ual ▁factors ▁of ▁the ▁human ▁dign ity ▁test . ▁Another ▁proposed ▁an ▁increased ▁focus ▁on ▁the ▁concept ▁of ▁accommod ation , ▁as ▁this ▁should , ▁in ▁any ▁case , ▁be ▁the ▁central ▁focus ▁of ▁any ▁section ▁ 1 5 ▁claim . ▁Yet ▁another ▁critic ▁of ▁the ▁human ▁dign ity ▁test ▁proposed ▁an ▁understanding ▁of ▁human ▁dign ity ▁reform ulated ▁as ▁a ▁concept ▁of ▁personal ▁aut onomy , ▁an ▁approach ▁more ▁fav ou rable ▁to ▁empir ical ▁anal ys es ▁and ▁thus ▁more ▁coh er ent , ▁and ▁which ▁is ▁subst anti ated ▁in ▁part ▁by ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ' s ▁own ▁definition ▁of ▁human ▁dign ity . ▁ ▁Last ly , ▁an ▁analysis ▁of ▁case ▁law ▁reve als ▁that ▁the ▁six ▁section ▁ 1 5 ▁claims ▁to ▁reach ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁immediately ▁following ▁the ▁Law ▁decision ▁were ▁all ▁denied ▁on ▁the ▁ground ▁they ▁did ▁not ▁ful fill ▁the ▁human ▁dign ity ▁requirement . ▁However , ▁another ▁analysis ▁of ▁section ▁ 1 5 ▁claims ▁reports ▁that ▁the ▁success ▁rate ▁of ▁claim ants ▁under ▁Law ▁was ▁greater ▁than ▁the ▁success ▁rate ▁under ▁Andrew s . ▁One ▁scholar ▁has ▁explained ▁this ▁phenomen on ▁by ▁suggesting ▁Law ▁did ▁not ▁create ▁a ▁new ▁test ▁of ▁human ▁dign ity , ▁but ▁rather ▁that ▁the ▁court ▁cry st all ized ▁a ▁pre - ex isting ▁yet ▁implicit ▁criter ion ▁into ▁law . ▁That ▁said , ▁a ▁dis pro port ion ately ▁high ▁number ▁of ▁section ▁ 1 5 ▁claims ▁under ▁Law ▁fail ▁at ▁this ▁third ▁stage ▁of ▁the ▁test ▁(