Greenland is set to publish two long-awaited reports on Friday that examine human rights violations linked to historic cases in which Greenlandic women and girls were fitted with intrauterine devices (IUDs) and other contraceptives without proper consent. The reports will also assess whether Denmark's actions could meet the legal definition of genocide under international law.
The findings come at a politically sensitive moment: the Danish parliament is due to hold its final vote on compensation legislation for affected women on Thursday, just one day before the reports are made public. This timing has raised questions about how the reports' assessment of responsibility will align with Denmark's existing response.
More than 4,000 Greenlandic women and girls had IUDs inserted during a Danish-led contraception campaign that began in the 1960s. Many later said they had not been adequately informed or had not given consent. Denmark managed Greenland's healthcare system until 1992, and in 2024 the Greenlandic self-government commissioned independent experts to investigate whether the Danish state committed genocide and violated international law.
“As a society, we must have all the facts on the table, but we must also find ways to move forward together. Therefore, the investigation will also address how the trauma caused by the Contraception Case has affected society over generations,” the Greenlandic government said in a statement in 2024.
What the reports will cover
The reports being published on Friday will not themselves establish legally binding responsibility, according to legal experts. “There will be no strict legal effect from the reports. However, depending on the results, they might lead to political action,” said Sune Klinge, an associate professor specialising in constitutional law at the University of Copenhagen.
Some experts say the case is unlikely to meet the legal threshold for genocide. “The UN Genocide Convention coupled with judicial practice will be the legal basis for a finding of responsibility for genocide. Genocide is based on the perpetrator's special intent to commit the acts because he or she does not recognise the group's right to exist as a group,” said Frederik Harhoff, an international law scholar at the University of Southern Denmark and former judge at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
“It is therefore unlikely that the report will conclude that genocide took place, and if one of the two reports does so, they are wrong,” Harhoff added. He also noted that while a public report may be indicative, criminal responsibility for genocide can only be established by a competent court.
The reports could, however, identify other violations of international human rights or indigenous peoples' rights, which could still shape the political and legal response. “As genocide cannot be established for lack of the required special intent, violation of the women's human rights becomes essential,” Harhoff said.
Why are there two reports?
Greenland originally appointed a single four-person expert group to carry out the human rights investigation. However, the group later split into two over what the government described as “disagreements on the professional approach”, leaving Greenland ultimately receiving two reports rather than one. The Greenlandic government said both reports subsequently underwent external review of their methodology and academic standards. It has not disclosed whether the disagreement extended to the experts' conclusions or who authored each report.
The publication has already attracted criticism because Denmark is moving ahead with its compensation legislation before the assessments are made public. The reports were completed and handed to Greenland's government in February, but their release was delayed while they were translated, peer-reviewed and prepared for public disclosure.
Under the proposed scheme, eligible women subjected to contraception without consent during the period when Denmark was responsible for Greenland's healthcare would be entitled to DKK 300,000 (€40,000). Earlier this month, one of the experts commissioned to investigate the case, Jonas Christoffersen, urged Greenland's government to publish the reports before the Danish parliament completed its compensation legislation, arguing that lawmakers should have access to the findings before adopting the law.
“It is fundamentally questionable in a democracy that the [Danish parliament] will pass a law without knowing about the reports that independent individuals have written. The Greenland Government should therefore immediately publish the reports, just as the [Danish parliament] should be made aware of them, so that the entire matter can be debated on a fully informed basis,” Christoffersen wrote in a statement. “The case has damaged the relationship between Denmark and Greenland, and in my opinion it is best for everyone if there is full transparency about the matter,” he added.
Harhoff also regards the parliament's decision to proceed with the bill without waiting for the reports as problematic. The controversy adds to broader tensions in Danish-Greenlandic relations, which have also been strained by other issues, such as migration policy debates and the legacy of colonial-era practices. The reports' findings could influence not only the compensation scheme but also future political discussions between Nuuk and Copenhagen.
