A good reproductive health law is needed. The current population fertility rate of 6.1 results in unsustainable population growth, so for the country's Vision 2020 targets to be met, this should be reduced to at maximum 4.

On a personal level too, uncontrolled procreation leads to disaster, with couples ending up with more children than they can take care of, thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty with all that includes - poor nutrition, poor health, low education, etc.

And that is without mentioning the threat of HIV/AIDS to society.

Thus, a well-thought-out law on reproductive health, promoting family planning, organizing education on the issue and at the same time protecting the rights of HIV-infected people, would be more than welcome.

That is probably what they thought at the Rwanda parliamentary network for population and development (RPRPD), which put it on its list of priorities. That, however, seemed to mean getting the bill out as quickly as possible rather than working on substance.

"It is true the bill had been rushed," admits Esperance Mwiza, the chairperson of the commission that reviewed the draft law before it was presented to the Chamber of Deputies, and who concedes that mistakes have indeed been made.

Yet she remarks there was a good reason for working quickly. "It was due to its importance, since there exists no specific law governing reproductive health, which is an area that needs urgent attention," Mwiza says.

Undermining human rights principles

That may be true, but rushing a bill and getting a few typos in is one thing, yet including articles that introduce compulsory HIV-testing, that deny mentally handicapped people the right to procreate or that are so ambiguous about abortion that in the end it seems that anything goes, that's another thing altogether.

The strange thing is, none of the Deputies apparently found anything wrong with the 37-page bill - in any case, they went ahead and duly passed the draft law. The Senators, for their part, apparently had a closer look, were dumbfounded and returned the document to sender. This prompted the RPRPD, belatedly, to organize a series of consultations with people and organizations involved in the issue.

As a result, a task force was created consisting of civil rights groups such as the Human Rights Commission (HRC), the Forum of Activists against HIV/AIDS Scourge (FAAS), people living with HIV/AIDS (PVV) as well as the association of medical doctors. Their task was to review the draft law.

Starting from scratch is a better description of their work, because there are numerous questionable articles in the bill. As a document presented by HRC during a consultative meeting held on April 14 put it, "the Draft Bill undermines some fundamental human rights principles."

Mandatory AIDS testing

Article 13 is an example in case: "Pre-requisits [sic] for those intending to get married: Prospective spouses shall have the obligation to go for aprior [sic] HIV/AIDS test and be given a certificate thereof."

According to Christine Umubyeyi, the legal advisor at HRC, the article undermines the right to voluntary testing. "It should not be a prerequisite but the will of the soon-to-be partners," Umubyeyi says.

The April 14 document of the HRC has the following comment on the article: "This is highly problematic as it refers to mandatory testing which is unacceptable and against all human rights principles. International agencies such as WHO, UNAIDS and IPPF do not support mandatory testing under any circumstances. Any HIV testing should follow the three C's principles: 1) be Confidential; 2) be accompanied by Counseling; and 3) only be conducted with informed Consent meaning that it is both informed and voluntary."

So article 13 does not only violate the voluntariness of the testing, but also the confidentiality: if an HIV test is mandatory to get married, then the certificate will have to be presented as proof to a public servant.

This issue gets worse in article 17 on HIV/AIDS testing: "Every person shall have the obligation to test HIV/AIDS and show the result to their spouses [sic] at any times a request to do so is made by one of the spouses. Where a medical doctor finds it necessary to AIDS status [sic] in a child or any other person, he or she shall do so without asking for any authorization and show the result to the guardian or care provider."

So now, even "consent" is thrown out of the window. But this article highlights another major problem with this bill: in the Kinyarwanda and French versions, "any other person" is qualified. In French, for example, it reads: "toute autre personne qui n'est pas en mesure de prendre sa propre décision pour pouvoir le traiter" (any other person who is not capable of making a decision about his treatment), which maintains consent. That notion has simply been discarded in English.

Can the mentally handicapped reproduce?

Then there's Article 14, which says: "Spouses shall have the obligation to use family planning methods for their family's welfare." On the one hand this sounds like a promotion of the Chinese one-child-family policy, yet the article's obliqueness prevents any clear interpretation.

"The definition of family planning and its role is vague as it does not specify a limit to the number of children a family is supposed to have," says HRC's Christine Umubyeyi. "Moreover, the bill does not specify what action will be taken if one does not practice family planning."

The civil society taskforce also indicated that family planning should not be an obligation but the result of mutual consent between the spouses.

Article 22 is a bombshell: "The Government shall have the obligation to suspend fertility for mentally handicapped people as long as the handicap is still persistent and upon decision by a medical team comprising at least three medical doctors. An order of the Minister in charge of health shall specify the list and implementation modalities for diseases accounted for by this article."

Not only does this article ignore the fact that mental handicaps are not hereditary, it also contradicts the Constitution which gives equal rights to all Rwandans.

"This is just unacceptable," says Pierre Claver Rwaka, the representative of the disabled in the Lower Chamber. "It is a gross violation of human rights; they have a right to reproduce just like any other human being, and the government has no right to stop them from procreating. It is not the government's obligation to stop a mentally handicapped person from reproducing; it's a decision that should be taken by the family in question."

What is puzzling about this reaction, however, is that Rwaka is a member of the RPRPD, which produced the bill. "I was not able to follow up the bill due to personal reasons," is his explanation.

Once again, there is a major problem of translation in this article; the French version does not talk about mentally handicapped people, but about "les personnes ayant une incapacité mentale ou d'autres maladies" (people with mental incapacities or other illnesses). This, however, only confuses things more: what is meant by "mental incapacities" and, even more worrying, which "other illnesses" are we talking about?

Christine Umubyeyi of the Human Rights Commission concedes that in some cases it might be justified to prevent procreation, yet she insists that careful measures should be taken; for example, doctors should specify the appropriate cases, and it should be done with the consent of the family.

Abortion is not allowed, or is it?

Currently, abortion is not allowed in Rwanda. Yet article 28 of the bill casts doubt on that notion: "Voluntary abortion as one of contraceptive measures shall be prohibited. However, this type of abortion may be used in case of strong beliefs and decision by a medical team of three (3) authorized medical doctors that the pregnancy or the child born out the pregnancy [sic] may have a serious impact on the mother's life."

Pregnancy and childbirth always have a serious impact on the mother's life; so this article sets the door wide open to legalizing abortion, even though there is still the threshold of the three doctors. Yet once again, the Kinyarwanda and French versions add an important nuance lacking in the English one. There is no mention of "strong beliefs" or "impact on the mother's life" in the French version, which says that voluntary abortion can only be allowed "lorsqu'il est remarqué que la grossesse ou l'accouchement pourrait mettre en danger la santé de la femme enceinte" (when pregnancy or giving birth might constitute a danger to the health of the pregnant woman).

In the English version (which would be valid in court since English is an official language), abortion is allowed in case of an impact on the mother's life, which can be anything. In the French and Kinyarwanda versions, it is said that the woman's health must be in danger. So which version should we believe?

It is not yet clear when the revised law will be presented before the Chamber of Deputies. "RPRPD is currently correcting the mistakes in the law and incorporating ideas that were missing or omitted," Mwiza assured.

Let's just hope that this time the Deputies do their work and read the bill before voting on it. And let's also hope the RPRPD will have found a better English translator.