Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 165 views

    Ato Del Avellanal V Peru

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous oHQs7Y2
    Graciela Ato del Avellanal owned two apartment buildings in Lima, Peru. She sued tenants who had stopped paying rent after she acquired the buildings. The lower court initially ruled in her favor but the higher court reversed it, citing a law that only husbands could represent marital property in court. Avellanal argued this was discriminatory against women. The UN Human Rights Committee found Peru had violated articles guaranteeing equal rights and treatment before the law by applying the discriminatory property law to Avellanal and denying her the ability to sue as a woman. The Committee concluded Peru had discriminated against Avellanal on the basis of her sex.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ato Del Avellanal V Peru

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous oHQs7Y2
    165 views1 page
    Graciela Ato del Avellanal owned two apartment buildings in Lima, Peru. She sued tenants who had stopped paying rent after she acquired the buildings. The lower court initially ruled in her favor but the higher court reversed it, citing a law that only husbands could represent marital property in court. Avellanal argued this was discriminatory against women. The UN Human Rights Committee found Peru had violated articles guaranteeing equal rights and treatment before the law by applying the discriminatory property law to Avellanal and denying her the ability to sue as a woman. The Committee concluded Peru had discriminated against Avellanal on the basis of her sex.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Ato Del Avellanal v Peru

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Graciela Ato del Avellanal owned two apartment buildings in Lima, Peru. She sued tenants who had stopped paying rent after she acquired the buildings. The lower court initially ruled in her favor but the higher court reversed it, citing a law that only husbands could represent marital property in court. Avellanal argued this was discriminatory against women. The UN Human Rights Committee found Peru had violated articles guaranteeing equal rights and treatment before the law by applying the discriminatory property law to Avellanal and denying her the ability to sue as a woman. The Committee concluded Peru had discriminated against Avellanal on the basis of her sex.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    165 views1 page

    Ato Del Avellanal V Peru

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous oHQs7Y2
    Graciela Ato del Avellanal owned two apartment buildings in Lima, Peru. She sued tenants who had stopped paying rent after she acquired the buildings. The lower court initially ruled in her favor but the higher court reversed it, citing a law that only husbands could represent marital property in court. Avellanal argued this was discriminatory against women. The UN Human Rights Committee found Peru had violated articles guaranteeing equal rights and treatment before the law by applying the discriminatory property law to Avellanal and denying her the ability to sue as a woman. The Committee concluded Peru had discriminated against Avellanal on the basis of her sex.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Ato del Avellanal v.

    Peru
    Facts:
    Graciela Ato del Avellanal is the owner of two apartment buildings in Lima, which
    she acquired in 1974. It appears that a number of tenants took advantage of the
    change in ownership to cease paying rent for their apartments. After unsuccessful
    attempts to collect the overdue rent, the author sued the tenants on 13 September
    1978. In 1978, the court of first instance ruled in favor of Graciela Ato del Avellanal
    on a claim for overdue rent owed to her by tenants of two apartment buildings she
    owned in Lima. The Superior Court reversed the judgment in 1980 because article
    168 of the Peruvian Civil Code stated that when a woman is married, only the
    husband is entitled to represent matrimonial property before the Courts; therefore,
    Avellanal did not herself have standing to sue. Avellanal appealed to the Peruvian
    Supreme Court, arguing that the Peruvian Magna Carta and the Peruvian
    Constitution guarantee equal rights to both men and women. After the Supreme
    Court upheld the lower court’s decision, Avellanal interposed the recourse of
    amparo (an order to guarantee protection of the complainant’s constitutional
    rights), claiming a violation of article 2(2) of Peru’s Constitution, which the Supreme
    Court rejected. In her complaint to the Committee, Avellanal cited violations on the
    ground that Peru discriminated against her because she was a woman.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the equal rights protection guaranteed to both men and women
    were violated
    Held:
    Yes.
    With respect to the requirements set forth in article 14 of the Covenant on Civil and
    Political Rights that “all persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals”, the
    Committee noted that the Superior Court reversed the lower court’s decision on the
    sole ground that Avellanal was a woman and did not have standing as such under
    Peruvian Civil Code article 168. The Committee also concluded that the facts before
    it disclosed a violation of article 3 of the Covenant which requires the State party to
    undertake “to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil
    and political rights,” and article 26 which provides that all persons are equal before
    the law and are entitled to its protection. The Committee finds that the facts before
    it reveal that the application of article 168 of the Peruvian Civil Code to the author
    resulted in denying her equality before the courts and constituted discrimination on
    the ground of sex. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4,
    of the optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is
    of the view that the events of this case, in so far as they continued or occurred after
    3 January 1981 (the date of entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Peru),
    disclose violations of articles 3, 14, paragraph 1 and 26 of the Covenant.

    You might also like