Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

María de los Ángeles González Carreño v. Ministry of Justice

  • Machiko Kanetake (a1)

Extract

The ruling of the Spanish Supreme Court in Judgment No. 1263/2018, recognizing, for the first time, the binding character of the Views of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee), augmented the normative authority of the Views of the human rights treaty monitoring body, not only at the domestic level, but also within the international legal sphere. In the Judgment, the Spanish highest court held that the government must comply with the Views of the CEDAW Committee as a matter of the state's constitutional mandate as well as its international obligations. The Court's interpretation in this case meets the expectation of human rights treaty monitoring bodies that states are obligated to respond to their Views concerning individual communications, despite some states parties’ claims to the contrary.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      María de los Ángeles González Carreño v. Ministry of Justice
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      María de los Ángeles González Carreño v. Ministry of Justice
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      María de los Ángeles González Carreño v. Ministry of Justice
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All

1 Judgment No. 1263/2018 of July 17, 2018, ROJ: STS 2747/2018, ECLI: ES:TS:2018:2747 (Tribunal Supremo [Sup. Ct.], Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo [Contentious-Administrative Chamber]) (Spain).

2 The facts described in the present case note are based on both the Supreme Court decision and the CEDAW Committee's Views. See Angela González Carreño v. Spain, Communication No. 47/2012, paras. 2.1–.21 (CEDAW Committee July 16, 2014). Formally, the Committee adopted the “Decision”; yet this case note consistently uses the term “Views” to describe the findings adopted by UN human rights treaty-monitoring bodies in response to individual communications or petitions.

3 Id., para. 2.2.

4 Id., para. 2.3.

5 Id., para. 2.4.

6 Id., para. 2.5.

7 Id., para. 2.7.

8 Id., para. 2.9.

9 Id., para. 2.12.

10 Id., para. 2.13.

11 Id., paras. 2.18–.20.

12 Id., para. 2.21.

13 Id., para. 10.

14 Id., para. 9.2

15 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Arts. 2(a–f), 5(a), 16(1)(f), Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 UNTS 13 [hereinafter CEDAW Convention].

16 SAN 1528/2016 of Apr. 25, 2016, ECLI: ES:AN:2016:1528, at 4 (Audiencia Nacional [High Ct.]) (Spain).

17 STS 1425/2017 of Sept. 25, 2017 (Tribunal Supremo [Sup. Ct.], Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo [Contentious-Administrative Chamber]) (Spain).

18 SAN 4195/2016 of Nov. 2, 2016, ECLI: ES:AN:2016:4195 (Audiencia Nacional [High Ct.]) (Spain).

19 Id. at 5–6.

20 Id. at 6.

21 CEDAW Convention, supra note 15, Art. 24.

22 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Art. 7(4), Oct. 6, 1999, 2131 UNTS 83.

23 Id. Art. 1.

24 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res. 217 (III) A, UN Doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948).

25 Normative hierarchy in Article 9(3) of the Spanish Constitution is an abstract principle and the fact that international obligations are superior to ordinary domestic law—but not above the Constitution—is based on Articles 95 and 96 of the Constitution.

26 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 31(3)(b), May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331. See Report of the International Law Commission, UN GAOR, 73rd Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 110–12, paras. 9–15, UN Doc. A/73/10 (2018); Kanetake, Machiko, UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring Bodies Before Domestic Courts, 67 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 201, 218–19 (2018).

27 Concepción Hernández, Escobar, Sobre la problemática determinación de los efectos jurídicos internos de los «dictámenes» adoptados por Comités de derechos humanos. Algunas reflexiones a la luz de la STS 1263/2018, de 17 de julio, 71 Revista Española de Derecho Internacional 241, 244 (2019).

28 PM v. Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, Constitutional Appeal (recurso de amparo), ILDC 1794 (ES 2002), para. 7 of the section on legal foundations (Constitutional Ct. Apr. 3, 2002) (Spain). See also Asier Garrido Muñoz, Analysis: PM v. Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, ILDC 1794 (ES 2002), paras. A6–A8 (2011).

29 Judgment of the Supreme Court of June 8, 2015 (Tribunal Supremo [Sup. Ct.], Sala Tercera, de lo Contencioso-Administrativo [Third Chamber, Contentious-Administrative]) (Spain), at https://supremo.vlex.es/vid/575807258.

30 Kanetake, supra note 26, at 219–20.

31 See, e.g., Jones v. Saudi Arabia, [2006] UKHL 26, [2007] 1 AC 270 (H.L.), paras. 23, 57 (June 14, 2006); Order of the First Senate of July 26, 2016, 1 BvL 8/15, paras. 90–91 (German Federal Constitutional Ct. (BVerfG)), English translation available at http://www.bverfg.de/e/ls20160726_1bvl000815en.html; Kanetake, supra note 26, at 212–15.

32 van Alebeek, Rosanne & Nollkaemper, André, The Legal Status of Decisions by Human Rights Treaty Bodies in National Law, in UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies: Law and Legitimacy 356, 372–73, 385–90 (Keller, Helen & Ulfstein, Geir eds., 2012).; European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Report on the Implementation of International Human Rights Treaties in Domestic Law and the Role of Courts, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 100th Plenary Session, at 30, para. 76 (Oct. 10–11, 2014).

33 Int'l Law Ass'n, Berlin Conference (2004), Committee on International Human Rights Law and Practice, Final Report on the Impact of Findings of the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies, para. 175 (2004).

34 Human Rights Comm., Draft General Comment No. 33 (Second Revised Version as of Aug. 18, 2008), para. 11, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/33/CRP.3 (Aug. 25, 2008). See Kanetake, supra note 26, at 204–06.

35 Human Rights Comm., supra note 34, para. 15.

36 Id., para. 16.

37 Id., paras. 15–16.

38 Optional Protocol, supra note 22, Art. 7(4).

39 See Gutiérrez Espada, Cesáreo, La aplicación en España de los dictámenes de comités internacionales: la STS 1263/2018, un importante punto de inflexión, 10 Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional 836, 847, paras. 30–31 (2018); Escobar Hernández, supra note 27, at 249–50.

40 See Kanetake, supra note 26, at 205–06.

41 Human Rights Comm., General Comment No. 33: The Obligations of States Parties Under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, para. 15, n. 4, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/33 (June 25, 2009); Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, supra note 26, Art. 26.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Journal of International Law
  • ISSN: 0002-9300
  • EISSN: 2161-7953
  • URL: /core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed