Another argument for the ratification of CEDAW is its use as a tool for women in court cases of sex discrimination. In the United States, where there have been laws and policies implemented and constitutional amendments added for the equality of women, women still lack the ability to argue against sex discrimination in certain cases because they cannot use CEDAW as a tool. There have been cases in many countries which have ratified CEDAW, in which women have used articles straight from the report in order to win cases they would have otherwise had no chance of winning. Because of the ratification of CEDAW, women in some surprising countries have been able to win court cases and go against traditions and customary laws and have made some unprecedented changes. Although CEDAW is implemented differently in each country depending on their current situation, these following examples prove that CEDAW is effective and would be effective in the United States as well.
Uganda:
October 21, 2002 in the case, Uganda v. Matovu, a judge from the High Court of Uganda at Kampala used Article 1 of CEDAW to rule that one of their common law rules was unconstitutional and therefore null and void in this case. A man had been accused of defilement against a woman and typically this type of case would have been easily closed in favor of the man because of uncorroborated evidence with the use of a common law which states that the court is expected to “warn itself that it is dangerous to act upon the uncorroborated evidence of the victim [of a sexual offense] and before so acting must satisfy itself that the victim is a truthful witness” (Warner). Because the judge used Article 1 of the CEDAW report and declined to use this law, the women was able to win the case and seek justice. Without the use of CEDAW, the judge would have been inclined to use this common law and the woman most likely would have lost her case.
Bangladesh:
The Bangladesh National Women’s Lawyer Association, in 2009 after a court case in India, “argued that there was a ‘legislative vacuum’ that resulted in ‘harrowing tales of repression and sexual abuse of women at their workplace, educational institutions and other government and non-governmental organizations’ ” (Warner). The court then used CEDAW, mainly article 11, to evaluate their Constitution and use the guidelines of CEDAW to draft legislation, with this in mind the High Court of Bangladesh reached a decision to prohibit sexual harassment which had been seen as “a major barrier to the active participation of women in the workplace” (Warner). This landmark decision of the court now gives women a tool to fight sexual discrimination and harassment in the workplace.
Kenya:
Kenya has had three main court cases in which CEDAW has been used as a tool. The first is the case In re Wachokire in 2002, in which the brother of an unmarried woman claimed that he should get a greater portion of land after their father passed away. The brother tried to use the Kikuyu customary law which stated that any unmarried woman lacked equal inheritance rights due to the fact that she is expected to get married and would then have land in her husband’s name. The Chief Magistrate’s Court ruled that this customary laws violated Article 15 of CEDAW, “which provides for legal equality between women and men” (Warner), as well as being in violation of the Kenya Constitution. Because of this decision and the use of CEDAW the woman received an equal portion of land as her brother.
In the second case, Rono v Rono , two men argued that they deserved greatest shares of their fathers land than his widow or sister by arguing “according to Keiyo traditions, girls have no right to inheritance of their father’s estate” (Warner). But the Kenya’s Court of Appeals ruled that the non-discrimination standards of their Constitution and human rights agreements, which included CEDAW, prevailed over this tradition. A third case in 2008 was very similar, a man “argued that Masai customary law did not recognize a daughter’s right to inherit property from her father’s estate” (Warner). In this case the court used the decision from Rono v Rono and CEDAW to affirm that women do have inheritance rights.
All information from:
Ann Warner. 2010. "Recognizing Rights, Promoting Progress: The Global Impact of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women." International Center for Research of Women: Washington, D.C.
post by Sara
No comments:
Post a Comment