Women and Justice: Keywords

The defendant, a boy under the age of 18 (juvenile: 16-18 years), committed lewd acts against a girl under the age of 14 (minor). The first-instance court imposed a punishment of five years imprisonment (Part 2 of Article 156 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine - Criminal Code). However, the court of first instance released the defendant from serving a sentence and instead imposed a probationary period of two years (Articles 75, 104 of the Criminal Code). The Court of Appeal left the decision unchanged. The victim's representative demanded a review of the case due to the mildness of the punishment, failure to take into account the gravity of the crime, and aggravating circumstances. The Supreme Court noted that a person who has committed a crime must be given a punishment that is necessary and sufficient for his correction and prevention of new crimes (Articles 50, 65 of the Criminal Code). The sentence must be based on the principles of proportionality and individualization, the type and size of the punishment should correspond to the nature of the crime, its dangerousness, and the identity of the perpetrator. When choosing a coercive measure (enforcement), the mitigating circumstances (sincere remorse and the commission of the crime by a minor) and aggravating circumstances (not established during the trial) are essential considerations. An individual analysis of the situation showed a low risk of committing a repeated criminal offense. The Supreme Court found that the defendant presented a low risk for re-offending because the defendant was a child under 18 who, according to psychological analysis, was capable of re-education, moreover it was the first offense he committed, and he sincerely repented. Thus, the Supreme Court rejected the victim’s petition to increase the sentence. This case is important because it shows the principle of proportionality and efficiency of punishment, and emphasizes the importance of preventing unreasonably heavier punishment.

Особа, що не досягла 18 років, (неповнолітня: 16-18 років) вчинила розпусні дії щодо особи, яка не досягла 14 років (малолітньої особи). Суд першої інстанції призначив покарання у виді позбавлення волі на строк 5 років (ч.2 ст. 156 КК), але засудженого було звільнено від відбування покарання з випробуванням з іспитовим строком тривалістю 2 роки (ст. 75, 104 КК). Апеляційний суд залишив рішення без змін. Представник постраждалої особи вимагав перегляду справи через м’якість покарання, неврахування тяжкості злочину та обтяжуючих обставин. Верховний суд зазначив, що особі, яка вчинила злочин, повинно бути призначено покарання, необхідне й достатнє для її виправлення та попередження вчинення нових злочинів (ст. 50, 65 КК ); виходячи із принципів співмірності й індивідуалізації покарання за своїм видом та розміром має бути адекватним (відповідним) характеру вчинених дій, їх небезпечності та даним про особу винного. При виборі заходу примусу мають значення й повинні братися до уваги обставини, які його пом'якшують (щире каяття та вчинення злочину неповнолітнім) та обтяжують (в ході судового розгляду не встановлено). Індивідуальний аналіз ситуації показав, що ризик вчинення повторного кримінального правопорушення низький, а тому перевиховання засудженого без ізоляції від суспільства цілком можливе, тому вимоги представника постраждалої особи не були задоволені. Ця справа є важливою, бо показує дію принципу пропорційності покарання злочину і недопущення необґрунтовано більш тяжкого покарання.

The appellant challenged his concurrent sentences for six violations of the Trafficking in Persons Act as manifestly excessive. The sentences ranged from 10-14 years of imprisonment including hard labor. The maximum penalty for a standard count of trafficking under article 14 of the Act is 14 years, the maximum penalty for trafficking children under 18 years is 21 years (article 15), and article 16 lists aggravating circumstances that increase the penalty for human trafficking to life imprisonment. The appellate court found that the lower court had inaccurately noted which charges corresponded with each victim, which resulted in confusing and improper sentencing decisions. First, the trial court erroneously sentenced the appellant for article 14 trafficking for Counts 1, 2, 5, and 6, but the victims were children and thus these charges should have been sentenced with reference to article 15’s 21 year maximum. In another error regarding Counts 3 and 4, the trial court found the appellant guilty of trafficking an adult of unsound mind in violation of article 16(1)(c), but the conviction should have been for article 14 trafficking of an adult because the adult victim was of sound mind. Ultimately the appellate court affirmed four of the six sentences related to trafficking children because the aggravating factors meant that those maximum penalties for were substantially longer than 14 years, rendering these sentences judicious. For the erroneous article 16 convictions, the appellate court substituted two article 14 convictions and imposed a substitute sentence of 10 years for each count to run concurrently. The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the sentences were manifestly excessive because they were well below the maximum available sentences.

The appellant pleaded guilty to raping and impregnating a 12-year-old girl for which he was originally sentenced to 12 years imprisonment with hard labor. On appeal, the appellant argued that his sentence was excessive in light of mitigating factors. While recognizing the victim’s age and pregnancy as aggravating factors, the appeals court reduced his sentence to nine years imprisonment. The court articulated several rules regarding mitigation in favor of this outcome based on the citation of cases from the appellant. First, the court stated that guilty pleas should reduce a sentence by one-third, even in the case of serious crimes. Second, citing in Rep v. Bamusi Mkwapatira, the court stated that all first-time offenders, regardless of the severity of the offense, should benefit from mitigation. Finally, the court identified the appellant, who was 33 years old at the time of the offense, as “youthful,” asserting that “men especially grow slowly mentally and at 35 they are at their prime experimenting with life.” Cautioning against mitigating too significantly, however, the court explicitly recognized the victim’s pregnancy, which “disturbed [her] life […] physically and psychologically,” and her very young age as aggravating factors. Thus, the court reduced the sentence by one-quarter, resulting in a nine-year sentence, rather than one-third or more.

In Slovakia, a petition signed by at least 350,000 voters may initiate a referendum as long as the questions relate to public interest. However, the subject of the referendum may not be basic rights and freedoms. The Constitutional Court reviews whether the subject of the referendum conforms to the Constitution. In 2014, 408,000 voters signed a petition asking the President to announce a referendum on the following questions: 1) Do you agree that the term “marriage” may not be used to designate any other form of cohabitation of persons other than the union between one man and one woman?; 2) Do you agree that pairs or groups of persons of the same sex may not be allowed to adopt children and subsequently to bring them up?; 3) Do you agree that no other form of cohabitation of persons other than marriage should be accorded the special protection, rights and obligations which are accorded solely to marriage and spouses by the legal system as at 1 March 2014?; and 4) Do you agree that schools may not require children to attend lessons in the field of sexual behavior or euthanasia, if their parents and the children themselves do not agree with the teaching content? The President asked the court to consider whether the first, second, and third questions were admissible as they related to the right to privacy, and whether the last question was admissible as it might interfere with the right to education. The Constitutional Court balanced the inalterability of constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms with the impossibility of rejecting every question which might minimally affect a right or freedom. The court held that the irrevocability of human rights means the standard of human rights is as set in the constitutional text. Any referendum questions that would lead to a broadening of human rights would be constitutionally acceptable, and any that would reduce human rights would not be constitutionally acceptable. Thus, the first, second, and fourth question were declared acceptable, and the third unacceptable. This case is available through the search function on the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic website here by searching for the case file number (PL. ÚS 24/2014).

Baby “A” was born with both male and female genitalia. Kenyatta National Hospital issued the baby’s mother with various documents used in the process of carrying out genitogram tests, x-rays, and scans on the baby, and a question mark was entered in the column indicating the child’s sex. To date, the child has never been issued a birth certificate. The petitioners requested a declaration of the court that the Constitution protects and recognizes intersex children. The petitioners claimed that the entry of a question mark on the child’s medical treatment notes offended the child’s rights to legal recognition, eroded their dignity, and violated the right of the child not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. The petitioners argued that corrective surgery for intersex children was not necessary unless there was a therapeutic need to conduct the surgery. Finally, they argued that forced genital normalization, involuntary sterilization, unethical experimentation, medical display, reparative therapies, and conversion therapies often lead to irreversible changes to the body and interferes with a child’s right to family and reproductive health rights generally. The court, noting the “silent issues faced by intersex” people stated that an intersex children are “no different than any other” children with a constitutional right to legal recognition and the benefits of nationality, including the right not to face intersex discrimination. However, the court found that the respondent did not violate the petitioners’ fundamental rights and freedom because there was no evidence that the child’s mother had tried to obtain, and therefore had never been unlawfully denied, the child’s legal documents. The court first ordered the First Respondent to report to the court within 90 days about (i) the agency responsible for collecting data on intersex people, (ii) a legislative proposal for registering intersex people as a sexual category, and (iii) a legislative proposal for intersex “corrective surgery” regulations. Second, the court ordered the child’s mother to register the with the Third Respondent and file a copy of the approved registration with the court within 90 days.

The Trial Court sentenced the accused (AA) to four years in prison for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor (BB). AA and the mother of BB had a common law marriage. AA had been sexually abusing BB since she was eight years old and started raping her when she turned 11. At age 14, BB became pregnant as a result of rape committed by AA. BB’s mother discovered AA’s abuse and filed the criminal complaint. AA confessed to being the victim’s “lover.” The court found aggravating circumstances including that AA had taken advantage of his domestic relationship with BB’s mother and that he had abused his victim during the night. AA’s confession constituted an attenuating circumstance, reducing the sentence imposed. The Appeals Court dismissed AA’s appeal and affirmed the Trial Court’s decision, ruling that there was enough evidence presented to establish the facts of the case.

El Tribunal de Primera Instancia condenó al acusado (AA) a cuatro años de prisión por abuso sexual agravado de un menor (BB). AA y la madre de BB tenían un matrimonio común. AA había abusado sexualmente de BB desde que tenía ocho años y comenzó a violarla cuando cumplió los 11. A los 14 años, BB quedó embarazada como resultado de una violación cometida por AA. La madre de BB descubrió el abuso de AA y presentó esta denuncia penal. AA confesó ser el "amante" de la víctima. El tribunal encontró circunstancias agravantes, incluyendo que AA se había aprovechado de su relación doméstica con la madre de BB y que había abusado de su víctima generalmente durante las noches. La confesión de AA constituyó una circunstancia atenuante, reduciendo la sentencia impuesta. El Tribunal de Apelaciones desestimó la apelación de AA y confirmó la decisión del Tribunal de Primera Instancia, dictaminando que se presentaron suficientes pruebas para establecer los hechos del caso.

The decision of the tribunal was only in relation to whether to approve the respondent’s application to dismiss the complaint. The respondent’s application was denied because there were real factual issues in dispute. It appears that the substantive trial has not yet commenced (or alternatively a settlement was reached). In any case, this case is relevant as it illustrates the discrimination women may face in Australia when seeking to establish themselves in a secure environment and raise their children. The complainant was a single mother who sought to rent an apartment from the respondent. The complaint rested upon the allegation that the complainant’s tenancy application had been rejected (and she was not even allowed to see the property) as a result of the complainant intending on having her young son live with her in the rental property.

Texas prohibits pregnant unemancipated minors from obtaining abortions unless the physician performing the abortion gives at least 48 hours actual notice of the appointment, in person or by telephone, to the minor’s parent, managing conservator, or guardian. If the parent or guardian cannot be notified after a reasonable effort, the physician may perform the abortion after giving 48 hours constructive notice by certified mail to the guardian’s last known address. A minor may obtain an abortion without parental notification if the minor receives a court order authorizing the minor to consent (judicial bypass), or if the physician finds a medical emergency, certifies the medical emergency in writing to the Department of State Health Services, and notifies the parent of the medical emergency. If a physician intentionally performs an abortion without complying with this code, the offense is punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000.

Pennsylvania uses a system referred to as the “Income Shares Model” for determining child support. This methodology focuses primarily on the net incomes of the parents and aims to grant the children the same proportion of the parental income that he or she would have received had the parents not divorced.

The plaintiff-appellants’ sons were members of their middle school basketball team who were victims of sexual harassment by their teammates. The harassment ranged from arguably innocent locker room pranks to sexual violence. The plaintiffs sued the Wayne County Board of Education, alleging that the school board was deliberately indifferent to student-on-student sexual harassment in violation of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. The District Court denied the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and awarded the plaintiffs $100,000 each in damages. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs had established the following elements of a deliberate indifference claim: that the sexual harassment was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it could be said to deprive the plaintiff of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school; that the funding recipient (i.e. the board of education) had actual knowledge of the sexual harassment, and the funding recipient was deliberately indifferent to the harassment.

A licensed abortion facility and its owner sued Alabama’s Attorney General and the Montgomery County District Attorney. Among Plaintiffs claims were allegations that the 2014 amendments to Alabama Code Title 26’s judicial bypass law violated the due process rights of minor patients seeking abortions because it failed to provide an adequate judicial bypass by permitting adverse parties and the court to disclose private information about the minor to others. Citing Supreme Court precedent enshrining a minor’s constitutional right to seek an abortion through judicial bypass without outside interference violating her privacy, the court ultimately agreed with the plaintiffs and severed the unconstitutional provisions allowing the participation of (1) the district attorney, (2) the minor’s parents, and (3) a guardian ad litem for the fetus from the judicial bypass process.

This case concerns the custody of a Japanese couple’s son who was born and raised in the United States until the mother, without the father’s consent, took him to Japan when he was 11 years old. Pursuant to the Japanese implementation of The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the father, who was still based in the U.S., petitioned for the return of the son to the U.S. A family court in Tokyo granted the petition. However, the attempt to enforce the order of the court failed as the mother strongly resisted when a court execution officer approached her––the son also voiced his desire to stay in Japan at the time. Subsequently, the father requested habeas corpus relief seeking release of the child. The High Court dismissed the request. In this appeal, the Supreme Court of Japan reversed the High Court’s ruling and remanded the case. In its reasoning, the Supreme Court first recalled its old ruling that care for a child is tantamount to “restraint” within the meaning of the Habeas Corpus Act and the Habeas Corpus Rules in special circumstances where it cannot be deemed that the child is staying with the care provider based on the child’s free will, even if the child is capable of making her/his own decisions. The Supreme Court found such a special circumstance––undue emotional influence from his mother––existed with respect to the son in light of the fact that he was not capable of making decisions regarding his life when he was taken to Japan, he appeared to have had less than sufficient opportunities to communicate with his father, and he had been largely dependent on his mother. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that the restraint at issue was unequivocally unlawful, taking into account that the mother had refused to follow the family court’s order to return the child to the U.S., and that there was no special circumstance in which removing the child would be significantly unjust. This Supreme Court’s unanimous decision may be an indication that the Court will put significant weight on compliance with The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

本件は、日本人夫婦の妻が、夫の同意を得ることなく、米国出身の11歳の息子を米国から日本に連れて帰り、米国にいる夫が東京家庭裁判所に息子の返還命令を申し立た事案である。日本が国際的な親による子の奪取を規定している「ハーグ条約」に加盟したことにより、東京家庭裁判所は返還命令の決定を下した。しかし、執行官が裁判所の命令を執行しようとしたところ、妻が強く抵抗したため、裁判所の命令を執行することができなかった。その後、夫は子の監護等を求めて人身保護請求を求めたが、高裁は夫の請求を棄却した。最高裁は、高裁の判決を破棄し、原審に差し戻した。その理由として、まず、旧判例では、人身保護法及び人身保護規則にいう「拘束」に当たるのは、意思能力がある子の監護について、子が自由意思に基づいて監護者の下にとどまっているとはいえない特段の事情があるときと示していた。本件では、子供が日本に連れて行かれた時点で自分の生活について判断する能力がなかったこと、父親とのコミュニケーションの機会が十分ではなかったと思われること、母親に大きく依存していたことなどから鑑みると、母親からの過度の精神的影響という特別な事情が存在すると最高裁は判断した。さらに、最高裁は、母親が家庭裁判所の返還命令に従わなかったこと、子を連れ去ることが著しく不当となる特段の事情がないことなどを考慮して、問題となっている拘束は紛れもなく違法であると判断した。本最高裁の全員一致による判決は、裁判所が「ハーグ条約」を遵守する姿勢を示している。

The defendant in this case sexually assaulted his stepdaughter, who was 12-years-old at the time. The defendant was sentenced to 15 years in prison for rape. During his appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court failed to legally assess all the evidence presented. During her initial testimony, the victim declared that it was her stepfather who had caused the sexual abuse apparent in her psychological and physical examinations. However, she recanted two months later and stated that the abuse had actually been inflicted by her boyfriend. Nonetheless, the trial court convicted the victim’s stepfather. On appeal the Court found no error. It reasoned that the timing between the contradictory declarations and, most importantly, the nature of the second declaration indicated that the first testimony was correct. The Court found that such a declaration was a product of the stepfather’s pressure as it lacked many details and appeared disingenuous. The Court dismissed the procedural challenge and confirmed the sentence.

En este caso, el acusado agredió sexualmente a su hijastra, que tenía 12 años en ese momento. El acusado fue condenado a 15 años de prisión por violación. Durante su apelación, el acusado argumentó que el tribunal de primera instancia no evaluó legalmente todas las pruebas presentadas. En su testimonio inicial, la víctima declaró que fue su padrastro quien había causado el abuso sexual aparente en sus exámenes físicos y psicológicos. Sin embargo, ella se retractó dos meses después y declaró que el abuso había sido infligido por su novio. No obstante, el tribunal de primera instancia condenó al padrastro de la víctima. En la apelación, La Corte no encontró ningún error. Razonó que el momento entre las declaraciones contradictorias y, lo más importante, la naturaleza de la segunda declaración indicaban que el primer testimonio era correcto. El Tribunal determinó que la segunda declaración era producto de la presión del padrastro, ya que carecía de muchos detalles y parecía poco sincera. El tribunal terminó la apelación y confirmó la sentencia como decisión final.

The aunt of three children applied for guardianship of the children and the land they inherited following the death of their father. The Court was unable to determine some critical information, including whether the children had a surviving parent and the source of the funds the aunt used to care for the children. The Court was also concerned that the children’s mother might be alive and the automatic guardian, but that the aunt was chosen because she was related to the children’s male parent. Under most customary community traditions in Uganda, being a paternal ancestor would give the aunt guardianship priority over the mother. The Constitutional Court found these practices unconstitutional.

The minor applicant, a member of the Hazara ethnic group, illegally immigrated to Austria with her parents and four minor siblings from Afghanistan when she was approximately nine years old. The Federal Asylum Agency of Austria (“FAAA”) denied her and her family’s petitions for asylum. The Asylum Court reversed the denial, finding that the FAAA erred in summarily denying asylum based on the applicant’s statements without considering outside credible reports or sources relevant to the applicant’s asylum claim. The Asylum Court found that the applicant belonged to a particular social group based on her gender, age, and cultural and religious origins, and that she would have to live in accordance with the family’s conservative values if she returned to Afghanistan. As such, the applicant would not have the opportunity to pursue any goals outside the religion and customs of her community nor would she be able to protect herself against violence or undesired restrictions. Furthermore, a return would mean that the applicant would be raised to be a homemaker and married to a man chosen by her father and grandfather. The Court concluded that, if returned to Afghanistan, the applicant would find herself in a situation of permanent latent threats, structural violence, and immediate restrictions that would practically make it impossible for her to exercise her human rights. In granting the applicant’s asylum claim, the Court considered both gender-specific and child-specific factors that were not brought forth by the applicant, but rather gathered from credible investigative sources.

Die minderjährige Beschwerdeführerin ist afghanische Staatsbürgerin und Angehörige der Volksgruppe der Hazara. Sie wanderte gemeinsam mit ihren Eltern und vier minderjährigen Geschwistern illegal nach Österreich ein, als sie ungefähr neun Jahre alt war. Das Österreichische Bundesasylamt lehnte ihren Asylantrag und den ihrer Familie ab. Der Asylgerichtshof hat der Beschwerde der Beschwerdeführerin stattgegeben und ihr den Status einer Asylberechtigten zuerkannt. Nach Auffassung des Asylgerichtshofs lehnte das Bundesasylamt fehlerhaft den Antrag aufgrund der Angaben der Beschwerdeführerin ab, ohne weitere externe Berichte oder sonstige Quellen in Betracht zu ziehen, die ebenso relevant für die Beurteilung des entsprechenden Asylantrags sind. Der Asylgerichtshof stellte fest, dass die Beschwerdeführerin einer bestimmten sozialen Gruppe aufgrund ihres Geschlechts, Alters und kultureller oder religiöser Herkunft angehört, sodass sie in Übereinstimmung mit den konservativen Werten ihrer Familie leben müsste, sollte sie nach Afghanistan zurückkehren. Unter diesen Umständen würde ihr das Verfolgen von Zielen außerhalb der Religion und den Gepflogenheiten ihrer Gemeinschaft verwehrt. Sie wäre des Weiteren nicht in der Lage, sich gegen Gewalt oder ungewollte Restriktionen zu wehren. Außerdem würde eine Rückkehr für sie bedeuten, als Hausfrau und Mutter erzogen zu werden, bis sie an einen Mann verheiratet würde, den entweder Vater oder Großvater für sie aussuchen. Der Gerichtshof hat daher festgestellt, dass die Beschwerdeführerin, sollte sie nach Afghanistan zurückkehren, sich in einem Klima ständiger latenter Gefahr, struktureller Gewalt und unmittelbarer Einschränkungen wiederfinden würde, die es ihrer praktisch unmöglich machen, ihre Menschenrechte auszuüben. Indem der Gerichtshof, dem Antrag der Beschwerdeführerin stattgab, hat er sowohl geschlechtsspezifische und kind-spezifische Faktoren erwogen, die nicht von der Beschwerdeführerin vorgebracht wurden, allerdings aus glaubwürdigen investigativen Quellen stammen.

The aunt of three children applied to a Moslem Religious Court to be appointed as their guardian. The children’s mother argued that she was entitled to the guardianship under the Women’s Equal Rights Law. The mother, believing that the religious judge (the Kadi) would apply religious law and disregard the Women’s Equal Rights Law, applied for an order staying or setting aside the proceedings of the religious court. The court held that the issue was not ripe for review, as there was no indication that the Kadi would disregard civil law and rely only upon religious law. The order in which the Kadi decided to proceed was a matter of procedure with which the court would not interfere.

In an application under Article 102 of the Constitution, the Bangladesh National Women's Lawyers Association (BNWLA) petitioned the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) to address the exploitation and abuse endured by child domestic laborers in Bangladesh. The BNWLA argued that child domestic workers are subjected to economic exploitation, physical and emotional abuse, and the deprival of an education in violation of their fundamental constitutional rights. In support of these arguments, it presented multiple reports of extreme abuse suffered by child domestic workers. In deciding this case, the Court reviewed the current laws in Bangladesh, including the Labour Act, 2006, which fails to extend labor protections to "domestic workers," including children, and lacks an effective implementation and enforcement system. The Court directed the government of Bangladesh to take immediate steps to increase its protection of the fundamental rights of child domestic workers including prohibiting children under the age of 12 from working in any capacity including domestic settings; supporting the education of adolescents; implementing the National Elimination of Child Labour Policy 2010 and applying the Labour Act, 2006 to domestic workers. Additionally, the Court directed the government to monitor and prosecute incidents of violence against child domestic workers, maintain a registry of domestic workers and their whereabouts to combat trafficking, promulgate mandatory health check-ups and strengthen the legal framework relating to child domestic workers.

The manual for judges and judicial officers explains the common-law origins of evidence law, then offers contemporary country-specific analyses of thirteen southern and eastern African countries with a shared common-law colonial history: Botswana, Eswatini, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. It includes guidance for gender-related issues such as the cautionary rule, protection of complainants in sexual violence cases, character evidence, treatment of child witnesses, and similar fact evidence. The Judicial Institute for Africa and the Women & Justice Collection collaborated on this manual.

The manual for judges and judicial officers explains the common-law origins of evidence law, then offers contemporary country-specific analyses of thirteen southern and eastern African countries with a shared common-law colonial history: Botswana, Eswatini, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. It includes guidance for gender-related issues such as the cautionary rule, protection of complainants in sexual violence cases, character evidence, treatment of child witnesses, and similar fact evidence. The Judicial Institute for Africa and the Women & Justice Collection collaborated on this manual.

The 2017 Act amends and extends the law in relation to the adoption of children and made conforming amendments to other legislation. Among other things, the Act, in conjunction with the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 (available here), enables adoption by same-sex couples. The Act, in particular, amends use of heterosexual phrases in legislation, introducing more neutral terminology for words such as “parent” and “relative” (Section 3).

The legislation sets out various child benefits, such as a one-time payment for the birth or adoption of a child (EUR 462 in 2022) and entitlement to a monthly payment until a child reaches 18 years old (EUR 73,5 in 2022).

Šiame teisės akte nustatytos įvairios išmokos vaikui, pavyzdžiui, vienkartinė išmoka už vaiko gimimą ar įvaikinimą (462 EUR 2022 m.) ir teisė į mėnesinę išmoką, kol vaikui sueis 18 metų (73,5 EUR 2022 m.).

Article 7(1) states that all citizens are equal before the law and prohibits sex-based privileges (among other factors). Article 7(2) states that the federal government and all federal states and municipalities affirm actual equality between women and men. It further stresses that measures to achieve factual equality between women and men are legal. Regarding job titles or academic titles, Article 7(3) requires that the gendered nouns in those titles reflect the gender of the respective holder are in accordance with law. Article 14(6) states that public schools, kindergartens, and similar institutions shall be accessible to all children regardless of sex (among other factors).

Artikel 7 Abs. 1 macht deutlich, dass alle Bürger vor dem Gesetz gleich sind und verbietet gleichzeitig u.a. geschlechterbezogene Privilegien. Nach Artikel 7 Abs. 2 betonen die Bundesregierung, die Bundesstaaten sowie die Gemeinden die Gleichheit von Mann und Frau. Weiterhin betont das Gesetz, dass Maßnahmen, die dem Ziel dienen, eine faktische Gleichstellung von Mann und Frau zu erreichen, rechtmäßig sind. Betreffend Jobbezeichnungen oder akademischer Titel macht Artikel 7 Abs. 3 deutlich, dass eine geschlechterspezifische Anpassung dieser ebenso rechtmäßig ist. Artikel 14 Abs. 6 folgend müssen öffentliche Schulen, Kindergärten und vergleichbare Einrichtungen für alle Kinder egal welchen Geschlechts verfügbar sein.

Article 8 provides that traffickers of adults over 18 are subject to a sentence of not less than six months, a fine of 1,000 – 5,000 (JD), or both. Human trafficking crimes for this purpose are defined in Article 3 (A)(1) to include coercion, threat or force, or through giving or receiving gifts or privileges to secure consent. Article 9 provides for a punishment consisting of temporary imprisonment with hard labor for a not less than 10 years, and a fine between 5000 – 20,000 (JD) if the victim of trafficking is a female under 18, even without any aggravating factors or the use or threat or force (as defined in Article 3). Article 10 further provides that a person will be imprisoned for up to 6 months if he or she becomes aware, by nature of her or his job, of such acts or the intent to commit Article 9 acts and does not report it. Similarly, Article 11 has provisions for juristic persons who commit such crimes stating they will be sentenced to a fine of 1,000 – 50,000 (JC) as well as potential criminal responsibility. Article 13 also provides a provision that consent of the victims is not a consideration under this Law, especially to reduce stipulated penalties in this Law.

ذكرت المادة 8 عقوبة كل من استقطب أشخاص أو نقلهم أو آواهم أو استقبلهم بغرض استغلالهم عن طريق التهديد بالقوة أو استعمالها أو غير ذلك من أشكال الاستغلال أو الاختطاف أو الاحتيال أو القسر أو الخداع (البند 1 من الفقرة أ من ذات القانون) بالحبس مدة لا تقل عن ستة أشهر أو بغرامة ما بين 1000 و5000 دينار أردني أو بكلتا هاتين العقوبتين. كما نصت المادة 9 على العقوبات التي تترتب على كل من اتجر بشخص يقل عمره عن 18 سنة ولو كان ذلك دون استعمال أي شكل من أشكال القوة الموضحة في المادة 3 من ذات القانون. وأوضحت المادة 10 أن عقوبة كل من نمى إلى علمه بحكم وظيفته بارتكاب إحدى الجرائم المنصوص عليها في المادة 9 من ذات القانون أو بوجود مخطط لارتكابها، منها الاتجار بالأشخاص الذي لم يبلغ عمرهم 18 سنة، ولم يقم بإبلاغ الجهات الرسمة ذات الاختصاص. أما المادة 11 فقد عاقبت الشخص الاعتباري المرتكب لأي جريمة منصوص عليها في هذا القانون بغرامة ما بين 10,000 و 50,000 دينار أردني. وذكرت المادة 13 أن رضى المجني عليهم أو المتضررين من جرائم الاتجار بالبشر لا يؤخذ بعين الاعتبار من أجل تخفيض أي من العقوبات المنصوص عليها في هذا القانون.

The law defines matrimonial and family relationships and sets out protections of mothers’ and children’s interests in family life and upon divorce. The law establishes that men and women have equal rights in all aspects pertaining to family relationships and have freedom to marry upon reaching the age of marriage. The law provides that marriage should be entered into on the basis of mutual consent. The law prohibits various forms of discrimination against women, such as through polygamy, unequal use of matrimonial properties during a marriage, and unlawful division of matrimonial properties upon divorce. The law states that husband and wife have right to engage in political, economic, cultural, and social activities. It further provides that both husband and wife have joint right to choose place of residence and the respective right to select family name. The law also sets out provisions for divorce. In case of divorce, the Court may order a former husband to pay child support; and when his former wife is sick and unable to meet her own needs, the Court may also order a former husband to pay alimony for a period which shall be less than one year.

Article 638 defines parental responsibility as the set of parental duties and rights relating to the person and property of the children for the children’s protection, development, and education while they are minors. These responsibilities are governed by three principles set out in article 639: a) the best interests of the child; b) the progressive autonomy of the child based on his or her psychophysical characteristics, aptitudes, and development. With greater autonomy, the representation of the parents in the exercise of the rights of the children diminishes; c) the right of the child to be heard and to have his or her opinion considered based on his or her age and degree of maturity. In the event of a disagreement between parents, article 642 permits either parent to seek relief from a competent judge. The judge must resolve the disagreement through the shortest mechanism provided by local law, after hearing the parents in conjunction with a public prosecutor. If the disagreements continue or if any other disagreement occurs that seriously obstructs the exercise of parental responsibility, the judge may: (1) assign parental responsibility in whole or in part to one of the parents, or (2) distribute their duties among them, for a period not exceeding two years. The judge may also order interdisciplinary intervention measures and submit the disagreement for mediation. Article 646 states that the duties of the parents are to: a) take care of and live with the child, provide food and education; b) consider the specific needs of the child according to his or her psychophysical characteristics, aptitudes and development; c) respect the right of children and adolescents to be heard and to participate in their own educational process, as well as in all matters related to their personal rights; d) provide guidance and direction to the child for the exercise and effectiveness of his or her rights; e) respect and facilitate the right of the child to maintain personal relationships with grandparents, other relatives or persons with whom he or she has an affective bond; f) represent and manage the child's estate. Article 647 prohibits corporal punishment in any form, mistreatment, and any act that physically or psychologically harms children or adolescents. Article 654 requires that each parent inform the other about the education, health, and other issues related to the child's person and assets.

El artículo 638 define la responsabilidad parental como el conjunto de deberes y derechos parentales relacionados con la persona y los bienes de los niños para la protección, el desarrollo y la educación de los niños mientras sean menores. Estas responsabilidades se rigen por tres principios establecidos en el artículo 639: a) el interés superior del niño; b) la progresiva autonomía del niño en función de sus características psicofísicas, aptitudes y desarrollo. Con mayor autonomía, disminuye la representación de los padres en el ejercicio de los derechos de los hijos; c) el derecho del niño a ser escuchado y a que se tenga en cuenta su opinión en función de su edad y grado de madurez. En caso de desacuerdo entre los padres, el artículo 642 permite que cualquiera de los padres busque alivio ante un juez competente. El juez debe resolver el desacuerdo a través del mecanismo más corto provisto por la ley local, después de escuchar a los padres en conjunto con un fiscal. Si los desacuerdos continúan o si se produce cualquier otro desacuerdo que obstaculice gravemente el ejercicio de la patria potestad, el juez podrá: (1) ceder la patria potestad total o parcialmente a uno de los padres, o (2) repartir sus deberes entre ellos, por un período no superior a dos años. El juez también podrá ordenar medidas de intervención interdisciplinaria y someter la disconformidad a mediación. El artículo 646 establece que los deberes de los padres son: a) cuidar y convivir con el niño, proporcionarle alimentación y educación; b) considerar las necesidades específicas del niño de acuerdo con sus características psicofísicas, aptitudes y desarrollo; c) respetar el derecho de los niños, niñas y adolescentes a ser escuchados y participar en su propio proceso educativo, así como en todo lo relacionado con sus derechos personales; d) brindar orientación y dirección al niño para el ejercicio y efectividad de sus derechos; e) respetar y facilitar el derecho del niño a mantener relaciones personales con los abuelos, otros familiares o personas con las que tenga un vínculo afectivo; f) representar y administrar la herencia del niño. El artículo 647 prohíbe el castigo corporal en cualquier forma, el maltrato y cualquier acto que lesione física o psicológicamente a los niños o adolescentes. El artículo 654 requiere que cada padre informe al otro sobre la educación, la salud y otros asuntos relacionados con la persona y los bienes del niño.

Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana relates to respect for human dignity and prohibits torture or cruel and inhuman punishment. Article 16 prohibits involuntary servitude or slavery. Article 17 relates to equality and non-discrimination and establishes that every person in Ghana is equal before the law. To this end, Article 17 specifically prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, color, ethnic origin, religion, creed, or social or economic status. Article 18 pertains to property rights and states that every person has the right to own property either alone or in association with others. Article 22 builds upon Article 18 and establishes that a spouse shall not be deprived of a reasonable provision out of the estate of a spouse whether or not the spouse died with a will. Article 22 states that Parliament shall enact legislation regulating the property rights of spouses as soon as possible after the Constitution came in to force. Article 22 clarifies that spouses shall have equal access to property jointly acquired during marriage and that assets that are jointly acquired during marriage shall be distributed equitably between the spouses upon dissolution of the marriage. Article 24 of the Ghanaian Constitution concerns economic rights and establishes pay parity as a constitutionally enshrined principle. It states that every person has the right to work under satisfactory, safe, and healthy conditions and shall receive equal pay for equal work without distinction of any kind. Article 26 concerns cultural rights and practices and states that (a) every person is entitled to enjoy, practise, profess, maintain, and promote any culture, language, tradition, or religion subject to the provisions of the Constitution; but also that (b) all customary practices that dehumanise or injure the physical and mental well-being of a person are prohibited. Article 27 refers specifically to women’s rights. It states that special care shall be accorded to mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth; and during these periods, working mothers shall be entitled to paid leave; that facilities shall be provided for the care of children below school-going age to enable women, who traditionally care for children, to realise their full potential; and that women shall be guaranteed equal rights to training and promotion without impediments. Article 36(6) refers specifically to the economic obligations of the state, which include ensuring that the State afford equality of economic opportunity to all citizens. Article 36(6) emphasizes that the State must take all necessary steps to ensure the full integration of women as equal partners in Ghana’s economic development.

The Domestic Abuse Act (Scotland) of 2018 came into force on April 1, 2019. It modifies and expands upon portions of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act of 1995. The act expands the definition of domestic abuse to include psychological abuse and coercive and controlling behavior. It criminalizes both psychological and physical harm directed to a partner or an ex-partner. Section 11.2 defines a “partner” as a spouse or civil partner, a person with whom one lives as a spouse, or a person with whom one is in an “intimate personal relationship.” Section 2 defines abuse as “violent, threatening, or intimidating” behavior that may consist of controlling a victim’s daily activities, causing the victim to become subordinate or dependent on the perpetrator, isolating the victim from friends or family, depriving or restricting a victim’s actions, or frightening, humiliating, degrading, or otherwise punishing the victim. Section 3 contains an extraterritoriality clause covering such conduct occurring partly or wholly outside the country, and thus the abusive behavior need not take place within the United Kingdom. Section 5 creates a is the only UK legislation with a specific statutory sentencing aggravation for the harm that can be caused to children growing up in an environment in which domestic abuse takes place. Section 2.2.n., likewise, includes a victim’s child under the age of 18 as a potential additional victim of abuse. Section 5.3 clarifies that the aggravation can be applied both in cases in which abusive behavior is directed at a child, and in scenarios in which a child “sees or hears, or is present during, an incident of behavior that A directs at B as part of the course of behavior.” The Domestic Abuse Act has been lauded by women’s rights organizations as a “welcome change” that “should increase the opportunity [for victims] to obtain protection and seek justice through the criminal justice system."

The Charter aims to protect and promote the human rights set out in Part 2, including property rights and freedom from forced work (slavery), as well as the right to enjoy those human rights without discrimination. With respect to any proposed new law, the Victorian Parliament must prepare a “statement of compatibility,” which must examine the proposed law’s compatibility (or incompatibility) with the human rights protected in the Charter. While this statement has no effect on the validity of any law, it furthers the purpose of the Charter in promoting human rights. Further, under section 32 of the Charter, all statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights (to the extent it is possible to do so consistently with their purpose). The Charter also allows the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission to intervene in any court or tribunal proceeding in relation to the Charter.

The Female Genital Mutilation Act of 2003 restated and amended the law prohibiting female genital mutilation, and further prohibits assistance in mutilation, failing to protect a girl from risk of mutilation, and assistance in transporting girls overseas for the purpose of female genital mutilation. It establishes a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

The Matrimonial Causes Act governs marriages, dissolution of marriage, and custody of children. According to Section 5(d) a marriage is voidable if at the time of marriage “the wife is pregnant by a person other than the husband.” However, by Section 35(c), only the husband can nullify the marriage because of pregnancy; the wife has no right to petition to do so. Under Section 47, both husband and wife have grounds for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, if either refuse to cohabitate with and render conjugal rights to the other. With respect to the wife, if the husband has paid any money to her with respect to a decree under Section 47 and she refuses to comply with the decree within a reasonable time, the money paid becomes a debt due and payable by the wife to the husband and recoverable by action in court.

Pregnant employees are prohibited from working during the eight-week period prior to giving birth and the eight-week period after giving birth. During this period, the mother is entitled to receive maternity pay, which is calculated as the employee’s average earnings during the three calendar months prior to the prohibition of work. After the prohibition period, women may take an additional period of parental leave (Karenz) until the child reaches the age of two. During this period, a mother (or father, if he has taken paternity leave, although both parents may not take leave concurrently) will not receive remuneration through her (or his) employer, although the parent taking leave may receive a child allowance through social insurance during this time. Pregnant employees and parents on parental leave may not be terminated from employment during that time and for a period of four weeks after returning to work. The Act also provides regulations for permissible types of work for pregnant women, women who are breastfeeding, and women who have recently given birth (i.e., prohibition of certain physical work and manual labor, handling of chemicals, work where the woman must sit or stand for long periods with no break, etc.) and regulations regarding the times pregnant and breastfeeding employees may work (i.e., must not work between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m., nor Sundays or public holidays).

Schwangeren Angestellten ist das Arbeiten während eines Acht-Wochen-Zeitraums vor der Kindesgeburt und nach der Kindesgeburt untersagt. Während des Zeitraums hat die Mutter einen Anspruch auf das sog. Wochengeld. Die Höhe dessen richtet sich nach dem Durchschnittsgehalt der Angestellten innerhalb der letzten drei Kalendermonate, bevor der Arbeitsuntersagung. Nach dem Zeitraum, in dem die Mutter nicht arbeiten darf, kann sie optional noch weitere Elternzeit, sog. Karenz, in Anspruch nehmen, bis das Kind ein Alter von zwei Jahren erreicht. In der Karenzzeit können Mutter oder Vater, je nachdem wer die Karenz in Anspruch genommen hat (niemals beide gleichzeitig), keine Vergütung von ihrem Arbeitnehmer verlangen, sie erhalten allerdings einen Kindesunterhalt von der Sozialversicherung. Schwangere Angestellte und Eltern in Elternzeit können während dieser Zeit und bis zu vier Wochen nach ihrer Rückkehr nicht gekündigt werden. Das MuSchG enthält darüber hinaus auch Regeln bezüglich der Arbeit, die schwangeren, stillenden und Frauen, die kürzlich gebärt haben, gestattet ist – insbesondere verboten: körperlich besonders anstrengende Arbeit, der Umgang mit Chemikalien, Arbeit, bei der die Frau ohne Pause lange sitzen oder stehen muss, etc. Außerdem enthält das MuSchG Regeln zur Arbeitszeit, die schwangeren und stillenden Angestellten gestattet ist – nicht zwischen 20 Uhr und 6 Uhr; nicht an Sonntagen und staatlichen Feiertagen.

The Domestic Violence Act (“DVA”), originally enacted in 1996 and amended in 2004, aims to provide protections for women and children domestic violence situations. It gives courts the power to grant protection and occupation orders. Applications for such orders can be brought by the victim or, in the case of a child, a parent, guardian, constable, or social worker can bring an application on the child’s behalf. The DVA sets forth the limitations imposed by protective orders, and it states courts can grant such an order if “it is satisfied that” the individual against whom the order is sought used or threatened to use violence, mental or physical, against the person seeking the order. Even without that showing, the court can grant a protective order if it finds the order necessary for the protection of the person “having regard to all circumstances.” The court can grant protection and occupation orders on an ex parte basis if the court deems it necessary. Punishment for violating an order is a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a maximum of six months, or both.

In making custody and visitation decisions, Pennsylvania courts look to various factors in determining what is in the “best interest of the child.” The factors weighed by the court include: (1) the well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child’s maturity and judgment; (2) the need for stability and continuity in the child’s education, family life and community life; (3) which parent is more likely to foster a relationship between the noncustodial parent and the child; (4) each parent’s history of violent or abusive conduct; and (5) specific criminal convictions. The court will only award sole custody when it is in the best interest of the child. Shared custody will only be awarded if: (1) one or both parents apply for it; (2) the parents have agreed to shared custody; or (3) the court determines it is in the best interest of the child. It is within the court’s discretion to require the parents to attend counseling sessions. Further, the court may review and consider recommendations from the counselor in making the final custody decision.

The Maintenance Act (the “Act”) imposes equal rights and burdens in relation to the payment of child support (and enforcement of child support orders) on both parents and abolishes customary laws to the contrary. The Act also states that husbands and wives are equally responsible for each other’s maintenance.

The applicant was sterilized at age 17 during the birth of her second child. She claimed that she was coerced into signing the authorizations for the sterilization, segregated in the hospital based on her Roma ethnicity, and that the decision to sterilize her was discriminatory. The District Court dismissed the applicant’s civil action against the hospital on the basis that the sterilization was required to save her life and, therefore, did not need consent. On appeal, the Regional Court, found that the sterilization was not required to save her life and valid consent had not been provided as she was a minor and parental consent was required. The Court ordered EUR 1,593 in damages for the applicant. A criminal action and complaint at the Constitutional Court were both dismissed. The applicant argued she had been subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment, her private and family life had been negatively impacted, and that she had been discriminated against on the basis of sex and ethnic origin as there were no anti-discrimination laws effective in Slovakia at the time of her sterilization. The State argued the compensation already awarded was appropriate, as she was 10 days away from the age of majority when she signed the consent documents, the medical staff had acted in good faith, and that she was not permanently infertile as she could pursue in-vitro fertilization or reverse the sterilization through surgery. The European Court of Human Rights held that there was a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and that the State’s failure to provide sufficient legal protections of the reproductive health of Roma women violated Article 8. The Court awarded the applicant damages.