Child custody communication inadmissible (Mukhina v. Italy)

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 the child.’  Subsequent appeals to regain custody of her son proved unsuccessful and, in 2009, the European Court of Human Rights declared a complaint from the author inadmissible.

In 2010, the author submitted a communication to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women claiming, without further substantiation, that Italy had violated her rights under article 16(f) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women to ensure women and men ‘[t]he same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children ….’

Admissibility

The Committee declared the communication inadmissible under article 4(2)(c) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women on the basis that the author had failed to substantiate her claim that Italy had violated her rights under article 16(f) of CEDAW.  The Committee reasoned that the author had ‘not provided any specific explanation on why and how she considers that her rights … have been violated by the State party’s authorities.’

Having declared the communication inadmissible under article 4(2)(c), the Committee decided not to consider whether the communication was inadmissible on any other ground. 

Communication No. 27/2010, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/50/D/27/2010 (30 November 2011)

Decision

 

Advertisements