|
Committee on Elimination of Discrimination
Against Women
19
January 2009
Committee Adopts Agenda, Holds Informal Meeting with
Non-Governmental Organizations from Armenia and Dominica
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against
Women today opened its forty-third session, adopted its agenda and methods of
work, and held an informal meeting with non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) from Armenia and Dominica whose reports will be considered during the
session.
Bacre Ndaiye, Director of the Human Rights Council and
Treaties Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights,
addressing the Committee, spoke of the progress made on the international
level in the field of the elimination of discrimination against women, such
as the adoption of the Optional Protocol relating to the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by the General Assembly in
December 2008. The General Assembly, at its sixty-third session, had also
adopted a resolution related to the intensification of action undertaken to
eliminate all forms of violence against women. In April this year, the review
of the Durban Conference would take place in Geneva, with the main goal of
evaluating the progress achieved in the fight against racism since the World
Conference against Racism in 2001. The High Commissioner for Human Rights
would continue to support the Committee in its work, and wished it a fruitful
session.
Having adopted the agenda and methods of work, the
Committee heard the following eight new members take a solemn declaration:
Nicole Ameline, Violet Awori, Barbara Bailey, Niklas Bruun, Indira Jaising,
Soledad Murillo de la Vega, Victoria Popescu and Zohra Rasekh. The Committee
will elect its new bureau at a later stage.
The Committee then heard the report of the Chairperson,
Dubravka Simonovic, on activities undertaken between sessions. Ms. Simonovic
said this was her last statement as Chairperson. In the two years during
which she was Chairperson, 66 reports had been examined, and a backlog had
been cleared. A long-term solution of three meetings per year starting from
2010 had also been achieved, but this should be matched with timely reporting
from States Parties that should clear their reporting delays. The Committee
had also adopted a General Recommendation on Women Migrant Workers, but they
were still lagging behind in work on a draft general recommendation on
Article 2. It had started work on two new general recommendations, on older
women and on economic consequences of divorce. In spite of progress, more
needed to be done and more efforts were needed from all stakeholders on the
implementation of the Convention and concluding observations if there were to
be results on the ground and in the lives of individual women.
During the session, the Committee is scheduled to consider
periodic reports from Armenia, Cameroon, Dominica, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti,
Libya and Rwanda.
The Committee held an informal meeting with
non-governmental organizations, hearing statements from three Armenian NGOs,
namely All Armenian Women's Union, "Democracy Today" NGO, and Armenian
Association of University Educated Women, and two Dominican NGOs - Dominican
National Coalition of Women, and Dominica Association of Disabled People.
On Armenia, speakers said there were critical obstacles
faced by women in enjoying their human rights in Armenia. There was still
much to be done to achieve the universally accepted standards of gender
equality and human rights principles. There was particular concern that the
Government had not yet taken any steps to incorporate the Covenant into the national
legislation system. The existing institutional mechanisms did not meet the
criteria for national machinery as none of these entities formulated or
identified anti-discriminatory policies and a gender equality policy or
coordinated the activities of Government bodies in this area.
On Dominica, speakers said the Constitution of Dominica
provided for equal and inalienable rights to all persons. The efforts of the
Government especially towards the enactment of the Protection Against
Domestic Violence Act of 2001 were to be commended. Despite these efforts and
others, there were still a number of difficulties in the furtherance of
justice for women. The Committee should direct the State to address the
serious obstacles that prevented Carib women from enjoying their human rights
with respect to housing, employment, access to credit, education and health.
Persons with disabilities, especially women, continued to be marginalised,
and faced discrimination in the State.
The next open meeting of the Committee will be at 10 a.m.
on Wednesday, 21 January, when it is scheduled to take up the seventh
periodic report of Dominica (CEDAW/C/DMA/7).
Opening Statements
BACRE NDAIYE, Director of the Human Rights Council and
Treaties Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights,
said the Optional Protocol relating to the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had been adopted by the General Assembly
in December 2008, whilst the international community was celebrating the
sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This
Protocol gave the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights the
ability to receive and examine individual requests and hold investigations on
violations of the principles contained within the Convention. The Committee
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would be holding its inaugural
session in February 2009. The eighth inter-Committee meeting, held in
December 2008 was totally given over to the harmonisation of methods of work.
The General Assembly, at its sixty-third session, had
adopted a resolution related to the intensification of action undertaken to
eliminate all forms of violence against women. This invited all States to put
an end to the impunity enjoyed by those who committed violence against women,
by, among other things, ensuring that women enjoyed equal protection before
the law and equality in access to justice and by eliminating attitudes which
encouraged, justified or tolerated all forms of violence against women and
girls including crimes of sexual violence. It underlined that murder and
mutilation of girls and women should be excluded from amnesties.
In December 2008, the Women's Rights and Gender Unit had
organised a panel on the importance of economic and social rights in
post-conflict situations, as well as on effective judicial procedures in
cases of sexual violence. The goal of the panel was to show the tight link
between access to justice and that of economic and social rights, and their
direct application. In April this year, the review of the Durban Conference
would take place in Geneva, with the main goal of evaluating the progress
achieved in the fight against racism since the World Conference against
Racism in 2001.
During the current session, the Committee would examine
the reports of seven States Parties, and one in the absence of a report. It
would also continue its work under the Optional Protocol relating to the
Convention. It would examine the recommendations of the eighth
inter-committee meeting, and would also hold an informal meeting with
representatives of NGOs, and a private meeting with United Nations bodies.
The High Commissioner for Human Rights would continue to support the
Committee in its work, and wished it a fruitful session.
In response to a question from a Committee member, Mr.
Ndiaye said that with regards to the budget, programme 19 had not been
adopted by a vote, and the High Commissioner was now in the process of
considering the issue. The prospect of additional resources was not as
positive as could have been hoped - the news from the budget was not very
good, but the High Commissioner was striving to provide services at the same
level as it was now.
Responding to a further question, Mr. Ndiaye said that the
Human Rights Council had had a Special Session on the situation in Gaza that
had finished last week and had adopted a resolution by a majority vote. The
idea was to condemn the violations of human rights and international
humanitarian law that had been committed and to ask the President of the
Human Rights Council to appoint a Commission of Inquiry composed of eminent
individuals to investigate what had happened during the three weeks of the
dramatic crisis. The President should be meeting today to appoint the members
of the Commission, and thus the implementation of the resolution was
underway. As in the past the problem would no doubt be that of access to
Gaza, and it was hoped that this time the Israeli authorities would cooperate
with the Commission.
DUBRAVKA SIMONOVIC, Chairperson of the Committee,
said it was only a few months since the forty-second session had ended. Since
that time, she had participated in the Third World Congress on Sexual
Exploitation of Children and Adolescents. She had addressed a workshop on
trafficking in children and highlighted the gender dimension of trafficking
and the work of the Committee under article 6 of the Convention. She had also
participated in a colloquium on the Impact of Violence against Women on the
Family in Doha, Qatar. The colloquium addressed violence against women,
international and regional instruments, as well as laws and policy reform and
the importance of data collection and the use of indicators on violence
against women. Ms. Simonovic also attended the eighth inter-committee
meeting, which was dedicated exclusively to the issue of harmonisation of
working methods.
In December, Ms. Simonovic said she had attended the first
inaugural session of the Forum on Minority Issues, which focused on
minorities and the right to education. At this meeting, she had described the
Committee's recommendations on minority women and girls and stressed
importance of the inclusion of a gender perspective in the outcome document.
This was an area that could be further discussed with the Independent Expert
on minorities.
This was her last statement as Chairperson, Ms. Simonovic
said. In the two years during which she had been chairperson, 66 reports had
been examined, and a backlog had been cleared. A long-term solution of three
meetings per year starting from 2010 had also been achieved, but this should
be matched with timely reporting from States Parties that should clear their
reporting delays. The Committee had also adopted a General Recommendation on
Women Migrant Workers, but were still lagging behind in its work on a draft
general recommendation on Article 2. It had started work on two new general
recommendations, on older women and on economic consequences of divorce. In
spite of progress, more needed to be done, more efforts were needed from all
stakeholders on implementation of the Convention and concluding observations
if there were to be results on the ground and in lives of individual women.
To achieve further progress, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights should continue and increase its support to the Committee by
allocating additional human and financial resources for its work, as well as
providing technical assistance for reporting or implementation of concluding
observations to State Parties that had such needs. This year, all should use
the thirtieth anniversary of the Convention to raise their visibility and
their impact on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
Dialogue with Non-Governmental Organizations
Armenia
ANAHIT AVANESYAN, of All Armenian Women Union, said
there were critical obstacles faced by women in enjoying their human rights
in Armenia. There was still much to be done to achieve the universally
accepted standards of gender equality and human rights principles. Lack of
awareness among women on the existing mechanisms protecting their rights as
well as on how to use those mechanisms increased their vulnerability to
violence and impaired their access to justice. Despite legislation, there
were no institutions responsible for gender equality issues. The
implementation of the Plan of Action on Advancement of Women was severely
hampered by lack of institutional capacities, funding, and comprehensive
analysis and understanding of its importance. Also the special areas to which
the Committee should pay attention were the political participation of women,
trafficking, employment and rural women.
VIKTORIA AVAKOVA, of "Democracy Today" NGO,
said there was particular concern that the Government of Armenia had not yet
taken any steps to incorporate the Covenant into the national legislation
system. The State was not taking proactive steps to ensure substantive
equality for women to be elected to public office. The State had not taken
any steps to ensure gender balance in public administration. Irrespective of
numerous steps taken by the Government during recent years, it was clear that
the concern with regards to trafficking continued to be State security rather
than the security and protection of Armenian women. Special mechanisms were
needed to respond to the needs of victims of trafficking. Women in rural
areas were much more vulnerable, given the poverty, unemployment, and limited
opportunities of livelihood; further, gender stereotypes ran much deeper,
constraining women's participation in most areas of rural life.
JEMMA HASRATYAN, of Armenian Association of Women with
University Education, said it had a goal to undertake an independent
assessment of the implementation of the CEDAW Covenant with regards to a
number of key areas and commitments, to identify problems that faced
implementation of the Covenant in the country, and to outline possible ways
to solve these through recommendations to the Government and other relevant
entities. National machinery had not been established yet in Armenia. The
existing institutional mechanisms did not meet the criteria for national
machinery as none of these entities formulated or identified
anti-discriminatory policies and a gender equality policy or coordinated the
activities of Government bodies in this area. As a result of this absence of
national machinery, the fulfilment of the obligations under the Covenant and
other Conventions or Covenants was held back. The strategy of mainstreaming
gender into legislation and into political practices was not carried out in
full; gender discrimination persisted in power and decision-making, as well
as in women's representation in the legislative and executive branches of
Government. In reality, despite the fact that quite extensive rights of women
were guaranteed by the national legislation, there still existed
discrimination, which, not infrequently, was not perceived as such owing to
the deep-rooted stereotypical views of the role of women in society.
Dominica
JOSEPHINE DUBLIN-PRINCE, of Dominica National Coalition
of Women, said the Constitution of Dominica provided for equal and
inalienable rights to all persons. The efforts of the Government, especially
towards the enactment of the Protection Against Domestic Violence Act of
2001, were to be commended. Despite these efforts and others, there were
still a number of difficulties in the furtherance of justice for women.
Victims of domestic abuse and those claiming rights in marriage and family
also faced constraints. The State had not been able to provide adequate
resources to ensure that key institutions were able to provide effective
response to violence against women and girls. The Committee should direct the
State to build a clear view of the survivors and victims of violence against
women, and put in place corrective policies and institutions that would
ensure protection of women from violence and access to justice.
ELIZA LOLLEL WILLIAMS, of Dominica National Coalition
of Women, said the indigenous, the Caribs, of Dominica, lived in poverty.
Carib women suffered from seriously inadequate housing conditions, including
lack of basic needs such as safe drinking water. Although the Constitution of
Dominica provided for the rights to education, health and other social
services, accessing these services was very difficult. Carib women faced
difficulties in earning sufficient money to survive. They also faced serious
problems accessing health services. The Committee should direct the State to
address the serious obstacles that prevented Carib women from enjoying their
human rights with respect to housing, employment, access to credit, education
and health.
IRMA JOSEPH, of Dominica Association of Disabled People,
said Dominica was one of the first countries to sign the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, however, persons with
disabilities, especially women, continued to be marginalised and faced
discrimination in the State. Women with disabilities continued to be denied
the right to continuous employment, even when they were employed prior to
their disability. Refusal of employment based on disability was compounded by
lack of accessibility and conveniences in the workplace and other public
places. The present education system was in no way prepared to respond to the
needs of the girl child with special abilities. The State's lack of
sensitivity and understanding of issues critical to persons with disabilities
was such that it could not even perceive the hindrances to the right to
mobility. The Committee should direct the State to look into the education
and skills-building of girls and women with special abilities.
Questions by Committee Experts
On Armenia, Committee Experts then asked a range of
questions, including, among others, a request for a clarification on the
situation with regards to the national mechanism and whether it had done
anything during its existence as claimed by the Government; what from the
Governmental point of view was the role of NGOs and whether they were being
aided by the Government in respect of their provision of human rights
education; whether there was a difference on the laws of majority; whether
the mechanism of human rights defenders functioned and whether it was
relevant and well-known; whether the NGOs had been involved in the drafting
of the report; and what was the relevance of the Committee's general
recommendation in the work of the NGOs.
On Dominica, Committee Experts asked, among other things,
what had impeded the submission of the very-overdue report; what the NGOs had
done to support implementation of the Covenant; a request for precise
information on the nature of discrimination undergone by women and girls and
whether this took mainly the form of sexual discrimination; whether there was
a political framework for the improvement of the situation with regards to
the indigenous in Dominica; and a request for more information as to what
exactly the Committee could do in order to improve the situation in Dominica
with regards to precise targeting of its concluding observations to the State
Party.
Responses by NGOs
Responding, NGO speakers from Armenia said that the
Constitution banned explicitly all forms of discrimination based on gender.
At the same time, it did not define precisely what was discrimination. NGOs
had been working to ban gender discrimination, including work on a definition
of discrimination. NGOs had urged the Government to institute a special
gender unit, and to establish a national council on gender issues, and
thought that this would help to solve many problems. The NGOs were also
working to incorporate gender and human rights teaching in schools. The
Foreign Ministry had invited a number of NGOs to be involved in the drafting
of the report, but NGOs had only been able to read the final version once it
was published, and not before. The report was not really publicised
particularly, and public organizations and the Education Ministry were
lagging in terms of making this information publicly presented. The
Parliament had adopted quotas with regards to the participation of women, but
these had resulted in nothing. There were problems with meeting the quotas.
The priority of the Government was gender equality, equal rights for men and
women, and as a result of the setting of this priority, two groups of Experts
had been established, and they could submit proposals to the Parliament. On
trafficking, the State prioritised its security as it was more interested in
investigating the crime of trafficking and prosecuting the traffickers - but
the victims were totally neglected in this process and were not protected by
law, as well as being victimised by judges and other persons involved in the
judicial process. There was no help for rehabilitation.
With regards to Dominica, NGO speakers said with regards
to disability, one of the greatest challenges was unemployment, one of the
reasons for which was lack of finance, as the women did not have formal
education, and this made it difficult for them to be employed, making them
liabilities to the State. The Government had been called on a number of times
to recognise this problem and to make efforts with regards to legislation on
accessibility. Nothing much could be done other than to press on the
Government to ratify the Convention. On education for Carib women, the latter
were suffering from the lack of secondary schools in their region. There was
no access to credit due to communal land holding, lack of land titles, and
the dependence on the craft industry for survival, which latter was being
exploited. The Government had a housing policy for the whole country, and
only a very few Carib women could benefit from it, which was insufficient as
they lived generally in very poor conditions. The Carib women required
immediate attention and more to be done to improve their situation. With
regards to the issue as to whether the definition of discrimination was part
of the Constitution, this was the case. On unemployment, this was a major
issue, as the banana issue had had a serious impact on the women of the
country. NGOs were very much embarrassed by the lack of effort by the
Government to engage with the Committee over many long years.
________
|
