The Supreme Court has announced its position on the right to bodily integrity against the background of increasing aesthetic surgeries.
This was reported to Elchi.az from the Supreme Court. It was stated that the right to life is the most supreme fundamental right, being an inviolable and absolute right that a person possesses from the moment of birth. It was essentially constitutionally guaranteed by the decision “On the Protection of Personal Rights” adopted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court on December 24, 2025, but clarity was also brought to the right to bodily integrity, which had been left out compared to others in terms of the protection of rights. The right to bodily integrity refers to a person’s personal rights over the organ, limb, or tissue that makes up the body. Unless there are circumstances that eliminate illegality, any interference (medical, scientific, physical, sexual, etc.) with bodily integrity by third parties is prohibited. For example, performing medical analyses without the person’s consent or taking biomaterial from them on any other basis, administering any injection, using their organs and tissues during their lifetime or after their death, touching their body, committing physical and sexual violence, etc.
The Plenum’s decision also clarified in which cases interference with the listed rights is legal. These cases include the person’s consent, superior special interest, superior public interest, and legal basis. The person’s consent implies an expression of will that is clearly expressed, undamaged, and not contrary to law or morality. Consent may be in the form of written, oral, conclusive action (behavior), or silence.
Damaged, illegal, immoral, and not clearly expressed consent is not legally possible and is prohibited from being accepted (for example, consent to interfere with a person’s bodily integrity by conducting a medical examination on them is valid, but consent to end a person’s life is inadmissible).
The Plenum’s decision also provided extensive clarification on the issues of violation of these rights as a result of poor-quality medical services and liability for damages, indicating in which cases it is possible to demand compensation for moral damage related to medical services. These cases are as follows:
1) Failure to carry out medical assistance measures at all or with the necessary quality (measures that observe during the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, medical recovery, and rehabilitation of diseases (physiological and pathological conditions), poisonings, and traumas);
2) Violation of the patient’s rights provided for in Article 24 of the Law “On Protection of Public Health”;
3) Violation of a person’s health as a result of aesthetic, cosmetic services, and other types of medical activities.
If, despite acting within the framework of medical standards and showing due care and attention during the provision of medical assistance, damage to health that was not foreseen in advance, or if foreseen, could not be prevented, originates from a reason outside the knowledge, skills, and capabilities of the doctor or medical institution, liability is excluded. In this case, the defendant must prove that the medical services provided comply with clinical protocols.
The Plenum’s decision also clarified the difference between the characteristics and legal bases of claims for compensation for damage caused during the provision of medical services in the medical and aesthetic fields.
According to the decision, aesthetic surgery, aesthetic dentistry, cosmetic services, and other types of medical activities are not medical assistance, but contract relations with guaranteed results. If the result of the service differs from what was stipulated in the contract, damage arising from the breach of contractual obligations, not damage related to medical services, may be claimed (for example, when the shape of the nose does not match the pre-agreed shape, when transplanted hair does not grow, etc., when aesthetic results are disputed).
If, while providing these services, a person’s right to life, health, or bodily integrity, as well as the patient’s rights provided for in Article 24 of the Law “On Protection of Public Health” are violated, the damage caused is not considered damage arising from the breach of a contractual obligation; such damage is a civil law violation, and these disputes will be regulated by sectoral legislation and tort.
Claims for compensation of damages can be brought against a medical institution or a medical worker or both. The possibility of an alternative choice depends on the victim’s desire. When the damage is paid by the medical institution, the right to a claim for recourse arises against the employee who committed the violation in accordance with the requirements of labor legislation.