Posted by simonecusack on 19 May 2012 · Leave a Comment
R.K.B.’s employer, a hairdressing salon, terminated her contract of employment. It also allegedly threatened to spread rumours that R.K.B. had extramarital affairs in order to pressure her to sign a document stating that she had received all of her work entitlements and precluding her from suing for unfair dismissal. R.K.B. did not sign the document, … Read more
Filed under CEDAW art 1, CEDAW art 11(1)(a), CEDAW art 11(1)(d), CEDAW art 2(a), CEDAW art 2(c), CEDAW art 5(a), Employment, Failure to substantiate claim, Gender stereotyping, General Recommendation No. 28, Incompatible, Manifestly ill-founded, OP art 4(2)(b), OP art 4(2)(c), R.K.B. v. Turkey, Turkey · Tagged with CEDAW art 1, CEDAW art 11(1)(a), CEDAW art 11(1)(d), CEDAW art 2(a), CEDAW art 2(c), CEDAW art 5(a), Employment, gender stereotyping, General Recommendation No. 28, R.K.B. v. Turkey, unfair dismissal
Posted by simonecusack on 30 March 2012 · Leave a Comment
A.T., a Hungarian national, claimed that her former partner, L.F., subjected her to domestic violence over a period of more than four years. A.T. was issued ten medical certificates during this time connected to separate incidents of severe physical violence, including an incident on 27 July 2001, which resulted in her hospitalization. Despite reported … Read more
Filed under CEDAW art 16, CEDAW art 2(a), CEDAW art 2(b), CEDAW art 2(e), CEDAW art 5(a), Domestic and family violence, Due diligence, Effective remedy, Failure to exhaust domestic remedies, Gender stereotyping, General Recommendation No 19, Hungary, Interim measures, OP art 4(1), OP art 4(2)(e), OP art 5, Violations predated Protocol · Tagged with CEDAW art 16, CEDAW art 2(a), CEDAW art 2(b), CEDAW art 2(e), CEDAW art 5(a), domestic and family violence, due diligence, failure to exhaust domestic remedies, gender stereotyping, General Recommendation No. 19, Hungary, interim measures, OP CEDAW art 4(1), OP CEDAW art 4(2)(e), OP CEDAW art 5, ratione temporis
Posted by simonecusack on 15 March 2012 · Comments Off
The Lenin District Court of Belarus found Inga Abramova guilty of ‘minor hooliganism’ for hanging ribbons and posters calling for participation in the ‘European March.’ It subsequently ordered her to serve five days administrative arrest. Abramova claimed that, during her detention, a male staff member subjected her to a body search, touched her inappropriately, … Read more
Filed under Belarus, CEDAW 7(b), CEDAW art 1, CEDAW art 2(a), CEDAW art 2(b), CEDAW art 2(d), CEDAW art 2(e), CEDAW art 2(f), CEDAW art 3, CEDAW art 5(a), Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, Detention, Failure to exhaust domestic remedies, Failure to substantiate claim, General Recommendation No 19, ICCPR, Inga Abramova v Belarus, OP art 4(1), OP art 4(2)(c), Privacy, Sexual harassment, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Torture and other cruel, UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners... · Tagged with Belarus, CEDAW art 1, CEDAW art 2(a), CEDAW art 2(b), CEDAW art 2(d), CEDAW art 2(e), CEDAW art 2(f), CEDAW art 3, CEDAW art 5(a), CEDAW art 7(b), Cruel, Detention, failure to exhaust domestic remedies, failure to substantiate claim, General Recommendation No. 19, ICCPR, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, OP CEDAW art 4(1), OP CEDAW art 4(2)(c), privacy, sexual harassment, torture
Posted by simonecusack on 7 March 2012 · Comments Off
V.K., a Bulgarian national, claimed that her husband, F.K., subjected her to varied forms of domestic violence. In 2006, V.K. moved to Poland with her husband and their children. In 2007, following continued abuse, V.K. filed an application for protective measures and financial maintenance with the Warsaw District Court, but the proceedings went unresolved. … Read more
Filed under Bulgaria, CEDAW art 1, CEDAW art 16, CEDAW art 2(a), CEDAW art 2(b), CEDAW art 2(c), CEDAW art 2(e), CEDAW art 2(f), CEDAW art 2(g), CEDAW art 5(a), Domestic and family violence, Due diligence, Extraterritoriality, Failure to substantiate claim, Fair trial, Gender stereotyping, General Recommendation No 19, Interim measures, OP art 4(2)(c), OP art 5, V.K. v. Bulgaria · Tagged with CEDAW art 1, CEDAW art 16, CEDAW art 2(a), CEDAW art 2(b), CEDAW art 2(c), CEDAW art 2(e), CEDAW art 2(f), CEDAW art 2(g), domestic and family violence, due diligence, extraterritoriality, failure to substantiate claim, fair trial, gender stereotyping, General Recommendation No. 19, interim measures, OP CEDAW art 4(2)(c), OP CEDAW art 5
Posted by simonecusack on 2 February 2012 · Comments Off
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 April 2008, GHR, a long-term survivor of domestic violence, reported a violent incident to Montreal police. Following the … Read more
Filed under Asylum claim, Canada, CEDAW art 1, CEDAW art 2(a), CEDAW art 2(b), CEDAW art 2(c), CEDAW art 2(d), CEDAW art 24, CEDAW art 5(a), Deportation, Domestic and family violence, Extraterritoriality, Failure to exhaust domestic remedies, Failure to substantiate claim, Guadalupe Herrera Rivera v Canada, Incompatible, Interim measures, Manifestly ill-founded, OP art 4(1), OP art 4(2)(b), OP art 4(2)(c), OP art 5 · Tagged with asylum claim, Canada, CEDAW art 1, CEDAW art 2(a), CEDAW art 2(b), CEDAW art 2(c), CEDAW art 2(d), CEDAW art 24, CEDAW art 5(a), deportation, domestic and family violence, extraterritoriality, failure to exhaust domestic remedies, failure to substantiate claim, incompatible, interim measures, manifestly ill-founded, OP CEDAW art 4(1), OP CEDAW art 4(2)(b), OP CEDAW art 4(2)(c), OP CEDAW art 5
