1. Introduction 3 Understanding women’s economic and social rights 10

səhifə	15/23
tarix	24.06.2016
ölçüsü	0.78 Mb.

1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 23

4. Accountability for women’s economic and social rights

4.1 The role of the International Human Rights System

Accountability is a crucial component of a rights regime and of the rights based approach to development. Accountability entails States, as duty bearers, being held accountable to human rights standards as well as to the beneficiaries of those standards – the rights holders. Accountability can take many forms. First and foremost, accountability provides a means by which rights holders can challenge the acts and omissions of States that result in violations of human rights and the States’ corresponding human rights obligations to respect, protect and fulfill those rights. Such accountability mechanisms, as discussed further below, can be at domestic or international levels.

Other forms of human rights accountability can entail independent and impartial monitoring of human rights with findings that can compel a State to abide by their human rights obligations. Periodic reporting to UN treaty bodies or investigation by UN special procedures, while not necessarily meant for individual or specific complaints, can be effective at addressing legislation, policies and practices that do not conform with international human rights standards.
Domestic Incorporation of Human Rights Accountability
Its been demonstrated that one of the most effective means of accountability is for human rights norms and standards to be made justiciable in the domestic legal framework and for rights holders to not only hold duty bearers accountable but also achieve remedies for violations of human rights. Indeed, under the human rights framework, with rights come corresponding obligations and when those rights and obligations are violated there must be accountability and remedies. Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights requires that “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.”^⁴⁴⁰ The UN General Assembly has also weighed in on this issue, stating that “Remedies for gross violations of international human rights … include the victim’s right to … adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered.”^⁴⁴¹
The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women also recognizes the need for accountability mechanisms, with Article 2(c) requiring States parties “to establish legal protection of the rights of women on an equal basis with men and to ensure through competent national tribunals and other public institutions the effective protection of women against any act of discrimination.”^⁴⁴²
Similarly, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in Article 2, requires that “Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes …. to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy” and “to ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy.”^⁴⁴³ Article 2 of the ICCPR also requires States parties “to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.”^⁴⁴⁴
While the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), under which the most elaborate articulation of economic and social can be found, lacks an explicit clause dealing with remedies, the right to a remedy is implicit in any human rights instrument, and Article 8 of the UDHR reaffirms this principle of law. Indeed, General Comment No. 3 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, states that “among the measures which might be considered appropriate [for implementation of the ICESCR] … is the provision of judicial remedies” and “that the enjoyment of the rights recognized, without discrimination, will often be appropriately promoted, in part, through the provision of judicial or other effective remedies.”^⁴⁴⁵ In its General Comment No. 9, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, citing “fundamental requirements of international human rights law,” made clear that “Covenant norms must be recognized in appropriate ways within the domestic legal order, [including that] appropriate means of redress, or remedies, must be available to any aggrieved individual or group, and appropriate means of ensuring governmental accountability must be put in place.”^⁴⁴⁶
Furthermore, General Comment No. 9 points out that while “the right to an effective remedy need not be interpreted as always requiring a judicial remedy” as “administrative remedies will, in many cases, be adequate and those living within the jurisdiction of a State party have a legitimate expectation, based on the principle of good faith, that all administrative authorities will take account of the requirements of the Covenant in their decision-making.”^⁴⁴⁷ However, “any such administrative remedies should be accessible, affordable, timely and effective” and “an ultimate right of judicial appeal from administrative procedures of this type would also often be appropriate.”^⁴⁴⁸ Many aspects of ICESCR rights, however, readily lend themselves to judicial remedies, which, according to the Committee “would seem indispensable in order to satisfy the requirements of the Covenant” and thus “whenever a Covenant right cannot be made fully effective without some role for the judiciary, judicial remedies are necessary.”^⁴⁴⁹ Consequently, with respect to women, domestic accountability mechanisms and remedies must be effective in enforcing human rights from a woman’s perspective and must be accessible, including economically accessible, to women.
The issue of retrogression is key in the context of the financial crisis and austerity measures. The ICESCR prohibits any deliberately retrogressive measures that can not be justified by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the Covenant and in the context of the full use of the maximum available resources.^⁴⁵⁰ National accountability mechanisms thus should be able to hold States accountable to this standard and any prima facia case of retrogression should shift the burden of proof to the State to demonstrate that any retrogression in economic or social rights of women is otherwise justified. When the State fails to do so, national accountability mechanisms should require that the retrogressive measures end and that remedies are made available to those who are damaged by such measures.
International Accountability and Cases Brought before International Human Rights Mechanisms
In cases were domestic mechanisms fall short of providing full accountability and effective remedies, international mechanisms are available. These mechanisms include UN treaty bodies and regional human rights tribunals.^⁴⁵¹ All treaty bodies and regional mechanisms are increasingly taking into consideration the gender dimensions of human rights and all have strict prohibitions on discrimination.
Various cases involving women’s right to equality in the area of economic and social life have been successfully brought before several international treaty bodies, most notably the Human Rights Committee and the CEDAW Committee. For example, one of the first such cases was decided in 1987 by the Human Rights Committee. F. H. Zwaan-de Vries v. the Netherlands (1987)^⁴⁵² held that that legislation which granted unemployment benefits to married men but not married women was discriminatory under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.^⁴⁵³ In 1988, the Human Rights Committee issued its judgment in the case of Avellanal v. Peru. In this case, the petitioner challenged a legal provision which stipulated that when a woman is married only the husband is entitled to represent matrimonial property before the Courts (then Article 168 of the Peruvian Civil Code).^⁴⁵⁴ Here too the Human Rights Committee found a violation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.^⁴⁵⁵

The CEDAW Committee has perhaps seen the most cases addressing discrimination in women’s economic and social rights, including several cases brought by victims of domestic violence. The case of Ms. A.T. v. Hungary (2003), addresses in part the question of women’s housing rights within the context of domestic violence.^⁴⁵⁶ In this case, the CEDAW Committee found that immediate and effective measures were necessary to guarantee the physical and mental integrity of the victim and her family. The Committee also found that the States had an obligation to ensure that the victim was provided with a safe home, appropriate child support, and legal assistance. The Committee specifically held that an adequate emergency shelter system must be put in place to address the immediate needs of victims of domestic violence.^⁴⁵⁷ In subsequent years, several other cases have also been brought addressing violence against women and outline State obligations of support and due diligence, including Fatma Yildirim (deceased) v. Austria (2007),^⁴⁵⁸ Şahide Goekce (deceased) v. Austria (2007),^⁴⁵⁹ Karen Tayag Vertido v. The Philippines (2010),^⁴⁶⁰ Isatou Jallow v. Bulgaria (2012),^⁴⁶¹ V.K. v. Bulgaria (2011),^⁴⁶² V.P.P. v. Bulgaria (2012),^⁴⁶³ and Cecilia Kell v. Canada (2012).^⁴⁶⁴

This last case also addresses women’s housing and property rights within the context of domestic violence. In this case, the husband – who had been physically as well as economically abusive to the petitioner for a number of years –unilaterally removed the petitioner’s name from the certification of co-ownership of their martial home (or ‘Agreement of Lease’), in effect making the husband the sole owner of the property.^⁴⁶⁵ In this case the CEDAW Committee found violations of Canada’s obligations and ordered the State party, inter alia, to provide the petitioner with housing commensurate in quality, location and size to the one that she was deprived of and provide appropriate monetary compensation for material and moral damages commensurate with the gravity of the violations of her rights.^⁴⁶⁶ In addition, the CEDAW Committee held that the petitioner was a victim of intersectional discrimination based on her status as an Aboriginal woman, as well as a survivor of domestic violence. The CEDAW Committee also recommended that Canada recruit and train more aboriginal women to provide legal aid to women from their communities, including on domestic violence and property rights.^⁴⁶⁷
In the area of employment, R.K.B. v. Turkey (2012), involves a case of a woman whose employment contract was terminated.^⁴⁶⁸ Her employer also allegedly threatened to spread rumors that the petitioner had extramarital affairs, and pressured her to sign a document stating that she had received all of her work entitlements and precluding her from suing for unfair dismissal.^⁴⁶⁹ Because she felt her work contract had been terminated without a valid reason, the petitioner filed a complaint within the Turkish Labor Courts, and also initiated criminal proceedings for libel against her employer.^⁴⁷⁰ Failing to find redress at the national level, the petitioner then took her case before the CEDAW Committee, which found that the State party has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Convention. The CEDAW Committee ordered, inter alia, that the petitioner be awarded with appropriate reparation, including adequate compensation, in accordance with article 5 of the Labour Act. It also ordered that that the State take measures to ensure that article 5 of the Labour Act and the Convention are implemented in practice by relevant national tribunals and other public institutions in order to provide for effective protection of women against any act of gender-based discrimination in employment.^⁴⁷¹
Finally, international accountability can also consist of monitoring and recommendation, including through periodic reporting processes before treaty bodies, examination by Human Rights Council special procedures, and the Universal Periodic Review process. While these mechanisms may not be well suited for individual or group complaints, they can provide international pressure aimed at holding States accountable for general violations at the level of policy or practice or both. Civil society should avail themselves to these mechanisms in order to provide full details of any policies or practices that violate or otherwise erode women’s economic and social rights, particularly at the structural or systemic level.

1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 23