1654 Jo Shaw Human Rights (ECtHR) in the face of a challenge to a Czech requirement that for children to be admitted to school they must be vaccinated against nine specific diseases. This judgment, in a case which reached the ECtHR before the COVID-19 pandemic, could not have been more timely, and the case was “upgraded” to the Grand Chamber in the light of its potential future relevance. In essence, the ECtHR decided that making vaccination a requirement for access to educational facilities could be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society,” although it concluded that the policy fell within the scope of the Article 8 protection of the right to private life.125 However, any interference with Article 8 rights had to be balanced against the state’s positive duty to protect human life, and national decisions should be taken in the light of scientific consensus about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines in question, which comes into play in the context of the necessity and proportionality assessment of any mandatory vaccination policy. Focused on the “standard and routine vaccination of children against diseases that are well known to medical science” and on indirect measures which penalize non-vaccination rather than state coercion in relation to bodily integrity, the case offers only limited analysis to guide how we should understand the legal treatment of COVID-19 vaccination in European states.126 However, it seems likely that a carefully circumscribed policy based on an enabling legislative measure, in line with scientific evidence and adopting a proportionate approach to the attainment of whatever objectives have been set, would probably be upheld by the ECtHR. Moreover, casting the net beyond Europe, the reasoning is quite closely aligned with several recent judgments of the Supreme Federal Tribunal of Brazil, which supported the constitutionality of compulsory but not coercive vaccination for COVID-19.127 Interestingly enough, however, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights seems to have pointed in a different direction, by emphasizing in guidance issued that all vaccinations must be given on the basis of free and informed consent.128 So far, there appear to be relatively few examples of wide-ranging vaccine mandates put in place by states, other than for certain professions or as a condition for the exercise of certain privileges, for example, international travel or removal of quarantine requirements.129 However, there are a huge number of variables to be considered in relation to these issues. These include the extent of exemptions for sincerely held beliefs, the extent of trust in science in a given country, processes of social exclusion that mean that members of ethnic and racial minorities in many countries have lower access in practice to vaccinations, and the ethics of suggesting or mandating vaccinations for children, given that they are much less affected by COVID-19 and that the trial and approval 125 Vavřička v. Czech Republic, App. No. 47621/13 (Apr. 8, 2021), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-209039. See Katarzyna Ważyńska-Finck, Anti-vaxxers Before the Strasbourg Court: Vavřička and Others v. The Czech Republic, STRASBOURG OBSERVERS BLOG (Jun. 2, 2021), https://strasbourgobservers.com/2021/06/02/anti-vaxxers-before-thestrasbourg-court-vavricka-and-others-v-the-czech-republic/; Katsoni Spyridoula, What Does the Vavřička Judgement Tell Us About the Compatibility of Compulsory COVID-19 Vaccinations with the ECHR?, VÖLKERRECHTSBLOG (Apr. 21, 2021); Zuzana Vikarská, Is Compulsory Vaccination Compulsory?, VERFASSUNGSBLOG (Apr. 12, 2021), https://verfassungsblog.de/ is-compulsory-vaccination-compulsory/; David Archard, Joe Brierley & Emma Cave, Compulsory Childhood Vaccination: Human Rights, Solidarity, and Best Interests, MED. L. REV., 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwab024; Marthe Goudsmit, Mandatory Vaccination and the Infringement of Children’s Article 8 Rights for Their Parents’ Non-compliance, 43 J. SOC. WELFARE AND FAM. L. 335 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2021.1953853; Natalie Grubb, What Does the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Ruling on Compulsory Vaccination Mean for Our Human Rights in the UK?, BRITISH INST. HUM. RTS. BLOG, https://www.bihr.org.uk/blog/what-does-the-european-court-of-human-rights-ecthrruling-on-compulsory-vaccination-mean-for-our-hum. 127 Octávio Luiz Motta Ferraz, Brazil: Compulsory (But Not Forced) Vaccination Is Constitutional, Says Supreme Federal Tribunal, LEX-ATLAS: COVID-19 (Apr. 29, 2021), https://lexatlas-c19.org/compulsory-but-not-forced-vaccination-isconstitutional-says-brazilian-supreme-federal-tribunal/. 128 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., COVID-19 Vaccines and Inter-American Human Rights Obligations, Resolution No. 1/2021, Apr. 6, 2021. 129 Blog Symposium on Mandatory Vaccination, LEX-ATLAS: COVID-19, https://lexatlas-c19.org/tag/mandatoryvaccinations-blog-symposium/; Jeff King & Octávio Luiz Motta Ferraz, Legal, Constitutional and Ethical Principles for Mandatory Vaccination Requirements for Covid-19, (Oct. 29, 2021), https://lexatlas-c19.org/legal-constitutional-andethical-principles-for-mandatory-vaccination-requirements-for-covid-19/?s=09. 126 https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.77 Published online by Cambridge University Press