In the Ogiek case, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights held that Kenya had violated multiple provisions of the African Charter by forcibly evicting the Ogiek, an indigenous forest-dwelling community, from their ancestral lands in the Mau Forest Complex without consultation, justification, or adequate compensation.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights alleged that, by not respecting ancestral property rights, the Government of Paraguay threatened the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community’s access to food, water and health care, and survival in violation of Articles 4 (right to life), 8 (right to fair trial), 21 (right to property) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights.
The Indigenous Community Xákmok Kásek and its members sued Paraguay because of its inability to recover certain ancestral property. The Community claimed that this lack of access to property and possession of its territory, in addition to threatening the survival of the Community, resulted in nutritional, medical, and health vulnerability to its members, causing, among other things; the death of pregnant women, children, and the elderly.
This case involved the exploitation of vulnerable members of indigenous communities, particularly children, pregnant women, and the elderly. A petition was filed against Paraguay on behalf of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, alleging violations of, among other things, the rights to a fair trial, judicial protection, property, and life. The Court found Paraguay was in violation of Articles 1(1), 2, 3, 4(1), 8, 19, 21, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights.
An indigenous man was charged with physical violence and threats against his ex-partner (a non-indigenous woman), a violation of the Organic Law on the Right of Women to a Life Free of Violence (the “statute”), which created special courts with exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases under the statute. The special court issued a restraining order in lieu of detention pending trial. Prosecutors appealed. While the appeal was pending, the man violated the restraining order. The court of appeals vacated the restraining order and ordered detention. On a constitutional
The Constitution guarantees that all citizens are equal before the law. Article 5 guarantees equality among Taiwan’s various racial groups. Article 7 states that all citizens enjoy the same rights irrespective of their sex, religion, race, class, or party affiliation. Article 22 provides that all other freedoms and rights of the people that are not detrimental to social order or public welfare shall be guaranteed under the Constitution.
Article 10 states that the State shall protect the dignity of women, safeguard their personal safety, eliminate sexual discrimination, and further substantive gender equality. This Article further provides that the State shall, in accordance with the will of the ethnic groups, safeguard the status and political participation of the aborigines.
