Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW ) And its

2. Mechanisms of Protection Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) And its Optional Protocol M. Estrada

3. CEDAW Jurisprudence CEDAW Legislative Decisions Dr Miriam Estrada-Castillo

4. Inga Abramova vs Belarus Alleged violations of articles 2(a)-2(b), 2(e)-2(f), 3 and 5(a) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), read in conjunction with article 1.  Breaches of articles 7 and 10(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and rule 53(3) of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

5. Inga Abramova vs Belarus • CEDAW Committee found that Belarus’ treatment of Inga Abramova constituted discrimination and sexual harassment, in violation of articles 2(a)-2(b), 2(e)-2(f), 3 and 5(a) of CEDAW, read in conjunction with article 1 and the Committee’s General Recommendation No. 19 on violence against women.  • In reaching its determination, the CEDAW Committee also took rule 53 of the Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners and the UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offenders into account.

6. Inga AbramovavsBelarus CEDAW/C/49/D/20/2008 (27 September 2011) Recommendations, CEDAW called on Belarus to provide appropriate reparation, including compensation, to Abramova.  Belarus to take measures to, inter alia: protect the dignity, privacy and physical and psychological safety of women detainees; ensure access to gender-specific health care for women detainees; and, provide safeguards to protect women detainees from all forms of abuse, including gender-specific abuse.  

7. Karen Vertido vs the Philippines • First case/decision ever in Asia • Burden of the proof • Favourable decision in July 2010 • CEDAW/C/46/D/18/2008 solved 22 September 2010 M. Estrada

8. Karen Vertido vs the Philippines Alleged violations of articles 2(a)-2(b), 2(e)-2(f), 3 and 5(a) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), read in conjunction with article 1.  Breaches of articles 7 and 10(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and rule 53(3) of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

9. Karen Vertido vs the Philippines CEDAW Committee: Failing to end discriminatory gender stereotyping in the legal process, the Philippines had violated articles (2)(c) and 2(f) of CEDAW, and article 5(a) read in conjunction with article 1 and General Recommendation No. 19 (violence against women).  The Committee declined to consider whether or not article 2(d) had been violated, finding that it was less relevant to the case than the other articles alleged to have been violated. 

10. Karen Vertido vs the Philippines • Philippines failed to comply with its obligation to ensure MsVertido’s right to an effective remedy.  • Case had languished in the trial court for approximately eight years Decision was made to acquit the accused • MsVertido’s allegation of rape was not dealt with in ‘a fair, impartial, timely and expeditious manner.’     

11. Recommendation •   “As stereotyping affects women’s right to a fair and just trial and that the judiciary must take caution not to create inflexible standards of what women or girls should be or . . . have done when confronted with a situation of rape based merely on preconceived notions of what defines a rape victim….” M. Estrada

12. Michèle Dayras et al. v. France • On 6 July 2006, seven French women submitted a communication to the CEDAW Committee, claiming to be victims of violations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women(CEDAW).   • MichèleDayras and MichelineZeghouani were unmarried and claimed that they had chosen to remain childless because the Act denied them the right to transmit their family names to their children.  Dayras also claimed that the Act prevented her from using her own mother’s surname.  Nelly Campo-Trumel, Sylvie Delange and Frédérique Remy-Cremieu were married and claimed that they were victims because the Act forced their children to take on their fathers’ surnames.  Hélène Muzard-FekkarandAdèleDaufrene-Levrard were married and claimed that they were victims because the Act forced their children to take on their fathers’ surnames and because they were prevented from using their own mothers’ surnames. 4

13. Michèle Dayras et al. v. France • Challenge to Act on the transmission of family names (2005) • The seven women argued that the Act violated articles 2, 5 and • 16 of CEDAW.  • State Party’s failure to take appropriate measures to modify or • abolish the customary norm by which married women traditionally • bore their husbands’ surnames – a norm “grounded in married women’s • submission to their husbands’ authority” which violates article 5(a) of • CEDAW by maintaining paternal superiority and failing to guarantee • de facto equality between parents. 

14. Controversy The majority explained that article 16(1)(g) of CEDAW applies only to married women, women in de facto unions and mothers.  As Dayras and Zeghouani did not fall within any of these categories, it concluded that they could not be considered “victims” under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.  It explained that, “since Ms. Dayras and Ms. Zeghouani are not married, do not live in husband-and-wife relationships and do not have children, they cannot claim rights pertaining to the use or the transmission of family names and cannot be victims of a right whose beneficiaries are only married women, women living in de facto union or mothers.”  In other words, they could not be considered “victims.”

15. Miriam Estrada-Castillo Professor miriam.estrada@rwi.lu.se