The use of Council of Europe treaties in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Research Division of the European Court of Human Rights; 2011.
Publisher's VersionAbstract
http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=caselaw/analysis&c=#n1347459030234_pointer
The report is found under the Case-law research reports heading as "Use of Council of Europe treaties in the case-law of the Court."
This document, which has been prepared by the Research and Library Division of the Court, contains a table listing references that have been made in the judgments and decisions of the Court to the Council of Europe treaties up to 30 June 2011. Fifty-six treaties have been cited in the Court’s case-law. The European Social Charter of 1961, revised in 1996, is the treaty that has been the most referred to.
The table covers conventions to which reference is made in any part of the Court’s judgments and decisions, including the parties’ submissions and dissenting opinions, as well as treaties that have been referred to only in passing or indirectly through other international instruments or decisions. Treaties which the Court itself has described as international law relevant to a particular case and/or on which it has relied in its reasoning form a majority in this list.
Council of Europe conventions and agreements opened for signature between 1949 and 2003 were published in the European Treaty Series" (ETS No. 001 to 193 included). Since 2004, this Series is continued by the Council of Europe Treaty Series (CETS No. 194 and following). The term “ECHR” (“CEDH” in French) refers to the European Convention on Human Rights.
CEDAW.
Case of Mukhina v. Italy. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); 2011.
Publisher's VersionAbstracthttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/jurisprudence.htm
CEDAW/C/50/D/27/2010
In 2001, Ms. Zhanna Mukhina, a Russian national currently residing and working in Italy, gave birth. The father of the child, the author’s employer, refused to admit paternity and died shortly after the child’s birth. In 2005, the author lost custody of her son ‘owing to the deterioration of her mental state and her inability to support the child.’ Subsequent appeals to regain custody of her son proved unsuccessful and, in 2009, the European Court of Human Rights declared a complaint from the author inadmissible.
In 2010, the author submitted a communication to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women claiming, without further substantiation, that Italy had violated her rights under article 16(f) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women to ensure women and men ‘[t]he same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children ….’
CEDAW.
Case of Rivera v. Canada. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); 2011.
Publisher's VersionAbstracthttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/jurisprudence.htm
CEDAW/C/50/D/26/2010
In 2011, the Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women considered Rivera v. Canada (CEDAW/C/50/D/26/2010). In 2006, Guadalupe Herrera Rivera (GHR), a Mexican national, claimed asylum in Canada, along with her then husband and their two minor children. Canadian authorities denied the claim on the basis that it lacked credibility.
In October 2008, ‘Assistance aux femmes’, acting on behalf of GHR, filed applications with Immigration Canada for a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) and on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. The H&C grounds application included information about GHR’s experiences of domestic violence, the inadequate protection in Mexico against such violence, and the risk of GHR experiencing further violence if deported to Mexico.
In September 2010, GHR submitted a communication to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) claiming that, if Canada deported her to Mexico, it would violate her rights under articles 1, 2(a)-2(d), 5(a) and 24 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). GHR requested interim measures to prevent Canada from deporting her to Mexico while her communication was pending before the CEDAW Committee.
CEDAW.
Case of Teixeira v. Brazil. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); 2011.
Publisher's VersionAbstracthttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/jurisprudence.htm
On August 10 2001, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) issued its landmark decision on the Communication No. 17/2008. The case was filed by the organization Advocaci – Advocacia Cidada pelos Direitos Humanos and the Center for Reproductive Rights against the state of Brazil on November 30th 2007. This is the first decision establishing states’ international responsibility on preventable maternal death case within the UN Human Rights System.
CEDAW.
Case of V.K. v. Bulgaria. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); 2011.
Publisher's VersionAbstracthttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CEDAW/Pages/Jurisprudence.aspx
CEDAW/C/49/D/20/2008
The author of the complaint, VK, alleged that she had been a persistent victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her husband, and petitioned the Bulgarian courts to issue a protection order against him. VK was issued an interim order, but at the full hearing, the court refused to make a permanent order in accordance with its interpretation of national law on the basis that no domestic violence had taken place in the month prior to the initial hearing. The ruling was upheld on appeal. VK specifically alleged that the State had neglected its positive obligation under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women to protect her from domestic violence, and that it had not acted to ensure the necessary protection to avoid irreparable damage to her and her two children.
CEDAW.
Case of V.P.P. v. Bulgaria. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); 2011.
Publisher's VersionAbstract
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CEDAW/Pages/JurisprudenceSession53.aspx
CEDAW/C/53/D/31/2011
In 2011, the Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women considered V.P.P v. Bulgaria (C/53/D/31/2011). V.P.P., a minor, was sexually assaulted by B.G., an adult man who lived in a neighbouring apartment building. Bulgarian authorities waited two years before indicting B.G. for “sexual molestation of a minor”. The District Court approved a plea bargain agreement that B.G. receive a three-year suspended sentence for pleading guilty. B.G. continued to live next door to V.P.P. following the assault and no action was taken to ensure the ongoing safety of V.P.P.
The District Court rejected a request to file a civil claim for moral damages and a separate successful tort suit for 15,000 euros could not be executed with the mechanisms available under Bulgarian law.
S.V.P. submitted a communication under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Optional Protocol) on behalf of her daughter claiming that Bulgaria had violated articles 1, 2(a)-2(c), 2(e)-2(g), 3, 5, 12 and 15 of CEDAW. She claimed that Bulgaria had failed to:
- act with due diligence to protect V.P.P. against sexual assault;
- provide an effective remedy and address the health, rehabilitative and other needs of V.P.P.;
- provide V.P.P. ongoing protection from B.G.; and
- introduce specific legal and policy measures and health services to address violence against women and girls.
- S.V.P. also claimed that Bulgaria’s response to her daughter’s assault reflected gender stereotypes related to violence against women and girls.
CEDAW.
Case of Abramova v. Belarus. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); 2011.
Publisher's VersionAbstracthttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/jurisprudence.htm
CEDAW/C/49/D/23/2009
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has found in Abramova v. Belarus (C/49/D/23/2009) that Belarus’ treatment of a woman detained under administrative arrest violated 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 and the Committee’s General Recommendation No. 19 on violence against women.
CEDAW.
Case of L. C. v. Peru. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); 2011.
Publisher's VersionAbstracthttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/jurisprudence.htm
CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009
L.C. was 13 years old when she was repeatedly raped by a 34-year-old man who lived in her neighborhood in an impoverished region near Peru’s capital city of Lima. Her ordeal started in 2006, and by 2007 she learned that she was pregnant. Desperate, L.C. attempted to commit suicide by jumping off the roof of a building next door to her house. Neighbors discovered her and rushed her to the hospital. But even though doctors concluded that her spine needed to be realigned immediately—and even though abortion in Peru is legal where the mother’s health and life are at risk--they refused to operate on L.C. because she was pregnant. L.C. eventually suffered a miscarriage because of the severity of her injuries. Several weeks after the miscarriage, four months after she was told she needed surgery, L.C. underwent the spinal procedure. She was told shortly thereafter, however, that the surgery would have little to no effect and that she would remain paralyzed. On June 18, 2009, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the Center for the Promotion and Defense of Sexual and Reproductive Rights filed a human rights petition on behalf of L.C. against Peru before the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The petition charges that Peru’s failure to implement measures that guarantee a woman’s ability to obtain essential reproductive health services in a timely manner, particularly legal abortion, not only violates the Peruvian Constitution, but international treaty obligations. Among other remedies, L.C. is asking that the Peruvian government acknowledge the human rights violation; provide L.C. with reparations, including physical and mental rehabilitation; and issue necessary measures so that no other woman is denied her right to comprehensive healthcare and therapeutic abortion.
A Guide to Using the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa for Legal Action. Equality Now; 2011.
Publisher's VersionAbstract
http://www.equalitynow.org/content/guide-using-protocol-rights-women-africa-legal-action
This Guide provides step-by-step guidance for using the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa at local, national, and regional levels. It explains how to bring women’s rights abuses that violate the Protocol before domestic courts and regional justice mechanisms like the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights; analyzes key cases related to women’s rights decided by the African Commission; and provides general strategies for activists.
Ending Violence Against Women and Girls - Evidence, Data and Knowledge in Pacific Island Countries. United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women; 2011.
Publisher's VersionAbstracthttp://asiapacific.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2011/7/en...
This summary of current literature on violence against women and girls in Pacific Island Countries is designed to give practitioners a concise and comprehensive overview of current knowledge and analysis. The evidence presented in this second edition presents a compelling case for more action and investment in preventing and responding to violence against women. It is intended to inform leaders, legislators, policy and decision-makers in government, and programme designers in government and civil society. It is also intended to be a ‘living’ source of knowledge, and will be regularly updated to ensure its validity. Comments, feedback and additions are welcome to this important bank of knowledge on VAW in our region.
Now E.
A Guide to Using the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa for Legal Action. New York: Equality Now; 2011.
Publisher's VersionAbstracthttp://www.equalitynow.org/protocol
Equality Now, in conjunction with Solidarity for African Women’s Rights (SOAWR), is delighted to announce the release of A Guide to Using the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa for Legal Action. The release of this manual comes 5 years after the Protocol came into force. “We hope African lawyers and women’s rights advocates find the manual useful and it gives them hands-on guidance on how best to apply the remarkable standards of the Protocol in cases of violations of women’s rights,” said Faiza Jama Mohamed, Nairobi Office Director of Equality Now, which convenes SOAWR, a coalition of 47 civil society organizations working to ensure that the Women’s Protocol is ratified and implemented across the continent.
Hughes P, Fleetwood R ed.
Violence Against Women: Protection and Prevention Through International Law. INTERIGHTS Bulletin. 2011;16 (3).
Publisher's VersionAbstracthttp://www.interights.org/document/157/index.html
The articles in this Bulletin draw attention to the different ways in which violence against women can manifest itself and in so doing highlight its pervasiveness and the stark failure of many states to take action to prevent it from happening. Although ‘intimate-partner’ violence and sexual coercion are the most common types of violence affecting women and girls, in many parts of the world violence can take on special characteristics depending on different cultural and historical conditions. Some of those characteristics are examined in this Bulletin including the trafficking of women, the treatment of migrant domestic workers and violence against women in situations of armed conflict.
Dinkel C, Haile HA, Sarr A, Wiatrowski C, Biller D.
Analysis of International Jurisprudence Involving Sexual and Other Gender-Based Violence During Conflict. Ithaca: Cornell Law School International Human Rights Clinic and Avon Global Center for Women and Justice; 2011.
Publisher's VersionAbstracthttp://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/womenandjustice/Legal-and-Other-Resourc...
The analysis that follows is the product of a project undertaken by the Avon Global Center for Women and Justice, in collaboration with the Cornell Law School International Human Rights Clinic. The research team analyzed jurisprudence involving sexual and other gender-based violence in cases before the following international war crimes tribunals and special courts: the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY); the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR); the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The purpose of this review is to highlight the development in each tribunal of jurisprudence involving the redress of gender crimes during conflict. The charts that follow present information relevant for further comparison and analysis of progress and persistent gaps in international law, with an aim towards contributing to the furtherance of effective prosecution and prevention of sexual and other gender-based violence.