Posted by simonecusack on 22 May 2012 · Leave a Comment
In 1990, William Senych applied for housing without the knowledge of his common law partner, Cecilia Kell, an Aboriginal woman from the Rae-Edzo community in the Northwest Territories (N.W.T.) of Canada. Senych’s application was denied because he was not a member of the Rae-Edzo community for which the housing was earmarked. On the advice of … Read more
Filed under Canada, Cecilia Kell v Canada, CEDAW art 1, CEDAW art 14(2)(h), CEDAW art 15(4), CEDAW art 16(1)(h), CEDAW art 2(d), CEDAW art 2(e), Domestic and family violence, Effective remedy, Failure to exhaust domestic remedies, Failure to substantiate claim, General Recommendation No. 28, Indigenous women, Manifestly ill-founded, OP art 4(1), OP art 4(2)(c), OP art 4(2)(e), Property, Rural women, Violations predated Protocol · Tagged with Aboriginal women, Cecilia Kell v Canada, CEDAW art 1, CEDAW art 14(2)(h), CEDAW art 15(4), CEDAW art 16(1)(h), CEDAW art 2(d), CEDAW art 2(e), domestic violence, General Recommendation No. 28, intersectional discrimination, OP CEDAW art 4(1), OP CEDAW art 4(2)(c), OP CEDAW art 4(2)(e), Optional Protocol to CEDAW, property
Posted by simonecusack on 19 May 2012 · Leave a Comment
M.P.M., a Mexican national, sought asylum in Canada in 2006. M.P.M. claimed that she was entitled to asylum because she is a victim/survivor of domestic violence and was seeking to escape her abusive ex-husband, a Mexican police officer. Canadian authorities dismissed M.P.M.’s claim on the basis that she had failed to establish that she was … Read more
Filed under Asylum claim, Canada, CEDAW art 15, CEDAW art 16, CEDAW art 2(c), CEDAW art 2(d), CEDAW art 3, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, Deportation, Domestic and family violence, Extraterritoriality, Failure to exhaust domestic remedies, Failure to substantiate claim, Incompatible, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, M.P.M. v. Canada, Manifestly ill-founded, N.S.F. v. U.K., OP art 4(1), OP art 4(2)(b), OP art 4(2)(c) · Tagged with asylum, CAT, CEDAW art 15, CEDAW art 16, CEDAW art 2(c), CEDAW art 2(d), CEDAW art 3, Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, domestic violence, M.P.M. v Canada, OP CEDAW art 4(1), OP CEDAW art 4(2)(b), OP CEDAW art 4(2)(c)
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
Posted by simonecusack on 2 February 2012 · Comments Off
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 … Read more
Filed under CEDAW art 16(f), CEDAW article, Child custody, Failure to substantiate claim, Inadmissible, Italy, OP art 4(2)(a), OP art 4(2)(c), Optional Protocol article, Same matter, Subject matter, Uncategorized, Zhanna Mukhina v Italy · Tagged with CEDAW art 16(f), child custody, failure to substantiate claim, Italy, OP CEDAW art 4(2)(a), OP CEDAW art 4(2)(c), same matter
