humanity and a means to commit genocide.256 Local activists and lawyers may also make it a practice to cite the articles of treaties and conventions that have been ratified by their States, the decisions of human rights bodies or jurisprudence from regional or international tribunals to support their cases locally. Such an exercise serves dual purposes. One, to strengthen the case locally and demonstrate that there has been, based on the facts of the case, not only a violation of national laws but also violation of regional and international conventions that the State has accepted to honour and implement. Two, to educate the local legal fraternity and popularise among them the rights and obligations related to women’s rights under the regional and international instruments. Even if some of the decisions and judgments of regional and international bodies are not directly binding, the local courts and judges may well find the information useful to apply the reasoning of the decisions of the regional and international mechanisms to the cases before them. 7.4.1 National Courts Applying International Standards National courts in several countries have applied the articles and standards set in international or regional treaties to the cases before them making such standards part of the national jurisprudence and legal practice. The Supreme Court in India used the CEDAW provisions of non-discrimination on the basis of sex, in the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan case to lay down guidelines on sexual harassment at workplace.257 The High Court in Zambia cited the full text of Article 4 of the African Women’s Rights Protocol in the decision of a case of a young schoolgirl R.M., who was raped by her teacher. The judge awarded significant damages to the victim, referred the case to the Director of Public Prosecution to initiate a criminal proceeding against the teacher and directed the Ministry of Education to put regulations in place to protect girls in school. 258 In Botswana, a landmark case of Attorney General (Botswana) v. Unity Dow concerned discriminatory aspects of section 4 of the Botswana Citizenship Act 1984. 259 Section 4 granted citizenship by birth and descent to all children of Botswanan fathers regardless of the citizenship of their mother but denied citizenship to children of Botswanan mothers who were married to noncitizens. The provision had the effect of depriving two of the applicant’s children of Botswanan citizenship because their father was a non- citizen. The applicant claimed that Section 4 discriminated against her on the grounds of sex in breach of relevant provisions of the Botswana constitution. Much of the judgments of both the High Court and Court of Appeal concern the interpretation of Section 15 of the Constitution, which prohibited discriminatory laws on a number of grounds but omitted discrimination on the basis of sex. The High Court adopted an aggressive interpretation of Section 15. It found that the fact that Botswana was party to a number of international human rights instruments (including CEDAW, the ACHPR and others) that clearly prohibit discrimination on grounds of sex indicated that the Constitution was not intended to omit discrimination on grounds of sex even if the international instruments were not incorporated into domestic law. The High Court could not accept that Botswana would deliberately discriminate against women in its legislation while internationally supporting nondiscrimination against women and it interpreted the Constitution accordingly. By contrast, the Court did not give similar weight to local customary law, which suggested a contrary interpretation. The Court of Appeal followed the High Court in holding that the Citizenship Act breached, among other rights, the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment and the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sex.260 The above cases are examples of where national courts took note of the fact of violation of 256 The legislation implementing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and Uganda are examples of domestic recognition of international standards. 257 Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, Judgment, Supreme Court of India, [1997] VII AD SC53. 258 Solidarity for African Women’s Rights – A Guide to Using the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa available at: http://www.soawr.org/resources/Manual_on_Protocol_on_Women_Rights_in_Africa.pdf, ¶ 39. 259 (124/1990) (CA No. 4/1991). 260 Non-Discrimination in International Law – A Handbook for Practitioners, 2011 Edition, Interights, London, page 134, ¶ 134. 78 7. LITIGATION AND ADVOCACY STRATEGIES | REDRESS