[Go back to the Framework for communications]

Excerpts of relevant paragraphs of 20 years mandate reporting practice (1986-2006)

E/CN.4/2002/73/Add.2, paras . 168 and 228:

"168. Le viol conjugal est toujours lié quelque part à des schémas patriarcaux et à une conception rétrograde de l'image de la femme au sein du couple. De ce point de vue , quel que soit l'état de développement de la société , il puise ses profondes origines dans des pratiques religieuses séculaires nourries par une certaine culture qui place la femme en situation d'être servile. Certains États ne reconnaissent pas le viol conjugal et considèrent comme nulle et non avenue la plainte de la femme contre son mari [ C'est le cas de l'Inde , de la Malaisie , de la Papouasie Nouvelle Guinée , de la Serbie ; voir le site www.penelopes.org/pages/beijing/textes/tradit9.htm. C'est aussi le cas de la Mongolie , rapport du Comité des droits de l'homme (A/55/40, vol. I, par. 323).]. Le viol conjugal est une forme de violence domestique , voire de torture contre la femme, et doit par conséquent être traité en conséquence . [.]

228. Comme le fait observer à juste titre le HCR, dans un mémorandum à l'intention de son personnel local, les traditions cultuelles ou religieuses des communautés des réfugiés doivent être respectées , mais les femmes victimes notamment de mutilations génitales subissent une forme de torture. Le Haut Commissariat encourage les États à reconnaître que les femmes persécutées pour avoir transgressé certaines coutumes pouvaient légitimement aspirer au statut de réfugié , et d'ailleurs certains États le font déjà [ Voir UNHCR/IOM/83/97. Voir aussi les exemples du Danemark , du Canada, de la Suède , des États Unis d'Amérique qui ont pris des mesures en ce sens (A/53/354, par. 37 et 38, 41, 45).]. Il en est de même des femmes qui craignent pour leur vie dans les cas de crimes d'honneur ou de mariage forcé qui doivent pouvoir bénéficier du droit d'asile et de la protection des autres États ."

E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.2, paras . 67-68 and 100 (country visit to Nigeria ):

"Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

67. Probably the most often addressed question is the compatibility of certain forms of punishment prescribed by sharia penal codes with international human rights law, in particular those provisions that prohibit torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

68. In this regard, in addition to the Human Rights Committee which stated in its general comment No. 20 that the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment contained in article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights extends to corporal punishment, other United Nations human rights mechanisms have, on numerous occasions, declared the incompatibility of such forms of punishment with human rights provisions prohibiting torture and other forms of ill treatment. [See for instance, the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture submitted to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-third session (E/CN.4/1997/7, para . 6); concluding observations of the Committee against Torture on the initial periodic report of Saudi Arabia, 12 June 2002 (CAT/C/CR/28/5, para . 4 (b)); report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, submitted to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-ninth session (E/CN.4/2003/75, para . 68) and (E/CN.4/2003/75/Add.1, para . 460).] The Special Rapporteur is of the opinion that punishments such as stoning or amputation constitute, if not torture, at least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment [The Special Rapporteur emphasizes in this regard that she does not wish to make a distinction between torture and other forms of ill treatment, including because such a consideration is outside the scope of her mandate. She would limit herself to consider these acts as contrary to article 7 of the ICCPR.] that is prohibited in absolute terms by various international conventions to which Nigeria is a party and which allow for no exception whatsoever. [.]

100. The Special Rapporteur considers that the legal systems such as have been adopted by a number of states in Nigeria contain provisions that raise concern in terms of human rights. Certain forms of punishment contained in the sharia penal codes, such as amputation or stoning, constitute treatment that is contrary to universally recognized norms prohibiting torture and other degrading, cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment, including international conventions to which Nigeria is a party. Moreover, it was underlined above that certain provisions as well as the practice of some sharia courts appeared to be in contravention of the principle of nulla poena sine lege and of equality before the law. Finally, the possibility, at least in theory, that Muslims could be convicted and sentenced to death because they converted to another religion would constitute a clear violation of the right to freedom of religion or belief."

[Go back to the Framework for communications]