red een vrouw van steneging

[Gatara]

duyvel schreef op 10-05-2003 @ 01:44:
Hmmmm...



Internationaal rechtdeskundigen in de zaal???

Wat betekend het als een verdrag wel getekend is, maar nog niet geratificeerd?

Ratificatie = officiele bekrachtiging door een daartoe bevoegd persoon of orgaan van een uit zijn naam gesloten overeenkomst.

Het is dus m.a.w. nog niet erkend/bevestigd.

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Gatara schreef op 10-05-2003 @ 15:38:
Ratificatie = officiele bekrachtiging door een daartoe bevoegd persoon of orgaan van een uit zijn naam gesloten overeenkomst.

Het is dus m.a.w. nog niet erkend/bevestigd.

Maar wel ondertekend, das dus niet genoeg? Het is dus ook nog nodig om het te erkennen... ?

De VS hebben het ook nog niet geratificeerd trouwens

[Nate]

Gatara schreef op 10-05-2003 @ 15:38:
Ratificatie = officiele bekrachtiging door een daartoe bevoegd persoon of orgaan van een uit zijn naam gesloten overeenkomst.

Het is dus m.a.w. nog niet erkend/bevestigd.

Dus bij deze vervalt het argument dat Nigeria zich niet aan de internationale regeltjes houdt. Geen dank

[Gatara]

Nate schreef op 10-05-2003 @ 18:48:
Dus bij deze vervalt het argument dat Nigeria zich niet aan de internationale regeltjes houdt. Geen dank

Duyvel heeft verouderde pagina's gebruikt, want wat blijkt:

Baobab and Amnesty International's main concerns regarding the extension of Sharia law are:

1. Cruel, Inhuman and degrading punishments: Punishments such as stoning, flogging or amputation are considered cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by international human rights standards. By ratifying the Convention Against torture in June 2001, the Federal Republic of Nigeria has decided to bind itself not to apply such punishments. Since 2000, amputation and flogging have been carried out in several states of northern Nigeria and Safiya Hussaini had first been sentenced to stoning.

2. Failure to meet International Standards of Fair Trial: Baobab and Amnesty International are concerned that Sharia courts may fall short in guaranteeing the right of representation. This is particularly serious for cases where the death penalty and other irreversible punishments can be imposed. Safiya Hussaini did not benefit from full legal representation in her first trial, when she was sentenced to death.

3. Discrimination on grounds of gender: Under the Maliki school of thought, which dominates the interpretation of Sharia in northern Nigeria, pregnancy is considered sufficient evidence to condemn a woman for Zina, an offence which is to be read as adultery or as voluntary premarital sexual intercourse. The oath of the man denying having had sexual intercourse with the woman is often considered sufficient proof of innocence unless four independent and reputable eye-witnesses declare his involvement in the act of voluntary sexual intercourse. Safiya Hussaini was sentenced to death in her first trial for adultery on the basis of her pregnancy.

(en verder nog wat interessante info

Based on the cases of Bariya Ibrahim Magazu and Safiya Hussaini, Baobab for Women's human rights and Amnesty International emphasise that Sharia Law as practised in the northern states of Nigeria, does not protect women from possible sexual assault and coercion, instead it is willing to punish the victims of such assault. In both cases the Court has not pursued the allegations of coercion. The clear implication of this decision is that men violate and rape girls and women with impunity as long as they make sure that there are no witnesses of their crime. On the other hand, women and girls who are victims of rape or coercion have their situation further compounded. They will be subjected to charges of Zina and false accusation. This clearly violates women's rights, justice and security while protecting those men who harrass, molest and rape women and girls.

4. Discrimination on grounds of social status: Observation of cases tried by Sharia courts in northern Nigeria over the past few months, shows that the convicted are often from deprived background. Such is the case of Safiya Hussaini.

5. Lack of judicial training of Sharia Court judges: The criteria for appointing judges do not fulfil international standards of training for judicial personnel. In the case of Safiya Hussaini, a lower court handed down the death sentence. The court in question did not have penal jurisdiction before the introduction of the new Sharia-based penal codes. Judges are frequently the same and have rarely received adequate training to judge criminal matters.

6. Procedure of application of Death Penalty: The new Sharia Penal Codes allow Sharia Courts, often only consisting of one judge and having no guarantees for adequate legal representation, to impose the death penalty. Under the Penal Code of Northern Nigeria and also the Nigerian Criminal Code applicable in Southern Nigeria, cases attracting capital punishment could only be tried by the State High Court.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index...RIES%5CNIGERIA

[Nate]

Die verouderde pagina's had ik opgezocht, maar, het spijt mij. Niets gezegd.

Desalniettemin hecht IK geen waarde aan het geheel der internationale verdragen en dus vervallen MIJN argumenten niet

[Gatara]

Nate schreef op 10-05-2003 @ 19:39:
Die verouderde pagina's had ik opgezocht, maar, het spijt mij. Niets gezegd.

Desalniettemin hecht IK geen waarde aan het geheel der internationale verdragen en dus vervallen MIJN argumenten niet

Jouw mening bedoel je

[ne0]

*heeft getekend*