Confidential “study” used to dictate action of the Council

News/Council of Europe/Editor’s choice/Europe/Health/Human Rights

Confidential “study” used to dictate action of the Council of Europe’s decision-making body

Classified study used by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe The external so-called compatibility study that had been prepared ahead of the…

6 September 2026
13 min readComments

The external so-called compatibility study that had been prepared ahead of the final review of the draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention had been arranged by the Secretariat of the executive body, the Committee of Ministers (Ministers’ Deputies level), of the Council of Europe. The study isn’t what was asked for by the PACE, and one reasonably may question why the study or legal opinion isn’t objectively considering the UN CRPD and the widespread uniform interpretation and support it has within the UN system. And the answer appears to be that it has another purpose. It has been used by a group of a dozen countries to reformulate the possible new Additional protocol so as to keep the use of involuntary detention in psychiatry in place. And in doing so it is used to undermine the paradigm shift on disability rights and mental health that has been initiated by the UN CRPD as part of <a href="https://jiuniversity.com/korean-universities-open-spring-2027-admissions-for-international-students/” title=”Korean universities open spring 2027 admissions for international students”>international human rights law.

The ongoing review of the draft Additional protocol to the Oviedo convention, that aim at regulating the use of involuntary admissions and treatment in psychiatry to avoid arbitrary abuse, is the final step of a long drawn-out process

The first discussions on it started in the Council of Europe’s Committee dealing with Bioethics back in the last century. It was within that committee that the ideas of drafting a new legal text on the “protection of persons who are involuntary committed” was voiced in 1994

It was discussed what type of legal instrument this should be and how it should be formulated which was settled in 1995 by including a regulation of involuntary detention in psychiatry in to the Oviedo Convention as Article 7, rather than keeping it as a separate instrument. The Oviedo convention was drafted by the Committee dealing with Bioethics and adopted in April 1997

It however did not solve the problems with abusive commitments in psychiatry, and other abuses as part of treatment nor did it provide a framework for proper protection. Further work to deal with the abuses in psychiatry continued within the Council of Europe’s Committee dealing with Bioethics and the Committee of Ministers and this eventually led to the CM Recommendation(2004)10 “concerning the protection of the human rights and dignity of persons with mental disorder”. It however also did not solve the problem.

The Committee on Bioethics then again pursued to have a separate legal text dedicated to this matter and the Committee in 2010 proposed it to be an Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention. The drafting of such a text was approved by the Committee of Ministers and it finally following discussions over years in the Bioethics Committee was completed in 2021

The drafted text originated from the recognition of abuses decades ago and only by considering the Council’s own texts as a legal foundation. Despite the good intentions, it has been criticised and protested from the very beginning of the drafting process mainly because it does not solve the actual problem by having clear regulations on how to use what is described as potentially inhumane and traumatising interventions.

This in fact would consolidate the use of such measures that by analysis over years has been proven to never be a “last resort” only in actual psychiatric practice despite this is written in to laws governing its use. And on the contrary, it has been evidenced that it slowly causes broader and increasing use

This is compounded by the fact, it is outdated since the UN already identified the underlying discrimination problem and following extensive discussions and reviews adopted the UN CRPD in 2006. That convention has since been signed and ratified by all the member states of the Council of Europe. The UN human rights system and World Health Organisation following the adoption of the UN CRPD has published numerous guidelines and training material considering the human rights model that now is being implemented in regions and countries around the world.

As part of the final review of the draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo convention the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had been asked by the Ministers’ Deputies’, to give an opinion on the draft Additional protocol. The Assembly then following a yearlong review process with hearings and debates in January 2026 decided to keep firm on the ground of human rights and in line with the UN CRPD.

The Parliamentary Assembly as an advisory body to the Committee of Ministers and as the voice of the people in a unanimous vote rejected the draft additional protocol as it stands. It recommended that, “before considering to examine the draft protocol, the Committee of Ministers commission a study to determine its compatibility with the CRPD.”

The Assembly further pointed out that “Since the ultimate objective would be to phase out involuntary measures,” it invited the Ministers’ Deputies to consider proceeding by means of a more flexible instrument than a protocol, for example a recommendation. It stressed that “such a recommendation should be fully in alignment with the CRPD, its General comments and guidelines.”

The Ministers’ Deputies while not officially having met on the matter before 27 May 2026 took note of the Parliamentary Assembly’s Opinion that was rejecting the draft Additional Protocol

The Secretariat of the Committee of Minister’s prior to this commissioned what was expected to be a compatibility study to be done by the German prof. Andreas Zimmermann from the Potsdam University in Berlin. The study was made available to the members of the Committee of Ministers’ Rapporteur Group, GR-H, on the 5th of May

The GR-H is an informal group within the Ministers’ Deputies structures, consisting of the Permanent Representatives of the member states to the Council of Europe or their deputies. The Rapporteur group is preparing the Ministers’ Deputies’ discussions, with the aim, ideally, of drawing up draft decisions. The group has no rules of procedure and, in particular, no rule on quorums

The study which got published in the “restricted” classified document GR-H(2026)9 could be described as a positioning document for ongoing Ministers’ Deputies negotiations rather than a full, balanced compatibility assessment

This stands in stark contrast to the UN documents which it was supposed to be based on. The UN CRPD, its General Comments and guidelines and a large number of supporting documents from the World Health Organisation, the UN Human Rights Council, the UN High Commission for Human Rights, the UN Human Rights mechanism, the UN General Assembly all points towards a unified understanding of human rights in the field of disability and mental health. And these texts which are codifying this understanding exist in publicly available UN documents.

The UN CRPD Committee in a public statement of 27 August addressed to the Council of Europe noted that the Committee is “deeply disturbed learning that the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers had commissioned a study to be used in the Ministers’ Deputies discussions on the draft Additional protocol, that per the Secretariat of the Council of Europe concludes that the draft Additional Protocol cannot be regarded as being precluded by, or running counter to, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”

The study of prof. Zimmermann which by the Secretariat is described as an expert legal analysis is confidential to anyone outside the Committee of Ministers. The fact that it exists is even being described by the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers as “not public” information and the European Times was informed “It would therefore be inappropriate to report on the document.”

The analysis or opinion concluded that the draft Additional Protocol cannot be regarded as being precluded by, or running counter to, the UN CRPD. It is obvious that the analysis isn’t based on the UN documents it would require to be based on for it to be an actual legal analysis, nor does it take the paradigm shift initiated by the UN CRPD in to consideration

It is further noted that the author, prof. Andreas Zimmermann, also did not take contact to the body empowered to interpret the Convention: The UN CRPD Committee. The study was conducted in secrecy and it is kept like that to the relevant United Nations bodies and to civil society that in a unison voice has demanded the withdrawal of the draft Additional Protocol

While it most certainly would have been expected from an actual legal analysis that it is based on all the relevant texts it analyses, it is surprising and even shocking that the author also did not consider and accept the statements of the UN CRPD Committee issued directly to the Council of Europe on the Additional Protocol

The UN CRPD Committee has been calling repeatedly upon the Council of Europe to move towards the end of the use of any form of coercion in the provision of mental health policies and services for persons with disabilities. It has strongly recommended that the Council withdraw the draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention

The UN CRPD Committee even shortly prior to the commissioning of the “compatibility study” issued another statement to the Council of Europe, which still is available on its website

The UN CRPD Committee in that statement of 15 January 2026 noted that “the draft Additional Protocol, which purports to protect the rights of all persons with “mental disorders” with regard to the use of involuntary detention and involuntary treatment, is in flagrant violation of the human rights of persons with disabilities recognised by the Convention. It is in particular in open contradiction with Article 5 on equality and non-discrimination, Article 12 on the right to equal recognition before the law, Article 14 on the right to liberty and security, Article 15 on freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, Article 16 on freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse, Article 17 on the right to physical and mental integrity, Article 19 on the right of persons with disabilities to live independently and participate in community life, and Article 25 on the right to health.”

The statement with an attachment goes in to details on this over eight pages. And as part of these further notes that, “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. This has also been raised by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights – Regional Office for Europe and by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture.”

The Ministers’ Deputies’ Rapporteur Group, GR-H, met on 27 May for the final review of the Additional protocol. The views on it were widely opposing and the discussion could not lead to an agreement. In this atmosphere the legal analysis or opinion of prof. Zimmermann was used to argue that there is a legal defensive way one could disregard or overrule the UN interpretation of the UN CRPD

As no agreement on the draft Additional protocol as formulated by the Bioethics Committee could be obtained three options were considered: Abandon the process, revise the Additional protocol, or initiate a new process that would aim at outlawing involuntary commitments in line with the International human rights law

Of the 46 member states’ representatives who have voting rights and who regularly participate in the GR-H meetings only 19 voted. And the result was that a dozen countries, just 26% of the Council’s members, those that does not consider the authoritative interpretation of the UN CRPD by the UN system then could dictate the future direction of the Council of Europe: a revised Additional protocol.

The Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers got 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 Secretariat drafted the revised text with technical assistance of the Secretary of the CDBIO, Laurence Lwoff

The revision only introduced one significant change to the Additional protocol noting that “involuntary placement and involuntary treatment are applied only as measures of last resort and under strict conditions of legality, necessity and proportionality”. In other words it was kept fully in line with the existing Council of Europe conventions and ignored the UN CRPD and the paradigm shift on disability rights and mental health it had initiated.

The Ministers’ Deputies Rapporteur Group, GR-H, met for a second round of discussions on the revised draft Additional protocol on the 7th July. Prior to this meeting the UN CRPD Committee had issued a new Statement urging the member states to withdraw the Additional protocol

The UN CRPD specified that the draft Additional Protocol 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.”

A number of Representatives of member state in response to the new UN CRPD statement noted they would review their position while 5 declared their country is opposing the revised draft Additional protocol. 14 member states however chose to ignore their international obligations under the UN CRPD and voted for a continuation of the drafting process. Germany proposed some amendments, which they got limited support for.

The next GR-H meeting will take place on the 10th of September. And it appears that new shocking actions are being prepared. Per some reports prof. Andreas Zimmermann over the last days have had meetings with persons at the Council of Europe to discuss how to redefine informed consent in cases of emergencies. The European Times have reached out to both prof. Zimmermann and the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers’ GR-H who did not reject this but also did not provide any details or clarification of the meetings.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe have repeatedly declined to comment on any issues related to the draft Additional protocol. The Council of Europe Media Department however provided this statement: “The draft Additional Protocol is currently under discussion within the Council of Europe. It is part of a comprehensive set of works, including Recommendation (2026) 8 on respect of autonomy in mental healthcare, which are complementing and reinforcing each other, forming a coherent, strong and progressive legal framework to protect and promote the autonomy of the persons concerned and ensure the effective exercise of their rights. As the process is ongoing, the Council of Europe has no further comment at this stage.”

---

Source: europeantimes.news