Whilst some states may view this expansion
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2025 4:14 am
Mali contended that its laws must reflect the “social, cultural and religious realities” of life within the country and argued that it would be pointless to pass legislation that would be difficult or impossible to implement. It also argued that the 2011 Family Code was flexible in that people are free to administer their inheritance in other ways besides in accordance with religious or customary law if they so choose. Further, Mali claimed that the tumult and unrest that had scotched the enactment of the earlier 2009 Family Code had created a climate of fear where it felt it was not able to provide greater rights to women and children in family matters.
In its judgment, the Court adopted the submissions of the Applicants in their entirety finding that Mali had violated each of the aforementioned treaty provisions through the enactment of the 2011 Family Code. The Court dismissed Mali’s argument regarding the flexibility of the Code, stating that “the Family Code in Mali enshrines religious and customary law as the applicable regime in the absence of any other legal regime”. The Court also appear to have given short shrift to Mali’s arguments regarding the need for its legislation to adhere to the cultural and religious “realities” within the country in addition to its arguments from social unrest. Instead, it reaffirmed that, irrespective of current cultural and religious practices, Mali had committed to eliminating discrimination skype database against women and children and “by adopting the Family Code and maintaining therein discriminatory practices which undermine the rights of women and children, the Respondent State has violated its international commitments”. The Court subsequently ordered Mali to amend its Family Code so as to bring it into line with international human rights standards. It also ordered it to inform and educate its population as to these rights and obligations.
Several important implications arise from the Court’s decision, of which only a few will be discussed here. Firstly, it is noteworthy that at no point in this matter did either the Applicants or the Court make reference to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (‘ACHPR’). As was pointed out by Oliver Windridge here and most recently in my post here, whilst the Court initially only decided cases where there was an alleged violation of a right contained in the ACHPR, it is now clear that it will examine breaches of any human rights treaty a state has ratified, regardless of whether there is a connection to a right contained in the ACHPR or not. of the Court’s jurisdiction with concern, it is premised on a permissible reading of Article 3(1) of the Court’s Protocol, which entitles it to interpret and apply “any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned”. As stressed in my previous article, this broadening of the Court’s jurisdiction is a positive development for victims of human rights abuses in Africa, as the Court is now willing to rule on a potentially limitless array of human rights violations on the Continent.
In its judgment, the Court adopted the submissions of the Applicants in their entirety finding that Mali had violated each of the aforementioned treaty provisions through the enactment of the 2011 Family Code. The Court dismissed Mali’s argument regarding the flexibility of the Code, stating that “the Family Code in Mali enshrines religious and customary law as the applicable regime in the absence of any other legal regime”. The Court also appear to have given short shrift to Mali’s arguments regarding the need for its legislation to adhere to the cultural and religious “realities” within the country in addition to its arguments from social unrest. Instead, it reaffirmed that, irrespective of current cultural and religious practices, Mali had committed to eliminating discrimination skype database against women and children and “by adopting the Family Code and maintaining therein discriminatory practices which undermine the rights of women and children, the Respondent State has violated its international commitments”. The Court subsequently ordered Mali to amend its Family Code so as to bring it into line with international human rights standards. It also ordered it to inform and educate its population as to these rights and obligations.
Several important implications arise from the Court’s decision, of which only a few will be discussed here. Firstly, it is noteworthy that at no point in this matter did either the Applicants or the Court make reference to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (‘ACHPR’). As was pointed out by Oliver Windridge here and most recently in my post here, whilst the Court initially only decided cases where there was an alleged violation of a right contained in the ACHPR, it is now clear that it will examine breaches of any human rights treaty a state has ratified, regardless of whether there is a connection to a right contained in the ACHPR or not. of the Court’s jurisdiction with concern, it is premised on a permissible reading of Article 3(1) of the Court’s Protocol, which entitles it to interpret and apply “any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned”. As stressed in my previous article, this broadening of the Court’s jurisdiction is a positive development for victims of human rights abuses in Africa, as the Court is now willing to rule on a potentially limitless array of human rights violations on the Continent.