Relatrice nel panel “Human Rights Law” nel Convegno Neurotech: Neurotechnology and the Law, organizzato dal Center for Law and Transformational Technology dell’Università di Drexel, Philadelphia. Titolo dell'intervento: "Human rights violations deriving from Direct-to-Consumer Neurotechnology. An analysis of the role of European system of human rights protection in filling in definitional loopholes in the international human rights framework"

The relationship between technology and law is traditionally known to be a complex one. When it comes to neurotechnology, the science that can read and modify the organ that defines not only our perceptions or thoughts but our individual and collective identity, it is unquestionable that the challenge faced by the regulator to mitigate the negative impacts of this interaction is an unprecedented one. The rapid development of neurotechnology and the readiness of the market to implement the techniques developed in the medical arena into Direct-to-Consumer devices calls for a global reflection on risks that the non-medical use of neurotechnology may pose for human rights. This concern has been reflected in the numerous research initiatives, reports and recommendation by international policy-makers such as HRC Advisory Committee , UNESCO or the OECD. In this context, while some scholars argue in favour of the creation of new rights, i.e. neuro-rights, including the right to cognitive liberty, the right to mental privacy or mental integrity, the right to psychological continuity or the right to mental augmentation, others claim that the existing international human rights framework, through an evolving interpretation of its provisions, may be fit to address the challenge. Building on the thorough report recently presented by the Neurorights Foundation , this paper aims to cross-examine the gaps encountered in international human rights treaties against the European Human rights protection framework in an attempt to work towards consensus in key definitions that will ultimately grant legal certainty at an international treaty level.