Implementation of the Principle of Non-Discrimination in the Field of Biotechnology within the Framework of the Organization of American States

INTRODUCTION. This article examines the pressing issue of discrimination in biotechnology, which is a global concern and has prompted the adoption of specialized legislation at the national level (particularly in the United States, the Republic of Korea, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia). It analyzes various manifestations of genetic discrimination, including denial of employment or changes to insurance coverage based on genetic predisposition to disease, as well as ethical and legal issues related to assisted reproductive technologies and termination of pregnancy for genetic reasons. Particular attention is paid to the development of the principle of nondiscrimination not only in national legislation but also in international law, including the law of international integration associations. In this context, the role of the Organization of American States (OAS)— a regional international organization for which discrimination is a pressing issue—is examined. The article analyzes key OAS documents affecting the implementation of the principle of non-discrimination in biotechnology and explores the role of the practice of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in regulating this area.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The methodological basis of the study was traditional general scientific and specialized methods for understanding legal phenomena: the comparative legal method; the method of scientific analysis; the formal legal method; and the method of synthesizing socio-legal phenomena.

RESEARECH RESULTS. The legal foundations for combating discrimination within the OAS are formed both within the framework of general international treaties (in particular, the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969) and within the framework of specialized international treaties devoted to the implementation of the principle of non-discrimination against certain categories of persons and on certain grounds (gender, health status, race, etc.). The relevant practice of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights demonstrates a general trend toward the unification of provisions at the global and supranational levels devoted to the protection of human rights in the application of new technologies (including in the field of healthcare).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The Inter-American Convention against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance (hereinaſter referred to as the Anti-Discrimination Convention) occupies a special place in the OAS system of international treaties in this area. It contains relevant conceptual frameworks relevant for interpreting the principle of nondiscrimination, including the differentiation of discriminatory practices into specific types (direct and indirect discrimination, multiple discrimination, etc.). The Anti-Discrimination Convention is almost entirely consistent with the spirit and letter of key international anti-discrimination instruments, including UNESCO international treaties in the fields of bioethics and genetic technology. However, the terminology does not always demonstrate 100% agreement. For example, the Anti-Discrimination Convention mentions "intolerance" as a form of discrimination, while UNESCO documents use the term "stigmatization." However, these terms can be considered closely related in meaning. The practice of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as well as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, does not boast a large number of cases addressing the issue of implementing the principle of non-discrimination in the field of biotechnology (including genetic technologies). In fact, only two cases are at issue, which vividly illustrate the holding of states liable for violating the prohibition of discrimination on multiple grounds, including genetic discrimination. In formulating their conclusions, approaches developed in the consideration of similar cases by the European Court of Human Rights were adopted.

1. Caballero Pérez A., Guzmán Rincón A.M. The Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights and Persons with Disabilities: challenges and perspectives beyond the nondiscrimination rule. – Jurídicas. 2021. Vol. 18 (2). P. 43-60.

2. Chen Y., McDonough D. Upholding Disability Rights in the Americas: the Role of the Inter-American Institutions. – Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law. 2022. Vol. 50 (3). P. 599-638.

3. Erwin C. Legal update: living with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. – Genetics in Medicine. 2008. Vol. 10 (12). P. 869-873.

4. Gammon A., Neklason D.W. Confidentiality & the Risk of Genetic Discrimination: What Surgeons Need to Know. – Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America. 2015. Vol. 24 (4). P. 667-681.

5. Garat M.P. The Right to Social Security in the Case Law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Standards and Challenges for its Protection. – Latin American Legal Studies. 2024. Vol. 12 (1). P. 326-369.

6. Gazina N.I., Teymurov E.S., Zakharova L.I. International Legal Framework for the Application of Genetic Technologies: Main Features and Issues Open for Discussion. – Kutafin Law Review. 2022. Vol. 9 (1). P. 39-72.

7. Harden K. Genetic determinism, essentialism and reductionism: semantic clarity for contested science. – Nature Reviews Genetics. 2023. Vol. 24 (3). P. 197-220.

8. Hudson K.L., Holohan M.K., Collins F.S. Keeping pace with the times – the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. – The New England journal of medicine. 2008. Vol. 358 (25). P. 2661-2663.

9. Joly Y., Dalpe G. Genetic discrimination still casts a large shadow in 2022. – European Journal of Human Genetics. 2022. Vol. 30. P. 1320-1322.

10. Joly Y., Dalpé G., Pinkesz M. Is Genetic Discrimination Back on the Radar? A Commentary on the Recent Court of Appeal Reference Decision on the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GNDA). – Canadian Journal of Bioethics / Revue canadienne de bioéthique. 2019. Vol. 2 (2). P. 94-96.

11. Kosilkin S.V. Principy mezhdunarodno-pravovogo regulirovaniya geneticheskih issledovanij i zakonodatel'stvo Rossijskoj Federacii [Principles of International Legal Regulation of Genetic Research and Legislation of the Russian Federation]. – Lex Genetica. 2023. № 2 (2). S. 34-52. (In Russ.)

12. Lapaeva V.V. Pravovoe regulirovanie v sfere issledovanij genoma cheloveka: istoriya stanovleniya, sovremennoe sostoyanie i perspektivy razvitiya [Legal regulation in the field of human genome research: history of formation, current state and development prospects]. – Pravosudie [Justice]. 2022. № 4. S. 93-108. (In Russ.)

13. Montgomery S.V., Barsevick A.M., Egleston B.L. et al. Preparing individuals to communicate genetic test results to their relatives: report of a randomized control trial. – Familial cancer. 2013. Vol. 12 (3). P. 537–546.

14. Ponomareva D.V. On the Issue of Discrimination Based on Genetic Status: Legal Approaches in the Judicial Practice of Foreign States. – Kutafin Law Review. 2021. Vol. 8 (1). P. 129-144.

15. Ponomareva D.V., Kubyshkin A.V. Genetic discrimination in foreign legislation and law-enforcement practice. – SHS Web of Conferences. 2022. Vol. 134. 00071.

16. Ponomareva D.V., Sorokina E.M. Problemy geneticheskoj diskriminacii i genomnye issledovaniya: zakonodatel'stvo i praktika [Problems of genetic discrimination and genomic research: legislation and practice. Monografiya. Eds. by D.V. Ponomareva. Moscow: Rusajns. 2022. (In Russ.)

17. Rahnasto J. Genetic data are not always personal-disaggregating the identifiability and sensitivity of genetic data. – Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 2023. Vol. 10 (2). P. 1-45.

18. Ramos-kuri M. Artavia Murillo vs. Costa Rica. Análisis crítico a la Sentencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos en el fallo sobre fertilización in vitro. – Cuestiones Constitucionales. Revista Mexicana De Derecho Constitucional. 2020. Vol. 1 (42). P. 529-536.

19. Smith B. Intersectional Discrimination and Substantive Equality: a comparative and theoretical perspective. – The Equal Rights Review. 2016. Vol. 74 (1). P. 73-99.

20. Sorokina E.M., Ponomareva D.V. Prava korennyh malochislennyh narodov i genomnye issledovaniya v SSHA: delo «Havasupaj» [Indigenous Rights and Genomic Research in the United States: The Havasupai Case]. – Mezhdunarodnyj pravovoj kur'er [International legal courier]. 2020. № 1. S. 40-44. (In Russ.)