176 research outputs found

    Du juste Ă©quilibre : les limitations aux droits de l’homme en pĂ©riode de crise sanitaire (PremiĂšre partie)

    Get PDF
    La crise sanitaire actuelle se distingue de l’état d’urgence qu’a connu la France de 2015 Ă  2017 : gĂ©nĂ©ralisĂ©es, les limitations de libertĂ©s sont devenues, pour un temps, la norme. Le prĂ©sent article se propose d’examiner, Ă  l’aune du droit international des droits de l’homme, les principales mesures prises en France dans ce contexte Ă  partir de mars 2020. Cet examen montre que si la libertĂ© et la sĂ©curitĂ© sont deux nĂ©cessitĂ©s, l’équilibrage entre l’une et l’autre n'est pas aisĂ©. Les dĂ©rogations aux droits de l’homme protĂ©gĂ©s au niveau international ne peuvent intervenir qu’« en cas de danger public exceptionnel ». Si l’État doit Ă©viter de suspendre ces droits, lorsqu’il entend nĂ©anmoins dĂ©roger Ă  une convention internationale qui y est relative, la notification aux instances internationales compĂ©tentes et, ainsi, aux autres États, est prĂ©conisĂ©e dans un souci de transparence et de cohĂ©rence. En pĂ©riode de crise sanitaire comme en d’autres temps, la responsabilitĂ© internationale de l’État peut ĂȘtre engagĂ©e tant parce qu’il a portĂ© atteinte, de maniĂšre active, Ă  un droit de l’homme, que lorsque, passif, il n’a pas pris les mesures qui s’imposaient. Une mise en balance entre droit Ă  la vie et libertĂ©s est ainsi nĂ©cessaire, y compris lorsque celui-ci envisage de recourir Ă  des techniques de traçage aux fins de protection de la santĂ©. De plus, l’État doit s’assurer que les mesures adoptĂ©es n’entraĂźnent pas de discriminations fondĂ©es, en particulier, sur la race, la couleur, le sexe, la langue, la religion ou l'origine sociale. Face Ă  une telle Ă©pidĂ©mie, deux catĂ©gories de personnes sont particuliĂšrement vulnĂ©rables, Ă  savoir celles qui se trouvent dans des lieux d’enfermement et celles qui ne disposent pas de logement et se trouvent en situation prĂ©caire. L’État a une faible latitude dans la limitation des droits Ă©conomiques, sociaux et culturels : la satisfaction de l’essentiel de chacun de ces droits internationaux doit ĂȘtre garantie en toute circonstance. Il apparaĂźt finalement qu’un dialogue renforcĂ© entre autoritĂ©s nationales et internationales en matiĂšre de droits de l’homme pourrait amĂ©liorer la gestion d’une prochaine crise sanitaire : dans un tel contexte, l’universalisme et le souverainisme doivent ĂȘtre pensĂ©s ensemble

    Le projet de dĂ©claration universelle des droits de l’humanitĂ© de 2015 : implications et perspectives juridiques

    Get PDF
    Le 25 septembre 2015, le projet de DĂ©claration universelle des droits de l’humanitĂ© a Ă©tĂ© remis par Madame Corinne Lepage et son Ă©quipe au PrĂ©sident François Hollande. Quel est l’apport de ce projet de dĂ©claration ? Qu’est-ce qu’un droit de l’humanité ? Et ces nouveaux droits sont-ils utiles ? Cet article vise Ă  rĂ©pondre Ă  ces questions en dĂ©finissant les droits de l’humanitĂ©, en les distinguant des droits de l’homme et en les mettant en perspective avec les devoirs Ă  l’égard de l’humanitĂ© (Ă©galement reconnus dans le projet de DĂ©claration). Cette Ă©tude s’intĂ©resse aussi aux implications institutionnelles de cette DĂ©claration : une reprĂ©sentation de l’humanitĂ© est-elle nĂ©cessaire pour permettre l’exercice de ces droits ? Qui peut parler au nom de l’humanité ?On 25th September 2015, the Universal declaration of the rights of humankind was provided to the french President François Hollande by the former Minister of environment Corinne Lepage and her team. What is the point of this declaration? What is a right of humankind? And are this new rights useful? This article aims to answer this questions by defining the rights of humankind, ditinguishing them from human rights and put them in perspective with the duties towards humankind. This study also deals with the institutionnal implications of this Declaration: is a representation of humankind needed to exercice this rights? Who can speak on behalf of humankind 

    Exome sequencing identifies germline variants in DIS3 in familial multiple myeloma

    Get PDF
    [Excerpt] Multiple myeloma (MM) is the third most common hematological malignancy, after Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Leukemia. MM is generally preceded by Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS) [1], and epidemiological studies have identified older age, male gender, family history, and MGUS as risk factors for developing MM [2]. The somatic mutational landscape of sporadic MM has been increasingly investigated, aiming to identify recurrent genetic events involved in myelomagenesis. Whole exome and whole genome sequencing studies have shown that MM is a genetically heterogeneous disease that evolves through accumulation of both clonal and subclonal driver mutations [3] and identified recurrently somatically mutated genes, including KRAS, NRAS, FAM46C, TP53, DIS3, BRAF, TRAF3, CYLD, RB1 and PRDM1 [3,4,5]. Despite the fact that family-based studies have provided data consistent with an inherited genetic susceptibility to MM compatible with Mendelian transmission [6], the molecular basis of inherited MM predisposition is only partly understood. Genome-Wide Association (GWAS) studies have identified and validated 23 loci significantly associated with an increased risk of developing MM that explain ~16% of heritability [7] and only a subset of familial cases are thought to have a polygenic background [8]. Recent studies have identified rare germline variants predisposing to MM in KDM1A [9], ARID1A and USP45 [10], and the implementation of next-generation sequencing technology will allow the characterization of more such rare variants. [...]French National Cancer Institute (INCA) and the Fondation Française pour la Recherche contre le Myélome et les Gammapathies (FFMRG), the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM), NCI R01 NCI CA167824 and a generous donation from Matthew Bell. This work was supported in part through the computational resources and staff expertise provided by Scientific Computing at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Research reported in this paper was supported by the Office of Research Infrastructure of the National Institutes of Health under award number S10OD018522. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors thank the Association des Malades du Myélome Multiple (AF3M) for their continued support and participation. Where authors are identified as personnel of the International Agency for Research on Cancer / World Health Organization, the authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy or views of the International Agency for Research on Cancer / World Health Organizatio

    Vaccine breakthrough hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs

    Full text link
    Life-threatening `breakthrough' cases of critical COVID-19 are attributed to poor or waning antibody response to the SARS- CoV-2 vaccine in individuals already at risk. Pre-existing autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing type I IFNs underlie at least 15% of critical COVID-19 pneumonia cases in unvaccinated individuals; however, their contribution to hypoxemic breakthrough cases in vaccinated people remains unknown. Here, we studied a cohort of 48 individuals ( age 20-86 years) who received 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine and developed a breakthrough infection with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia 2 weeks to 4 months later. Antibody levels to the vaccine, neutralization of the virus, and auto- Abs to type I IFNs were measured in the plasma. Forty-two individuals had no known deficiency of B cell immunity and a normal antibody response to the vaccine. Among them, ten (24%) had auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs (aged 43-86 years). Eight of these ten patients had auto-Abs neutralizing both IFN-a2 and IFN-., while two neutralized IFN-omega only. No patient neutralized IFN-ss. Seven neutralized 10 ng/mL of type I IFNs, and three 100 pg/mL only. Seven patients neutralized SARS-CoV-2 D614G and the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) efficiently, while one patient neutralized Delta slightly less efficiently. Two of the three patients neutralizing only 100 pg/mL of type I IFNs neutralized both D61G and Delta less efficiently. Despite two mRNA vaccine inoculations and the presence of circulating antibodies capable of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2, auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs may underlie a significant proportion of hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia cases, highlighting the importance of this particularly vulnerable population

    COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

    Get PDF
    Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≀ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≄ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

    Ancrer le droit Ă  un environnement sain au niveau supranational : pour une action renforcĂ©e du Conseil de l’Europe sur les changements climatiques

    No full text
    International audienceThis article is a slightly revised version of the hearing presented by the author before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on December 1, 2020, during the session “Anchoring the right to a healthy environment: the need for enhanced Council of Europe action.” This organization is currently considering the adoption of a treaty recognizing the right to the environment. Two avenues are open to bring this project to fruition. The rst, classic, consists in the adoption of an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights that would recognize an individual right to a healthy environment. The second, more ambitious, would consist in a new autonomous mandatory instrument that would recognize a collective human right to a viable environment.Cet article constitue une version, quelque peu remaniée, de l’audition présentée par l’auteure devant l’Assemblée Parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe le 1er décembre 2020 lors de la session « Ancrer le droit à un environnement sain : la nécessité d’une action renforcée du Conseil de l’Europe». En e et, cette organisation envisage, actuelle- ment, l’adoption d’un traité reconnaissant le droit à l’environnement. Deux voies s’ouvrent à cette organisation pour mener à bien ce projet. La première, classique, consiste dans l’adoption d’un protocole addi- tionnel à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme qui recon- naîtrait un droit individuel à un environnement sain. La seconde, plus ambitieuse, s’oriente vers un nouvel instrument obligatoire, présen- tant un caractère autonome, avec pour objectif de consacrer un droit collectif de l’humanité à un environnement viable

    Les droits de l’homme Ă  l’épreuve du local. Introduction gĂ©nĂ©rale

    No full text
    International audienc
    • 

    corecore