Civil society: Council of Europe must not legitimise coercion in psychiatry A unified call by civil society groups across disability and human rights organ…
A unified call by civil society groups across disability and human rights organisations, mental health service providers and the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) demand that the Council of Europe definitively abandon the draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention on mental health care. They note it would solidify the use of coercion and forced treatment in psychiatry.
Civil society groups reiterate strong opposition to the draft Additional Protocol
The call follows a statement from the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) to the Council of Europe’s decision-making body, the Committee of Ministers, demanding that the Council of Europe withdraw the possibly new Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention.
The 13 disability and human rights organisations reiterate their strong opposition to the adoption of the draft Additional Protocol. The groups note that “at a time when the Council of Europe has taken a positive step by adopting the Recommendation on respect for autonomy in mental healthcare, it is even clearer that the draft Additional Protocol points in the wrong direction.”
The Recommendation confirms that autonomy, informed consent, and respect for individual will and preferences must be at the centre of mental healthcare. “It strengthens, rather than weakens, the case for withdrawing the draft Additional Protocol,” the groups notes.
Endorsement of the Recommendation by the European Disability Forum (EDF) and other disability organisations and partners “cannot be read as legitimising the draft Protocol,” the call stresses. It is, on the contrary, “a clear call to abandon the draft Protocol and focus political and institutional efforts on implementing the Recommendation in a way that is consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”
Therefore, the European Disability Forum and partners call on the Council of Europe and its Member States to align their work with the human rights standards already reflected in the Recommendation and to definitively abandon the draft Additional Protocol.
“We welcome the support for our call by other human rights bodies, including the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI), which adopted a statement in May 2026 raising serious concerns about the draft Additional Protocol. We also welcome the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ latest call for the withdrawal of the draft Additional Protocol, published on 1 July 2026,” the call read.
It was signed by European Disability Forum, Mental Health Europe, European Network of (Ex)-Users and Survivors of Psychiatry, European Network on Independent Living, Autism-Europe, Inclusion Europe, Disabled Peoples’ International – Europe, European Down Syndrome Association, Comité Español de Representantes de Personas con Discapacidad, European Association of Service providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD), Society of Social Psychiatry P. Sakellaropoulos, Validity, and Disability Rights International.
ENNHRI issued separate call to oppose the draft Additional Protocol
The European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI), which represents over 50 National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) in Europe, in a separate statement calls on the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers to oppose the adoption of the draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention on Bioethics.
FACTS: National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) are state-mandated bodies, independent of government, with a broad constitutional or legal mandate to protect and promote human rights at the national level. NHRIs address the full range of human rights, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Contrary to other national institutions, NHRIs are accredited with an internationally accepted quality label, on the basis of their compliance with the UN Paris Principles.
“The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers is expected to vote soon on the draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention on Bioethics, amid strong opposition from leading civil society organizations and the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as a negative vote from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,” ENNHRI stated. ENNHRI reiterated its “concerns that the Additional Protocol would create conflicts with international human rights standards and may lead to further violations of the rights of persons with disabilities in Europe.”
ENNHRI has previously voiced the concerns of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) regarding earlier iterations of the draft Additional Protocol in 2014, 2018, and 2021.
Despite some changes in the current draft, ENNHRI emphasises “the potential negative impact the Additional Protocol would have on the rights of persons with disabilities if adopted.” ENNHRI notes concerns raised in international human rights monitoring regarding the compatibility of the draft Additional Protocol with existing standards.
In particular, the UN CRPD Committee has found that the draft Additional Protocol falls short of fully observing the spirit and provisions of the CRPD. The Committee has repeatedly called on the Council of Europe to move towards ending the use of any form of coercion in the provision of mental health policies and services for persons with disabilities, and strongly recommended that the Council withdraw the draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention.
Solidifying institutionalisation and increase use of coercion
“ENNHRI echoes the reasoned concerns of several stakeholders that the draft Additional Protocol, despite its stated intention, risks solidifying institutionalisation of persons with disabilities, could inadvertently increase the use of coercion, and may not contribute to preventing human rights violations,” the statement noted in bold.
ENNHRI also reiterated its “concern that the adoption of the draft Additional Protocol would result in fragmented and conflicting frameworks within international human rights law relating to persons with disabilities.”
The absence of harmonised standards could create lack of clarity and hinder Member States’ efforts when implementing necessary reforms at the national level. Furthermore, for human rights defenders, including NHRIs, civil society organisations and organisations of persons with disabilities, the existence of conflicting international norms at the global and European levels could undermine their efforts in promotion and protection of the human rights of persons with disabilities across Europe.
EASPD: a truly international call for action
“The proposal could allow people with mental health problems to be treated against their will. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has also written to the Council of Europe asking them to withdraw the proposal, making this a truly international call for action,” the European Association of Service Providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD) pointed out in a separate release.
FACTS: EASPD is the leading voice of disability services across Europe. Representing over 20,000 services in over 46 different countries, EASPD promote human rights and equal opportunities for people with disabilities through effective and high-quality support. EASPD’s VISION and OBJECTIVES: “We believe that support services play a key role in enabling people to enjoy their human rights on an equal basis, beyond disability or any other factor. It is precisely this belief that guides our work in Brussels, Strasbourg and throughout Europe.”
Disability organisations have been fighting against this proposal for more than a decade. UN bodies, national human rights bodies, the former Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and even the Council of Europe’s own Parliamentary Assembly have all joined them in opposing it. Despite all these calls, only the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers can make the final decision to drop it the EASPD notes.
The EASPD raised the question: Why does this matter for your work? And answered it: “If the Council of Europe adopts this proposal, it would make it easier for governments to justify forcing treatment on people with mental health problems, without respecting their personal choices. This goes against everything that person-centred, rights-based care stands for.”
In an earlier report from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe referencing a meeting in the Council of Europe Bioethics Committee of November 2018 it notes that the representative of the EASPD pointed out that “service providers used coercion every day, thus knowing they were harming fundamental rights. Every one of their members wanted to stop using coercion, but they did not have or did not know about alternatives. Service Providers were failing in their objectives to help persons with disabilities. They could not make the change to the use of alternative measures alone; they needed a proper framework which corresponds to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and is not coercive.”
Today, training material exist such as the WHO’s QualityRights material, texts on good practices and the Council of Europe’s Recommendation on respect for autonomy in mental healthcare. They point towards a real hope for the implementation process of the UN CRPD and the paradigm shift it initiated. This would be endangered if the Additional protocol to the Oviedo convention is adopted as governments in Europe would then have a justification for not implementing the full and proper framework that would make it possible.
Draft Additional protocol should be definitively withdrawn
The call of the 13 disability and human rights organisations in a final point state, “The Council of Europe should now do what its own Recommendation suggests: ensure respect for autonomy in mental healthcare with the ultimate goal of eliminating the use of coercion. The draft Additional Protocol would increase the use of coercive measures, fails to respect and foster individual autonomy, and should therefore be definitively withdrawn.”
