Violence
against Women
Apparel
Export Promotion Council v. A.K Chopra, Supreme Court, India,
20 Jan 1999.
Violating the fundamental rights to equality, life and liberty,
sexual harassment includes actions that offend the morality,
decency and modesty of the victim; no physical contact is necessary.
CEDAW imposes obligations to gender-sensitise laws.
Chairman,
Railway Board and others v. Mrs. Chandrima Das and others, Supreme
Court of India, 28 Jan 2000. (In A Digest of Case Law on the
Human Rights of Women [Asia Pacific]. Eds. Forster, Christine,
Imrana Jalal, Vedna Jivan and Madhu Mehra. Asia Pacific Forum
on Women, Law and Development. 2003, pp.51-3)
Confirming their duty to look to international human rights
standards (specifically CEDAW and the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights) to interpret the national constitution, the
Court held that rape is a violation of the right to live with
human dignity and non-citizens are entitled to redress for such
a violation.
Fernandes
v. Brazil, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization
of American States, Report No.54/01, Case 12.051, 16 Apr 2001.
By failing to take effective measures to prevent and punish
domestic violence against women, the State violated women’s
rights to justice, a fair trial and judicial protection under
the American Convention on Human Rights and failed to fulfill
its duties under the Convention of Belém do Pará
(on domestic violence). 
Details
Regina
v. Ewanchuk, Supreme Court, Canada, 14 Oct 1998, 25 Feb 1999.
In a case of rape, the behaviour of the complainant is not to
be judged according to stereotypes and myths about women’s
consent to sex. To do so is to deny women’s sexual autonomy
and is an offense against human dignity and equality, which
are protected by CEDAW.
S
v. Bechu, Magistrate’s Court, Levuka, Fiji, 2 Dec 1999.
In this rape case, the court held that men need to be aware
of CEDAW and that “the belief that women are inferior
to men or part of their personal property is obsolete and unacceptable.” Details
