United Nations Nations Unies

Commission on the Status of Women

Forty-seventh session
New York, 3 - 14 March 2003

PANEL II

Women’s human rights

and elimination of all forms of violence against women and girls
as defined in the Beijing Platform for Action
and the outcome documents of the twenty-third special session
of the General Assembly

Written statement submitted by

Feride Acar

[English only]
 Recent Key Trends and Issues
in the
Implementation of CEDAW

by

Feride Acar
Chairperson
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW) and its Basic Premises
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW) has now been in force for over 20 years. To date, it has been ratified or acceded to
by 170 states. It is the only legally binding international instrument to set forth the human
rights standards for women and girls in the full range of civil, political, economic, social and
cultural areas of both public and private life. It sets the international standard of equality
between women and men.
This unique instrument was drafted in the latter part of 1970’s; adopted by the General
Assembly in 1979 and came into force in 1981. It was built on the legacy of decades of work
going back to the inception of the UN itself. It is fair to say that the Women’s Convention is
the common offspring of the international human rights movement and the women’s
movement under the roof of the UN. The unique and almost “revolutionary” text of this
international legal instrument reflects the development in both of these movements. Human
rights principles and standards such as the “indivisibility” and “universality” of rights as well
as the issues and concerns of the women’s movement of the 20t h century ranging from legal to
economic equality are incorporated in CEDAW.
Thus, the Convention not only incorporates in itself provisions pertaining to all areas
of human rights (i.e., political and civil as well as economic, social and cultural) and aims at
their universal enjoyment by all women in all parts of the world but it also elevates these
broad-based human rights provisions to the level of a legally binding piece of international
law.
Building on the gains of the second wave feminist movement which emphasized the
critique of patriarchy and the dichotomy of public vs. private spheres, CEDAW approaches
human rights of women from a more sensitive and relevant perspective than any other
international legal instrument. The Convention by referring specifically to women’s human
rights in the private sphere i.e. in the family and in marriage (Article 16) operates from an
awareness that the family, that most private of all private spheres and relations within it need
to be addressed in order to ensure respect for, promote and implement women’s human rights.
It is in this sense that CEDAW has been called “an innovative and ambitious” treaty.
This Convention not only covers a wide spectrum of rights but is also very aware of the
systemic nature of violations of women’s human rights. It clearly operates on the basis that all
human rights of women are in extractability linked to one another (i.e. they are indivisible and
interdependent).
Prior to CEDAW human rights instruments often failed to bring to light violations of
women’s human rights no matter how serious these may have been. Because suc h violations
often took place in the private sphere they were not considered “public concern” or “state
responsibility” or many violations were also thought to relate to the domain of traditions,
culture, religion, which are areas that were all too often assumed to be impenetrable by or to
have immunity from legal and policy intervention.
Today, 20 some years after the coming into force of CEDAW one of the six core UN
Human Rights Conventions, our perceptions and attitudes all over the world are significantly
different. I believe, despite problems and challenges (to which I will be referring to a little
later) the fact that basic premises of CEDAW are accepted by the large number of states (170)
that have ratified this Convention is a gigantic step in the right direction for humankind.
What, then, are these basic premises of CEDAW? Let me briefly underline them.
First and foremost, this Convention does not operate with an abstract concept of
equality. Instead, Article 1 of the Convention provides a clear definition of discrimination
and, reflects the recognition that discrimination against women is a universal reality that is to
be eradicated. In other words, this Convention is neither vague nor neutral with respect to its

2
diagnosis and definition of gender based discrimination. Therefore, the state party that ratifies
it should neither be passive nor neutral in the face of discrimination against women. Specific
forms and areas of discrimination against women are to be identified; made visible; proactive
and therapeutic measures as well as actions for redress of victims and punishment of violators
are to be taken effectively and swiftly.
Through its substantive articles (Articles 1-16) CEDAW transcends the traditional
human rights framework by addressing both public and private realms. Through its reference
(Article 1) to discrimination of “effect” and “purpose”, the Convention manifests a sensitive
and comprehensive outlook which covers both ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ or ‘intentional’ and
‘unintentional’ discrimination. Through its targeting of both de jure and de facto
discrimination against women, the Women’s Convention addresses legal norms as well as
social norms, cultural practices, traditions and customs as possible bases of discrimination
against women (Article 5). Prejudicial and discriminatory traditions and cultural norms and
practices are thus, to be modified so as not to preserve or strengthen gender stereotypes which
impede with women’s full enjoyment of their human rights.
This premise of CEDAW is certainly a very bold step that could only be built on the
gains of the international women’s movement. It, none-the-less continues to constitute a
major challenge to implementation worldwide (as the nature of so many of the reservations by
state parties to CEDAW demonstrates). The issue of traditions and culture is inevitably raised,
be it as an “obstacle” or an “excuse” during the CEDAW Committee’s dialogue with state
parties when they report. There is no doubt that discriminatory traditions and prejudicial
cultural practices continue to be major impediments to women’s human rights in most
societies around the world.
Another, very salient and radical aspect of CEDAW is the fact that this convention
clearly states (Article 4.1) that affirmative action (called ‘temporary special measures’ in the
language of the Convention) taken by states, political parties or employers to speed up de
facto equality of women and men is not to be considered discriminatory. The Convention, at
the same time, rules out very clearly the permanent maintenance of unequal and separate
standards for sexes as discriminatory. This, I believe is a critically important stand and most
relevant to the realization of gender equality in the world. In this very important article,
(Article 4.1) the Women’s Convention says that encouragement and incentive policies are
needed to accelerate attainment of equality but that these can not be allowed to turn into
permanent standards of judgment, achievement, remuneration etc. separate for women and
men. Our experience around the world testifies to the relevance of this approach.
We are now able to see clearly that, in societies with different levels of economic
development and cultural backgrounds, ‘temporary special measures’ such as incentives and
quotas have been uniquely effective in promoting women’s participation in politics and
decision- making positions as well as in the economy. In others premature removal of quotas
has resulted in a reduced number of women in such positions. We also observe that in the 21 st
century there are still countries where women are persistently denied the right to vote, let
alone be in positions of political decision- making, simply because they are women. Many
women around the world do not enjoy their right to make decisions about personal and/or
public aspects of their lives because cultural and social values and their reflections in laws of
their countries have set permanently different standards for women and men. This is why we
can confidently say that, if used as stipulated by the Convention (Article 4.1) ‘temporary
special measures’ are an indication of the “degree” of a government's political will to improve
the women’s situation of women in a country.
Another very basic tenet of the Women’s Convention is that it covers not only state
and public actors but individuals, organizations and enterprises. Thus, this Convention holds
the state responsible for prohibiting any discrimination against women by third parties. The
state is to ensure through its laws, policies and monitoring mechanisms, that such

3
discrimination does not happen and punish those who do discriminate against women.
Bearing in mind that discrimination against women often takes place in places and in contexts
that are not formally ‘state controlled’ and/or by people who are not official agents of the
state, this is indeed a sine quo non for full implementation of women’s human rights.

The Convention and the Beijing Platform for Action

Provisions of the Convention as set out in its 16 substantive articles and the 12 critical
areas of the Beijing Platform for Action (BPA) are closely connected. In fact women’s human
rights as enshrined under the Convention form the legal framework for and are central to the
Platform.
Furthermore, the Convention’s monitoring process enables the Committee on the
Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) to look for states’
compliance with the Platform as well as the Convention itself. While it is the Commission of
the Status of Women (CSW) that has the primary mandate for monitoring the implementation
of the BPA, the CEDAW Committee also has a salient role in this respect. The Platform
specifically asks States parties to the Convention to include information on measures taken to
implement it when reporting for CEDAW and the Committee is tasked to take the Platform
into account when considering these reports. This is a responsibility the CEDAW Committee
takes very seriously and has been systematically carrying out through its review of state party
reports, since the Fourth World Conference on Women. Since that time the CEDAW
Committee in its Concluding Comments has also routinely included a recommendation to the
reporting state party to widely disseminate the BPA. In its review of state reports the
Committee has also often highlighted the commitments made by state parties at Beijing and in
its Concluding Comments, noted if and where states have failed to address the BPA in their
reports. The Committee has often requested adoption of overall plans for implementa tion of
the BPA within a clear time frame and in its “constructive dialogue” with the states
representatives; it always inquires into the results of implementation of the Platform. Those
issues and areas addressed more specifically by Beijing+5 process, such as marital rope,
crimes of honor and crimes of passion and racially motivated violence against women have
also increasingly found their way into the Committee’s review agenda in the years since 2000.
Thus, the CEDAW Committee is accorded a unique opportunity to systematically observe and
evaluate what is happening around the world with respect to human rights of women.

Some Observations on Key Issues and Trends in Women’s Human Rights

Looking through the vantage point of CEDAW one is, first and foremost, struck by the
fact that despite significant progress, universal ratification of CEDAW -- which was targeted
for 2000 -- has not been achieved, and there are still a large number of reservations to this
Convention. In fact, CEDAW has the largest number of reservations of any human rights
treaty. To me this shows that while most states may be willing to recognize human rights of
women on a general plane, many are still not ready to commit themselves to abide by these
rights fully. It is also a fact that a good number of these reservations are entered on Articles 2
and 16 of CEDAW and some, unfortunately, are stated in very broad, sweeping terms. Since
Articles 2 and 16 delineate the spirit and essence of effective implementation of women’s
human rights the CEDAW Committee considers the presence of, particularly very broad-
based reservations to Articles 2 and 16, as highly problematic and fact, incompatible with the
Convention itself.
There are those who see ratification with such serious reservations to substantive
articles as merely political ploy by states who may want to jump on the band-wagon of
international ‘political correctness’ without necessarily having a genuine political will to
implement women’s human rights. Perhaps, some of the reservations to the Women’s
Convention give justification to these views. It is a fact that some states, contrary to

4
international law, have placed reservations that are not only extensive in scope but also
undermine the “meaning and purpose” of the Convention. The Committee as well as some
other state parties and international women’s voices (particularly BPA & B+5) have
expressed, time and again serious concern over such reservations. I am pleased to say that in
the recent years there have been a few withdrawals of such incompatible reservations and/or
limitation of their scope. Yet, many such reservations still remain and some new ones are
added.
What is more, some states continue to indicate that they have no intention of
withdrawing incompatible and sweeping reservations that seriously impede the
implementation of the Convention. This is a true dilemma not only for the Committee but also
for all defenders of women’s human rights around the world.
One is left at the highly uncomfortable position of having to decide which is less
damaging. Ratification with reservations that may be contrary to the “meaning and purpose”
of the Convention which seriously renders the instrument ineffective in terms of impact on
women in that country or no-ratification which means no report ing obligation and consequent
absence of any international monitoring or scrutiny of women’s human rights in that state?
While the Committee’s attitude has been to support the first option and hope to use the
reporting process and the “constructive dialogue” opportunity with the state party, in patient
and determined manner, to encourage and pressure for removal or trimming of such
incompatible reservations; it is essential that the international community systematically press
for change of attitude on the part of state parties on this matter.
The progress in the world, in the area of recognition and implementation of women’s
human rights is obvious. New legislation, growing awareness and sensitivity, strengthening of
machineries at both state and civil society levels are universal phenomena. Yet there is also
sufficient evidence to imply that the international community is still far from having reached a
shared notion of women’s human rights as contained in CEDAW; formulated into policy
guidelines and programmes in the BPA and further elaborated and updated in Beijing+5.
National implementation remains as the bottleneck for human rights of women.
Strikingly wide differences in political will as well as actual capacity, and resources available
for national mechanisms and most importantly, the extent to which the harmonization of
principles of women’s human rights into the social and cultural climate at the national level
has been achieved constitute fundamental axes along which national implementation varies
among states.
Let me first take a look at legal rights.
It is true that, legal frameworks for equality are strengthened in most countries and
better mechanisms for redress for violations of rights (such as more informed and gender
sensitive courts and omb uds mechanisms) have come into being in many countries. Some
states have enhanced their Constitutional principles of equality between men and women in
the aftermath of Beijing. With respect to incorporation of CEDAW into domestic law there
are variations. In some states international treaties take precedence over domestic legislation
in which case, when ratified, CEDAW automatically becomes law of the land. While in
others, specific legislation needs to be adopted to implement women’s human rights as they
are deployed in CEDAW. In countries that travel the former route actual justiciability of
women’s human rights is often the problem. In the latter cases, on the other hand enactment
of the necessary legislation often takes a long time and is uneven with respect to the various
types of rights protected under CEDAW.
There are still quite a few countries where the Constitution does not refer to equality
between women and men and many others where the Constitution does not incorporate a clear
definition of discrimination such as that contained in Article 1 of the Convention. Generally
speaking, while laws pertaining to civil and political rights are often enacted first and
implemented more seriously, laws that protect women’s economic rights in the areas of

5
ownership and employment frequently lag behind.
At the national level, with regard to mechanisms, some countries have instituted
specific gender ombuds (notably Nordic countries and some Eastern European states) and
others have a deputy ombuds and/or a women’s rights commissioner in the Human Rights
Commission to specifically respond to women’s human rights issues. In most countries,
however, women’s human rights continue to be “lost” in ombuds or law commission
structures and suffer from lack of sufficient attention at the national level.
It is noteworthy that in several Muslim countries law reform measures, implementing
the Convention and the Beijing Platform for Action, have included the revision of personal
status laws, establishment of family courts, and the adoption of family code and reform of
citizenship laws. However, much more needs to be done in this area in order to make
women’s human rights as they are depicted in CEDAW ‘real’ for women at home in these
countries.
A relatively new area of law where women’s human rights are increasingly being
taken into consideration is migration and refugee legislation. Several states have recognized
gender-based persecution in their refugee laws; provisions in immigration legislation to
protect the human rights of immigrant women have also been adopted by a few.
Report after report we, in the CEDAW Committee, observe that discriminatory laws,
particularly those governing marriage, administration of marital property, divorce and the
family, persist. Many states also continue to have laws discriminating against women in
relation to nationality whereby women can not pass their nationality to their children on an
equal basis with men. Blatant discrimination in penal law, particularly where prosecution of
sexual crimes and rape and penalties for crimes committed in the name of ‘honor’ are
concerned can be found in many countries. Marital rape is recognized as a crime punishable
by law in only a very small number of countries.
Discriminatory laws governing ownership and inheritance of land, access to loans and
credits, and health, such as those requiring that a wife obtain her husband’s consent for
sterilization or abortion are maintained.
These observations provide sufficient evidence that at the national level even de jure
discrimination is still far from being eradicated.
It has also been the Committee’s observation that women experience more
discrimination as a result of the coexistence of multiple legal systems. In some countries,
customary and religious laws, which govern personal status and private life, exist side by side
with positive law. This situation often provides legal grounds for discrimination. Such laws
sometimes prevail over nondiscrimination provisions of even the Constitution of the country
and they often constitute a powerful foundation for non-implementation of women’s human
rights.
Let me now turn my attention to the topic of violence against women. Having been
drafted in the 1970’s when the state parties convened under the roof of the UN were not yet
ready to admit to the reality of violence against women as a form of gender-based
discrimination, the text of the CEDAW Convention makes no explicit reference to violence
against women, conceptually and theoretically, the Convention could readily accommodate it.
So, since its establishment, the CEDAW Committee has taken it upon itself to make clear, in
a number of General Recommendations, that gender-based violence falls within the meaning
of discrimination against women. In 1989, the Committee adopted General Recommendation
¹ 12 on violence against women which recommended that States include information in their
reports to the Committee on the incidence of violence against women. In 1990, General
Recommendation ¹14 addressed “female circumcision” and other traditional pr actices
harmful to the health of women.
In 1992, the Committee adopted General Recommendation ¹19, which defines
gender-based violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects

6
women disproportionately and declares it to be “a form of discrimination against women that
seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with
men”. The general recommendation makes clear that “states may be …responsible for private
acts if they fail with due diligence to prevent violations of rights or to investigate and punish
acts of violence, and for providing compensation”.
Our examination of state reports reveals that, significant progress has indeed occurred
towards the elimination of violence against women in the world. This scourge is now widely
recognized as a pervasive and unacceptable gross violation of women’s human rights. It is,
nonetheless, a fact that in today’s world there are still societies that fail to recognize violence
against women as a public concern. Particularly violence which occurs in the home or is
related to tradition or custom, (such as female genital mutilation) presents a problem. Many
countries have passed legislation and introduced policies in this area. I am proud to say that
alongside rising global awareness on the subject, largely owing to the Beijing process and
other UN efforts the CEDAW Committee’s own review and recommendations have helped
pave the way for domestic violence legislation in many states. The remaining questions in
many national contexts are: how adequate are these laws and policies, how well are they
supported by measures to sensitize the police, judiciary, health professionals and the public in
order to ensure their effective implementation.
One particularly relevant contribution to the elimination of violence against women
through the more effective implementation of CEDAW world wide can be expected via the
Optional Protocol. This instrument which entered into force it the end of 2000 allows
individual women and groups of individual women to complain to the Committee of
violations of the rights in the Convention. It also allows representative complaints where
victims consent to representation, although this requirement can be waived where it is
impossible to get such consent. The Optional Protocol also entitles the Committee to inquire
of its own motion into “grave or systematic” violations of the Convention. No reservations are
permitted to the terms of the instrument but it is possible to opt out of the inquiry procedure.
There is also a provision which obligates states to protect individuals from ill- treatment or
intimidation as a result of using the Protocols’ provisions. These impressive and progressive
elements of the Optional Protocol should be taken advantage of by women around the world
particularly to combat all forms of violence against them.
The adoption and entry into force of the Optional Protocol – now with 49 state parties,
and many more signatories – point to the improved and better equipped capacit y of the
international legal framework to address the human rights concerns of women. Only time,
however, will tell about its actual effectiveness. National level awareness raising and capacity
building are once again critical for this instrument’s effective utilization. Like any other
instrument it will be as good as it is used.
I believe women’s NGO’s worldwide that have played an absolutely indispensable
role in bringing the Optional Protocol to life, have now an equally critical responsibility in
ensuring it a robust existence.
A critical emerging fact about the implementation of women’s human rights in the
globalized world is that, in a number of culturally or ethnically plural societies or in countries
that have large immigrant populations (many of which are developed societies) what is called
“respect for traditions, culture or religion of minorities” appears to impede vigorous
protection of women’s human rights. This is particularly with respect to the prosecution and
punishment of perpetrators in the religious and ethnic communities. This is an extremely
grave situation because it adds a new dimension to an already existing serious challenge to
women’s human rights.
It is a fact that crimes which are committed against women in their communities, their
workplace and in their own families are often excluded from the purview of much human
rights protection, even if these violations are sustained by a state structure which tolerates or

7
even encourages such action. But even more seriously, both de facto and de jure violations of
women’s rights –in areas such as family law, nationality, bodily integrity, freedom of
expression, freedom of reproductive choice and liberty of movement are also often
overlooked, if not justified, by governments on the basis of respect for tradition, culture, or
religion. These are almost ‘tolerated’ due to a misguided notion of “cultural relativism”. This
not only obscures violations of the rights of women, but creates a dilemma and inhibits firm
response to such acts from the international community. It is, therefore, a serious challenge
both the national governments and the international human rights community must be
prepared to confront in the future.
We must all operate with the baseline assumption that all traditions are not good, and
are not to be protected. Discriminatory traditions that violate women’s human rights need to
be changed.
Human rights are universal; women’s human rights are also universal which means
they are the same everywhere and for every woman.
Our work in the CEDAW Committee bears witness to the rather disturbing and
disappointing persistence of stereotypical attitudes towards the gender roles of women and
men as a critical challenge to women’s human rights worldwide. Prevalence of such attitudes
is responsible for a whole range of violations in widely different contexts around the world.
They form the social-psychological breeding ground of traditional practices and customs
prejudicial to women, such as violence against women, polygamy, forced marriage, son-
preference and “honor” killings. In many counties stereotypes attitudes also create a pervasive
climate of discrimination, incorporating rigid social codes that entrench traditional role of
women in the family and limit their participation in public life. In almost all regions of the
world notions of appropriate work for women which are often internalized by women
themselves, discourage women from entering public life and seeking non-traditional
employment and seriously limit women’s freedom to make choices about their individual
roles.
Last but not least, let me also point to a most relevant emerging issue. There is a
growing recognition, in the international arena, that discrimination is multifaceted and
complex, and that few individuals are affecte d by only one form of discrimination. The rise to
prominence of women’s issues had a significant role in drawing attention to multiple
discrimination, at the international level. The multiple forms of discrimination that women
may experience, indicating that cross-cutting factors such as age, disability, socio-economic
position or belonging to a particular ethnic or racial group could combine with discrimination
on the basis of sex and create specific barriers for women gave visibility to the phenomenon
and made clear that women so affected would experience multiple disadvantages.
The BPA emerges as a landmark document in that respect. The impact of multiple
forms of discrimination in education and training, participation in decision-making,
enjoyment of economic benefits and human rights, including in times of armed conflict, as
well as with regard to the right to be free from violence was addressed in a number of the
BPA’s critical areas of concern.
In this context CEDAW has observed that while discrimination on the basis of sex has
been slowly eroding much more needs to be done with respect to elimination of multiple and
intersecting discrimination women around the world face. Recognizing such need there is a
growing tendency in CEDAW, in the recent years, to specifically inquire about and make
recommendations to state parties with regard to women who are not only denied equality on
the basis of their sex, but because of factors such as age, race and ethnicity. Other human
rights treaty bodies are following suit with the Human Rights Committee and the Social,
Economic and Cultural Rights Committee increasingly integrating gender into their work.
Over the years, through its consideration of states parties’ reports, the CEDAW
Committee has also seen that vario us types of discrimination do not always affect women and

8
men in the same way. The Committee has observed that gender discrimination may be
intensified and may occur concurrently with other forms of discrimination, such as racial,
ethnic or religious discrimination. Women who are particularly affected by the multiple
impact of discrimination are women belonging to minority groups in terms of race, ethnicity,
nationality or caste, as well as migrant workers, women asylum seekers, refugees, displaced
women and indigenous women.
The Committee has seen that discrimination against women of different ethnic and
racial origins is often manifested in the most extreme and horrific forms of gender-based
violence.
Armed conflict and extreme poverty as well as natural disasters and catastrophes
which are often reflected in increasing violence against women in general, impact
disproportionately on women from marginalized, racial and ethnic groups. Selective
immigration controls, commercial sexual exploitation, and cross-border trafficking of women
are also contemporary phenomena where racial, ethnic or religious discrimination render
women particularly vulnerable.
In its work the Committee has also observed that contemporary phenomena such as
neo-nazism and neo-fascism, resurgence of ethnic nationalism and religious fundamentalism,
to the extent that these are phenomena based on ethnocentric values and xenophobic hostility
towards out- groups, often target women of such groups as most likely preys of their
oppression and aggression. Around the world, also owing to be spread of such movements,
women’s human rights have been severely violated in a variety of ways ranging from
limitation of their access to resources and basic services to their subjection to intimidation and
physical violence by state agents and/or fellow citizens, all the way to their systematic rape
and forced impregnation as a war tactic. At this critical juncture of history, when world
politics once again appears to give way to armed conflict, it is particularly salient that lessons
of the past are not forgotten. Women and girl children should not be rendered vulnerable to
heinous crimes and violations of their human rights that the international community has
often come to deeply regret and be ashamed of in the past.

No country in the world has fully implemented the human rights of women and full de
jure let alone de facto equality has not been achieved anywhere in the world. There is
however sufficient cumulative experience in combating different facets of discrimination
against women in different countries. The globalized world, with the unprecedented
communication opportunities it has, offers us a chance to benefit from each others experience,
to become aware of ‘good practices’ elsewhere and to share resources and most critically, to
avoid repetition of mistakes. I therefore insist that the challenge to confront the remaining
obstacles can and should be taken up with a vision of a human condition based on full and
equal enjoyment of human rights by all women and men as articulated by the UDHR and a
peaceful world free of all forms of discrimination against women.