A/HRC/4/28 page 27 57 Communication No. 4/2004, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/36/D/4/2004 (2006), full judgement available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/protocol/decisionsviews/Decision%204-2004%20-%20English.pdf. 58 48 DLR (1996) HCD 438. 59 Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, article 32. 60 Constitution of Bangladesh, article 18. 61 CESCR, general comment No. 14, paras. 34-37. There is an overlap between, on the one hand, respect, protect and fulfil and, on the other hand, the requirement that health services etc., are available, accessible, acceptable and of good quality. 62 CESCR, general comment No. 14, para. 34. 63 24 EHRR 423, full judgement available at www.echr.coe.int. On the duty to respect see also the case of Andrea Szijjarto v. Hungary, discussed in paragraph 75. 64 D. v. United Kingdom, 24 EHRR 423, para. 53. 65 In some more recent decisions, the Court has held that deporting people living with HIV/AIDS to countries where they may not be able to receive treatment may not amount to a violation of the European Convention if their illness has not reached an advanced stage, e.g. Henao v. The Netherlands, Application No. 13669/03, 24 June 2003. 66 Karen Noelia Llantoy Huamán v. Peru, communication No. 1153/2003, UN Doc. CPR/C/85/D/1153/2003 (2005), full judgement available at http://www1.umn.edu/ humanrts/undocs/1153-2003.html, see also www.crlp.org. 67 The Committee found a violation of articles 2, 7, 17 and 24 of ICCPR. 68 Resolution No. 10/85, case No. 7615 (1985), full judgement available at http://www.cidh.org/Indigenas/Annex1.htm. 69 CESCR, general comment No. 14, para. 33. 70 A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1622. 71 Communication No. 155/96 (2001) http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/ comcases/155-96b.html. This case is on the borderline between “respect” and “protect”. To the extent that the oil consortium was an arm of the State, it is a “respect” case. To the extent that the oil consortium was a private entity insufficiently regulated by the State, it is a “protect” case. Whether “respect” or “protect”, the key point is that the Commission found that the State was responsible for breaches of health-related rights. 72 CESCR, general comment No. 14, para. 33.