Advocacy
Making a far-reaching and lasting impact
Establishing legal precedents at the highest levels
ADF International is changing the world – one nation … one case … one life at a time.
Landmark Work
Dimitrova v. Bulgaria
In Dimitrova v. Bulgaria, we successfully defended a Bulgarian woman’s right to lead private worship meetings in her home. This win at the European Court of Human Rights secured greater religious freedom for half a billion people throughout Europe.
Read MoreLautsi v. Italy
In Lautsi v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR ruled that public schools across Italy are free to place crucifixes on their walls—a major triumph for religious freedom across the continent. (ADF International intervened on behalf of 33 members of the European parliament, representing 11 European nations.)
Read MoreArgentina Embraces Life
In Argentina, we provided expert testimony on the draft bill before the Argentine Senate. The testimony focused on Argentina’s obligations to protect life and conscience under international law.
Read MoreNagy v. Hungary
In Nagy v. Hungary, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights upheld church autonomy of religious institutions in a case involving a direct attack on the right of churches to determine their own faith-based standards for employment without government interference.
Read MoreVanishing Girls
With our allies in India, we collaborated on the Vanishing Girls Project to bring an end to one of the greatest injustices in India today: female foeticide. This gendercide has claimed the lives of an estimated 19 million girls aborted during pregnancy or killed shortly after birth. In cooperation with social service organizations, government agencies, and the legal community, our allied lawyers are prosecuting doctors, medical centres, and individuals who participate in these mass killings.
Read MoreSauherad Municipality v. A Norges Kristelige Legeforening
In Sauherad Municipality v. A Norges Kristelige Legeforening, the Supreme Court of Norway ruled that Dr. Jachimowicz acted within her rights in refusing to follow through with a medical procedure to which she had a moral objection. The Court told health authorities to respect her right to conscientious objections.
Read More
