Abstract
The previous chapters has analyzed the international and regional instruments on which FGM victims can rely in order to seek relief before judicial and quasi-judicial regional and international forums. We now turn to some of matters, which must be established when seeking such a relief for the victims. The focus will be on Africa, although it is plain that the jurisprudence emanating from inter-American and European as well as international courts may be used effectively in order to obtain a remedy before African and international bodies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The Rules of the Committee on the filing and processing of such complaints are relatively complex and can be found at http://www.omct.org/files/2006/11/3979/handbook4_eng_02_part2.pdf.
- 2.
See Mariategui v Argentina, E.HR Committee.
References
Africa Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child [ACRWC]. Available at https://www.unicef.org/esaro/African_Charter_articles_in_full.pdf, Articles 33(1) and (2) and 45(4).
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Articles 18(3), 60 and 62 http://www.ochchr.org/document/HRBodies/TB/ComplaintForm.doc
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Art. 56.
Alekperson v Russian Federation. Comm. No 176/2008, para 8.3.
Ambatielos. (1952). Greece v The United Kingdom. 1 CJ1, 23 ILR p. 303.
Banjul Charter relating to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Art. 50.
Case concerning the US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran. Judgment of 24 May 1980. Available http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=334&p1=3&p2=3&case=64&p3=5
CEDAW. Document A/56/38 (SUPP), as amended by A/62/38) (SUPP), Available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedawreport-a5638-RulesOfProcedure.htm
CESCR. Comment 14, para 35. Available at http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4538838d0.pdf
CESCR. General Comment 14 para 51.
Commission v Ireland. (1998). ECR I-8565; Case C-353/96 (EU Law). Available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-392/96
Committee of Experts’ Guideline. Chapter 3, Article 3(3), Chapter 12, Article 2(IV). Available at http://www.ihrda.org/515-2/s
Convention for the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). www.ohchr.org/bodies/CEDAW/rules
Diallo. (2007). International Court of Justice. Guinea v Democratic Republic of Congo Case. ICJ Reports, paras 42 and 44.
Eborah, S. T. (2010). Critical issues in the human rights mandate of ECOWAS Court of Justice. Journal of African Law, 54, 1–25.
ECHR. (1986). Johnstone v Ireland. Series A no 112.
Finnish Ships (Arbitration). 2 RIAA, p. 1479 (1934); 7AD, p. 231.
General Comment 18 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on Harmful Practices. Available at http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?SymbolNo=CEDAW/C/GC/31/CRC/C/GC/18
H.S. v France [Comm. 184/1].
Henry v Jamaica. Comm. No 230, 1987, para 7.3.
HR Committee. (1978). Shirim Aumeeruddy-Cziffra and other 19 Mauritian Victims v Mauritius. Comm. No 35/1978, para 9.2.
HR Committee. Konye v Hungry. Comm. No 520/92 para 6.4.
HR Committee. Mariategui v Argentina. Comm. No 1371/05 E.
ICCPR. http://www.omct.org/files/2006/11/3979/handbook4_eng_02_part2.pdf
ICCPR. Art. 6.2-6.6.
ICCPR. International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Article 5, Optional Protocol I.
International Law Commission (ILC) Commentary. (2001). Art. 44, p. 303.
Jawara v The Gambia. AHRLR 107 (ACHPR 2000) para 32.
Lovelace v Canada. Comm. No 24/1977, para 7.3.
Shaw, M. (2008). International law (6th ed., p. 283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mkandawire v Malawi. See Application 003/2011 Para 34; full judgment is available at http://www.worldcourts.com/acthpr/eng/decisions/2013.06.21_Mkandawire_v_Malawi.pdf
Musila, G. M. (2006). The right to effective remedy under the African Charter on Human Rights. African Human Rights Law Journal, 6(2), 441–464.
Optional Protocol of ICCPR. Art. 5, Para 4, www.ohch.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/pages/jurisprudence.aspx
Optional Protocol to ICCPR. Art. 5 (2) (b).
Robert E. Brown case. 6RIAA, p. 20.
Sriga-vaasa v Sri Lanka. Comm. 1033/01, para 6.4.
Tanganyika Law Society & others v Tanzania. Application No. 009/2011/2011. Available at http://www.ijrcenter.org/2013/07/05/in-first-judgment-on-the-merits-african-court-finds-tanzania-violated-citizens-right-to-participate-in-democracy-by-prohibiting-independent-candidates/
The Interhandle Case, ICJ Reports, 1959, p. 6; 27 ILR, p. 475.
The Maputo Protocol. Available at http://maputoprotocol.com/about-the-protocol
Trindale, A. C. (1983). The application of the rule of local exhaustion of remedies in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Velasquez Rodriguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser. C) No. 4. Available at http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/iachr/b_11_12d.htm
Woulter Vandenhole. (2004). The procedure before the UN human rights treaty bodies: Divergence or convergence? Antwerp-Oxford: Intersentia.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kandala, NB., Komba, P.N. (2018). Litigation and Remedies for the Victims. In: Female Genital Mutilation around The World: . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78007-8_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78007-8_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78005-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78007-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)