The role of the CEDAW Committee in the implementation of public policies on gender issues: analysis through a study of the protection of girls’ rights in Spain

ABSTRACT

The CEDAW Committee plays a significant role as a mechanisms to stimulate States to advance in the elimination of all the forms of discrimination, both directly, through making States aware of the extent of their commitment and incentivising public policies and indirectly, by providing civil society with tools to put pressure on public authorities to fulfil their obligations and push for normative and policy reform. This article undertakes this analysis by focusing on one country: Spain, and one specific issue: the rights of girls. The case study explores the extent to which the decisions of the Committee have a real impact on Spanish public policy regarding the protection and promotion of the rights of girls, with a view to provide more general conclusions regarding the impact of the Committee's decisions. This analysis allows us to observe the legal and juridical force of CEDAW's guarantee mechanisms through its capacity to influence, and serve as a catalyst of public policy reform.

KEYWORDS:

• CEDAW
• gender violence
• guarantee mechanisms
• women rights
• girls rights

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Dr Ruth Abril Stoffels is Reader in Public International Law and at the Universidad CEU Cardenal Herrera. Her recent work analyses the work of the CEDAW Committee from different perspectives and the protection of girls and women in armed conflicts as well as their role in peace building processes.

ORCID

Ruth Abril Stoffels http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6111-160X

Notes

1. 190 States Parties. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13.

2. Meghan Campbell, ‘Women's Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: Unlocking the Potential of the Optional Protocol’, Nordic Journal of Human Rights 34 (2016): 247–71.

3. Gülay Caglar, Elisabeth Prügl, and Susanne Zwingel, ‘Gender in International Governance’, in Handbook on Gender in World Politics, ed. Jill Stean and Daniela Tepe-Belfrage (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub, 2016, p. 408).

4. According to OHCHR, Optional Protocol has 105 States Parties and CEDAW Convention 189 States Parties.

5. Neil A. Englehart and Melissa K. Miller, ‘The CEDAW Effect: International Law's Impact on Women's Rights’, Journal of Human Rights 13 (2014): 22–47.

6. Chris Ingelse, United Nations Committee against Torture: An Assessment. Martinus (Nijhoff Publishers, 2001).

7. Edelenbos, C., ‘Committee on Migrant Workers and Implementation of the ICRMW’, in Migration and Human Rights–The United Nations Convention on Migrant Workers’ Rights (2009).

8. Loveday Hodson, ‘Women's Rights and the Periphery: CEDAW's Optional Protocol’, European Journal of International Law 25 (2014): 561–78.

9. In this paper, we will not distinguish between autonomic and central government and authorities because at international level, they are both part of the Spanish system. And CEDAW Committee doesn't make any distinction between the different authorities. The Committee speaks about ‘Spain authorities, judges, policies and so on … ’.

10. Rosario Domínguez Matés, ‘La Presentación de Comunicaciones Individuales Ante el Comité Para la Eliminación de la Discriminación Contra la Mujer Como Medio de Tutela de la Violencia de Género a Nivel Internacional’, Portualia 4 (2004): 67–77.

11. Elizabeth Evatt, ‘Finding a Voice for Women's Rights: The Early Days of CEDAW’, George Washington International Law Review 34 (2002): 515; Andrew Byrnes, ‘The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women’, in Women's Human Rights: CEDAW in International, Regional and National Law, ed. Hellum Anne and Henriette Sinding Aasen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).

12. Athena Nguyen, ‘Through the Eyes of Women? The Jurisprudence of the CEDAW Committee’, Outskirts 30 (2014): 1–19.

13. Byrnes, ‘The Committee on’.

14. Simone Cusack, Ángela González Carreño v. Spain. CEDAW Communication N° 47/2012: Amicus Curiae Brief. [Online, 2014], https://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjNhf7JpafWAhXLvBQKHUR7CuEQFghbMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.womenslinkworldwide.org%2Ffiles%2Fgjo_amicus_brief_Simone_Cusack_angelagonzalez_en.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHtPVSoqtJ4_FAtCRoKjiAphqR0gg (accessed February 2, 2014).

15. Campbell, ‘Women's Rights’, 251.

16. Evatt, ‘Finding a Voice’.

17. There are two other cases against Spain: the case of Cristina Muñoz-Vargas y Sáinz de Vicuña V Spain, adopted on 9 August 2007, which involves a title of nobility. The communication was declared inadmissible ratione temporis on the basis that the succession of her brother occurred before the entry into force of the Convention and the Protocol for Spain. The case of Maïmouna Sankhé v. Spain was adopted 11 October 2013 and addressed discrimination involving a foreign national's right to work. That communication was declared inadmissible on the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

18. Informe del Estado Español al Comité para la Eliminación de la Discriminación contra la Mujer, Naciones Unidas, Ref. Naciones Unidas CEDAW/OP/ESP (3) 47/2012, 21st January, 2015 (hereinafter, Informe del Estado Español).

19. Organizaciones de mujeres piden la retirada de la ley de custodia compartida.

20. Defensor Del Pueblo, El Defensor Del Pueblo Recibe a la Víctima de Violencia de Género Ángela González Carreño (Colombia: Defensor Del Pueblo, 2017).

21. CEDAW/C/ESP/CO/7-8.

22. Concluding observations 7th–8th, para. 10 and 11.

23. Simone Cusack, Optional Protocol to CEDAW. [Online, 2012], https://opcedaw.wordpress.com/about-op-cedaw/ (accessed September 2, 2014).

24. Women’s Link worldwide: legal strategies. https://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/en/gender-justice-observatory/legal-strategy/high-profile-litigation

25. Hayashi Yoko (2012) « CEDAW Committee member Yoko Hayashi (Japan) calls for greater education about CEDAW and its Optional Protocol » at Optional Protocol to CEDAW webpage. https://opcedaw.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/cedaw-committee-member-yoko-hayashi-japan-calls-for-greater-education-about-cedaw-and-its-optional-protocol/

26. Women's Link worldwide: Estrategias : Litigio de alto perfil. Porqué es importante. (In the V.K. v Bulgaria case, the Committee focuses on the judicial response to the V.K. decision, whereas here it is the entire protection system that has been contested). https://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/observatorio/base-de-datos/gonzalez-carreno-c-espana-comunicacion-num-47-2012

27. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination (2015) Concluding Observations on the Combined Seventh and Eighth Periodic Reports of Spain. UN Doc. CEDAW/C/ESP/CO/7-8 (Concluding observations 7th-8th), ‘10. The Committee notes with concern the lack of understanding by the State party of its due diligence obligation and the lack of follow-up to the Committee's views on communication No. 47/2012, González Carreño v. Spain. It notes the insufficient action taken by the State party to train judges and lawyers on the Convention and the Optional Protocol and to integrate their provisions into its legal framework. It is further concerned that women themselves, especially women in rural areas and migrant women, are unaware of their rights under the Convention and thus lack the information necessary to claim such rights’.

28. Nguyen, ‘Through the Eyes’.

29. Gema Fafernández Rodríguez De Liévana, ‘Los Estereotipos de Género en los Procedimientos Judiciales por Violencia de Género: El Papel del Comité CEDAW en la Eliminación de la Discriminación y de la Estereotipación’ [Gender Stereotypes in Gender-Based Violence Court Proceedings: The CEDAW Committee's Role on the Elimination of Discrimination and Stereotyping], Oñati Socio-Legal Series 5 (2015): 498–519.

30. More information can be found in the OHCHR 30th factsheet, ‘The United Nations Human Rights Treaty System’ paras. 10 and 11.

31. Alda Facio, ‘Con los Lentes del Género se ve Otra Justicia’, El Otro Derecho 28 (2002): 85–102.

32. Englehart and Miller, ‘The CEDAW Effect’.

33. Rikki Holtmaat, CEDAW: A Holistic Approach to Women's Equality and Freedom (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015).

34. According to OHCHR, Optional Protocol has 105 States Parties and CEDAW Convention 189 States Parties. See, for instance The last official Spanish report and the documents presented by, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (submission for the session), Amnesty International (submission for the PSWG), Amnesty International (submission for the session), CEDAW Shadow Platform (submission for the session) Joint NGO submission (for the PSWG) Women's Link (submission for the session).

35. Benjamin Zufiarre, Lucía Pellejero Goni, and Gaby Weiner, ‘Gender equality and education in Spain: ideology and governance’, Education Inquiry 1 (2010): 399–414.

36. United Nations (2004) Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Thirtieth Session (12–30 January 2004) Thirty-first Session (6–23 July 2004) General Assembly Official Records Fifty-ninth Session Supplement No. 38. UN Doc. (A/59/38), para. 344. (Concluding Observations 5th).

37. Concluding observations 7th–8th, para. 27.

38. United Nations (1993) Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Eleventh Session General Assembly Official Records •Forty-seventh Session Supplement No. 38. UN Doc. (A/47/38) United Nations. NewYork∼1993 (Concluding observations 2nd) para. 345.

39. United Nations (1999) Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Twentieth Session (19 January–5 February 1999), Twenty-first Session (7–25 June 1999) General Assembly Official Records Fifty-fourth Session. Supplement No. 38. UN Doc. A/54/38/Rev.1 (Concluding Observations 3rd and 4th), para. 26.

40. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (2009) Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Forty-fourth Session, 20 July–7 August 2009, UN.Doc. (CEDAW/C/ESP/CO/6) (Concluding observations 6th), para. 26.

41. Concluding observations 7th–8th, para. 27.

42. United Nations (1987) Report of The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. General Assembly General. UN Doc. A/42/38 (Concluding observations 1st), para. 293 and Concluding Observations 2nd (para. 355).

43. Concluding observations 3rd and 4th, paras. 265 and 266.

44. Concluding observations 7th–8th, para. 30.

45. Ley Orgánica 11 /2015, de 21 de Septiembre de reforma de la ley del aborto para reforzar la protección de las mujeres (BOE de 22 de septiembre) (Organic Law 11/2015, 22 September, reforming the abortion law to reinforce the protection of women).

46. Concluding observations 7th–8th, para. 19.

47. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (1985) Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 18 of the Convention. First Periodic Reports of States Parties Addendum. SPAIN, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/5/Add. 30 (Report 1), p. 15. and 21. See also CEDAW (1990) Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 18 of the convention. Second Periodic Reports of States Parties Addendum· SPAIN UN Doc. CEDAW/C/13/Add.19 (Report 2nd), p. 14.

48. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. (2003) Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 18 of the Convention. Fifth Reports of States Parties Addendum. SPAIN, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/5/Add. 30 (Report 5th), see also Concluding Observations 1st ‘The government was aware of illegal traffic in women, often minors, at the Portuguese border and steps were being taken to solve the problem’ (para. 283).

49. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. (1996) Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 18 of the Convention. Third Periodic Reports of States Parties Addendum, SPAIN, UN Doc. CEDAW/C//ESP/3 (Report 3rd), p. 8.

50. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. (1998) Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 18 of the Convention. Fourth Periodic Reports of States Parties Addendum, SPAIN, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/ESP/4 (Report 4th) p. 36.

51. Resolution 2004/110 of the Commission on Human Rights of 19 April 2004: Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially in women and children.

52. Concluding Observations 5th, para. 336.

53. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. (2008) Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 18 of the Convention. Sixth Reports of States Parties Addendum, SPAIN, UN Doc. CEDAW/CESP /6 (Report 6th), paras. 21 and 22.

54. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 18 of the Convention. Seventh and Eighth Periodic Reports of States Parties to be Presented in 2013. SPAIN, UN DOC. CEDAW/C/ESP/7-8 (Report 7th–8th), para. 84.

55. Report 7th–8th, para. 32.

56. Report 7th–8th, paras. 88–100.

57. Concluding observations 7th–8th, para. 23.

58. Report 5th, para 90 and 98.

59. Concluding observations 5th, para. 347.

60. Report of Fundación del Secretariado Gitano, and in the 7–8th Report of the CEDAW Shadow Platform.

61. Report 7th–8th, paras. 147–153, 162.

62. Report 7th–8th, para. 27.

63. Report 6th, para. 386. See also Report 7th–8th, para. 286.

64. Concluding Observations 3rd and 4th, para. 274.

65. Concluding Observations 3rd and 4th, para. 337, and Concluding observation 6, para. 22.

66. See note 40.

67. Information provided by Spain in follow-up to the concluding observations (C/ESP/CO/7-8/Add1).

68. We can see the ‘Shadow reports’ to this report at CEDAW weppage: «Información específica por países » Información de seguimiento de otras sfuentes : Plataforma Shadow CEDAW Español (02 Agosto 2017) Información de seguimiento de otras fuentes. Plataforma Shadow de la CEDAW española-Anexo II.

69. Report 7th–8th, para. 37.

70. Art. 5, OPCEDAW.