Judgment No CCZ 4/14 10 Const. Application No SC 207/11 respondent that the Police do not provide sanitary provisions for menstruating women. That is not so. While the idea would appear to be abhorrent that sanitary provisions are not afforded to women in custody, the applicants do not allege that they were menstruating and were refused sanitary provisions by the Police. They simply allege that no such provisions are made for women generally. But s 24 (1) of the Constitution does not allow the applicants to be torchbearers for women in general. The applicants have to show that there has been a violation of the declaration of rights in relation to themselves. This, they have failed to do and accordingly no violation of the applicants’ rights under this head has been established. THE ORDER TO REMOVE THEIR BRASSIERES The applicants further contend that the order to remove their brassieres was discriminatory. The respondents submit that in requiring them to remove their brassieres, they were acting in terms of s 41 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Cap 9:07] which states as follows: “41 (1) ... (2) A peace officer or other person arresting any person under this Part may search that person, and shall place in safe custody all articles, other than necessary wearing apparel, found on him.” (My emphasis) They contend that a woman’s brassiere is not ‘necessary wearing apparel’ as contemplated by the Act. They aver that in some places women go about bare breasted. The applicants, who are all women, aver, on the contrary, that a brassiere is, for them, a necessary piece of intimate wearing apparel.