of suspicious circumstances.
基本原则已在先前的Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase诉罗马尼亚[GC]案的判决中得到阐述。本院认为，这些原则在亲属提出刑事诉讼，指示安乐死行为存在可疑情况的情况下也适用。
(a) The Board’s review
（1）委员会的审查
The Act had introduced a mechanism of automatic subsequent review by the Board for every act of euthanasia performed. The review had to be particularly rigorous in order to comply with the obligations laid down in Article 2.
法案引入了一个由委员会对每一次安乐死行为进行自动事后审查的机制。为了确保第2条规定的义务得到遵守，审查必须尤为严格。
As regards the composition of the Board, the law provided for the presence of medical practitioners, law professors and professionals used to dealing with patients suffering from incurable diseases, thus undoubtedly guaranteeing the multidisciplinary knowledge and practice of its members. Moreover, the fact that the members of the Board were nominated by a legislative assembly was a guarantee of its independence.
就委员会的组成而言，法律规定委员会成员需要包括医生、法学教授和习惯于处理不治之症患者的专业人士，因此无疑保证了其成员的多学科知识和实践背景。此外，委员会成员由立法机关提名，保证了委员会的独立性。
In the present case, however, the Board had ascertained, solely on the basis of the anonymous part of the registration document, whether the euthanasia had been carried out in accordance with the law and it had answered in the affirmative. Professor D. had not therefore withdrawn and there was no indication that he had opted to remain silent.
然而，在本案中，委员会仅在登记文件之匿名部分的基础上决定安乐死是否依法实施并给出了肯定的答复。因此，D教授没有回避，也没有迹象表明他选择保持沉默。
While the recusal procedure provided for by law was intended to preserve the confidentiality of the personal data contained in the registration document and the anonymity of the persons involved, the system put in place by the legislature for the review of euthanasia solely on the basis of the anonymous part of the document did not satisfy the requirements of Article 2, as the procedure did not prevent the doctor who performed the euthanasia from sitting on the Board or from voting on whether his or her own acts were compatible with the substantive and procedural requirements of domestic law. The fact of leaving it to the sole discretion of the member concerned to decide to remain silent, where he or she was involved in the euthanasia under review, could not be regarded as sufficient to ensure the independence of the Board. While being aware of the autonomy enjoyed by States in this area, such a defect could have been avoided and confidentiality safeguarded, for example, if the Board had been composed of a larger number of members than the number of those who sat to consider each case. This would have ensured that a member of the Board who had performed the specific act of euthanasia could not sit when the Board was reviewing it.
虽然法律规定的回避程序是为了保护登记文件中个人资料的机密性和相关人员的匿名性，但立法机构建立的仅在文件匿名部分的基础上对安乐死进行审查的制度并不符合第2条的要求，因为该程序并未阻止实施安乐死的医生参加委员会，或就其自身行为是否符合国内法的实质性和程序性要求进行表决。如果有关成员参与了其所审查的安乐死，则完全由该成员自行决定是否保持沉默，这不能被视为足以确保委员会的独立性。尽管本院意识到各国在这一领域享有的自治权，但这一缺陷本可以避免，保密性也本可以得到保障，例如，如果委员会的成员人数多于参加审议每个案件的人数，就可以避免这一缺陷。这样就可以确保实施过该行为的委员会成员不能参与委员会对具体的安乐死行为的审查。
（图片源于网络）
Consequently, and having regard to the crucial role played by the Board in the post-euthanasia review, the machinery of review established in the present case had not guaranteed its independence, irrespective of any real influence Professor D. might have had on the Board’s decision.
因此，考虑到委员会在安乐死的事后审查中发挥的关键作用，本案中建立的审查机制未能确保委员会独立性，无论D教授是否对委员会的决定产生实际影响。
(b) The criminal investigation
（2）刑事调查
Where death was the result of an act of euthanasia carried out under the legislation, which permitted it subject to strict conditions, a criminal investigation was not usually required. It became mandatory where there was a criminal complaint by a relative of the deceased indicating the existence of suspicious circumstances. Thus, having regard to the criminal complaint lodged by the applicant, who had plausibly alleged that the law on euthanasia had not been complied with in the present case, the Belgian authorities had been under an obligation to conduct a criminal investigation.
当死亡结果属于依据法律的严格条件所实施的安乐死行为造成的后果时，通常不需要进行刑事调查。只有在死者亲属提起刑事诉讼，表明存在可疑情况时，刑事调查才是必需的。因此，考虑到申请人提起的刑事诉讼合理地声称在本案中未遵守安乐死法案，比利时当局有义务进行刑事调查。
The first criminal investigation had lasted approximately three years and one month whereas no investigative act appeared to have been undertaken by the Crown Prosecutor in that time. The second criminal investigation conducted under the direction of an investigating judge after notice of the present application had been given to the Government had been sufficiently thorough, but it had lasted approximately one year and seven months.
第一次刑事调查持续了大约三年零一个月，而在此期间，皇家检察官（the Crown Prosecutor）[11] 似乎没有采取任何调查行动。向政府发出关于本申请的通知后，在调查法官（investigating judge）的指导下进行的第二次刑事调查足够彻底，但持续了大约一年零七个月。
Taken as a whole, and having regard to the inaction during the first investigation, the criminal investigation had not met the requirement of promptness under Article 2.
总体而言，考虑到第一次调查期间的无所作为，刑事调查未能满足第2条规定的及时性要求。
In view of the foregoing, the State had failed to fulfil its procedural positive obligation on account of the lack of independence of the review Board and of the length of the criminal investigation in the present case.
鉴于上述情况，比利时未能履行其在本案中对审查委员会的独立性和刑事调查时效性的程序性积极义务。
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
结论：违反（一致同意）。
（二）
《公约》第八条（私生活和家庭生活受到尊重的权利）
The present case raised the question whether the respondent State had failed to fulfil its positive obligation to secure to the applicant, whose mother had died by euthanasia, the right to respect for his private and family life.
本案提出了一个问题，即被申请国是否没有履行其积极义务，确保申请人（其母亲死于安乐死）的私生活和家庭生活受到尊重。
Firstly, the applicant had complained of a violation of Article 8, arguing that his mother’s euthanasia was contrary to Article 2. In this connection, with regard to the legislative framework concerning the procedure prior to euthanasia and the conditions in which the act was carried out in the present case, the Court had already concluded that there had been no violation of Article 2. Consequently, the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life had not been breached solely on account of the fact that his mother had undergone euthanasia.
首先，申请人在主张对其母亲实施的安乐死行为违反了第2条规定的基础上，认为被申请国的做法违反第8条的规定。在这方面，关于安乐死前程序的法律框架和本案中实施安乐死的条件，本院已经得出结论：第2条并未被违反。因此，申请人的私人和家庭生活受到尊重的权利并未仅因他的母亲接受安乐死这一事实而受到侵犯。
Next, as regards the applicant’s lack of involvement in the euthanasia process, the Court was called upon to rule on a conflict between various competing interests, namely the applicant’s wish to accompany his mother in the last moments of her life and his mother’s right to respect for her wishes and her personal autonomy. In this context, the Court had to weigh up the interests at stake.
其次，关于申请人未参与安乐死过程的问题，法院需裁定各种相互冲突的利益，即申请人希望陪伴母亲度过她生命最后时刻的利益和其母亲享有尊重她本人意愿及享有个人自主权利之间的冲突。
（图片源于网络）
The Euthanasia Act obliged doctors to discuss a patient’s request for euthanasia with his or her relatives only where this was the patient’s wish. If that was not the case, they could not contact the relatives, in accordance with their duty of confidentiality and medical secrecy.
《法案》要求，只有在病人本人愿意的情况下，医生才有义务与其亲属讨论病人的安乐死请求。否则，根据保密和医疗秘密的义务，医生不得与其亲属联系。
In the present case, in accordance with the law, the doctors had suggested several times to the applicant’s mother that she should resume contact with her two children. However, the applicant had repeatedly objected, stating that she no longer wanted to have contact with them and that she was afraid of her son. Nevertheless, at the request of her doctors, the applicant had sent an e-mail to her children informing them of her wish to undergo euthanasia. The applicant had apparently not reacted.
在本案中，根据法律规定，医生多次建议申请人的母亲与她的两个孩子重新联系。然而，病人一再反对，表示她不再想与他们联系，并表明了对她儿子的恐惧。尽管如此，在医生的要求下，病人还是向其子女发送了一封电子邮件，告知了病人接受安乐死的意愿。申请人显然没有对此作出任何反应。
In these circumstances, which related to a long-standing break-down in the relationship between the applicant and his mother, the doctors had taken all reasonable steps, in accordance with the law, their duty of confidentiality and medical secrecy, as well as ethical guidelines, to ensure that she contacted her children about her request for euthanasia. The legislature could not be criticised for obliging doctors to respect the applicant’s wishes on this point or for imposing on them a duty of confidentiality and medical secrecy. On the latter point, respect for the confidential nature of health information was an essential principle of the legal systems of all the Contracting Parties to the Convention, not only for protecting the privacy of patients but also for preserving their confidence in the medical profession and health services in general.
在这种长期关系破裂的情况下，医生根据法律、保密和医疗秘密性的责任以及道德准则，已经采取了一切合理的步骤，以确保病人就安乐死请求与她的孩子联系。在这一点上，立法机构不能因其强制医生在这一点上尊重病人的愿望，或赋予他们保密和医疗秘密性的责任而遭到批评。针对后者的责任，尊重健康信息的机密性是公约各缔约方法律体系的基本原则，不仅是为了保护病人的隐私，也是为了维护他们对医疗职业水平和卫生服务的信心。
In view of the above, the legislation, as applied in the present case, had struck a fair balance between the different interests at stake.
鉴于上述情况，就在本案中的适用情况而言，法律已经公正地在各种利益之间取得了平衡。
Conclusion: no violation (six votes to one)
结论：没有违反（六票对一票）。
原文链接：https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22tabview%22:[%22document%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-219988%22]}
注释
 [1] laria Bertini, Mortier v. Belgium: A Landmark Decision on Euthanasia in the Case of Mental Illness, (24 Oct. 2022), UK Human Rights Blog, https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2022/10/24/mortier-v-belgium-a-landmark-decision-on-euthanasia-in-the-case-of-mental-illness/.
 [2] laria Bertini, Mortier v. Belgium: A Landmark Decision on Euthanasia in the Case of Mental Illness, (24 Oct. 2022), UK Human Rights Blog, https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2022/10/24/mortier-v-belgium-a-landmark-decision-on-euthanasia-in-the-case-of-mental-illness/.
[3] ARTICLE 19 Establishment of the Court
To ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, there shall be set up a European Court of Human Rights, hereinafter referred to as “the Court”. It shall function on a permanent basis.
第19条 法院的设置
为了保证各缔约方履行本公约所规定的应当承担的义务，应当设立欧洲人权法院，以下简称“法院”。法院应当永久性运作。
[4] Wikepedia, https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%AD%90%E6%B4%B2%E4%BA%BA%E6%AC%8A%E5%85%AC%E7%B4%84.
[5] Mortier v. Belgium, no. 78017/17, ECHR 2022, p. 1.
[6] Mortier v. Belgium, no. 78017/17, ECHR 2022, p. 1.
[7] Mortier v. Belgium, no. 78017/17, ECHR 2022, p. 1.
[8] Mortier v. Belgium, no. 78017/17, ECHR 2022, pp. 2-6.
[9] 译者注：Article 2.1.1 Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
第2条第1款第1句：“任何人的生命权应当受到法律的保护。不得故意剥夺任何人的生命，但是，法院依法对他所犯的罪行定罪并付诸执行的除外。”
[10] 译者注：比利时的行政法院（Conseil d'État，英语Council of State），也称国务委员会。其主要作用有二，一是向行政机关提供法律建议；二是作为行政司法的最高法院。（资料来源：Wikipedia）
[11] 译者注：皇家检察官（Crown Prosecutor）是赋予国家检察官（state prosecutor）的头衔，国家检察官是负责在刑事审判中对个人提起诉讼的合法当事方。该头衔通常用于英联邦国家。（资料来源：Wikepedia）
继续阅读
阅读原文