Report - Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights

ANNEX G:
Analysis <strong>of</strong> cases <strong>of</strong> land and housing rights violations
in <strong>the</strong> Pacific using <strong>the</strong> HIC-HLRN Tool Kit Framework
Group 1 – Women with disabilities
Case - A 17 year old girl with a physical disability (that rendered her wheelchair bound) contacted
FWRM and reported being sexually abused by her fa<strong>the</strong>r who, at <strong>the</strong> same time, was also subjecting
her mo<strong>the</strong>r to domestic violence. FWRM contacted <strong>the</strong> department <strong>of</strong> social welfare because <strong>the</strong> girl
and her mo<strong>the</strong>r wanted to be removed from <strong>the</strong>ir home. They were living in a remote area and both
<strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r and daughter were unemployed. The department <strong>of</strong> social welfare said <strong>the</strong>y could not
relocate her due to <strong>the</strong> unavailability <strong>of</strong> transport and a lack <strong>of</strong> jurisdiction since she was not <strong>of</strong> age.
FWCC decided to relocate <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r and girl and <strong>the</strong>ir belongings. It was, however, very difficult to
find a place for <strong>the</strong>m. Eventually, <strong>the</strong>y were placed in a Salvation Army family care centre. Since <strong>the</strong>n,
<strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r has returned to live with her husband. Without <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> family care centre could
no longer care for <strong>the</strong> girl because <strong>the</strong>y did not have <strong>the</strong> capacity to accommodate <strong>the</strong> specific needs
<strong>of</strong> women with disabilities. The girl was <strong>the</strong>refore returned to <strong>the</strong> care <strong>of</strong> FWCC. There are no homes
to which she can go for <strong>the</strong> specialised care she needs, nor are <strong>the</strong>re any relatives to whom she can
turn for assistance.
The police were notified <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> abuse in 2002. The DPP, however, has claimed <strong>the</strong>y don’t have sufficient
evidence to prosecute. The mo<strong>the</strong>r, having returned to live with <strong>the</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>r, has become a hostile witness,
alleging that <strong>the</strong> girl is lying about <strong>the</strong> abuse. The police were unsupportive because <strong>the</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>r has
friends among <strong>the</strong>ir ranks.
A school providing education to children with special needs agreed to house <strong>the</strong> girl, despite her now
being 18-19 years old. She receives social welfare benefits ($30/month), but this is not enough to cover
her expenses. She now finds herself in a vulnerable position. The current head <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school is quite
old, and if he passes away, it is likely she will be told to leave because <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r staff is not as welcoming
<strong>of</strong> her presence.
Entitlements
Sources
Over-riding
Principles
– Security <strong>of</strong> tenure and freedom from dispossession
– Security and privacy
– Freedom from violence
– Accessibility; this is a concern because she is disabled
– Affordability; because she hasn’t secured a source <strong>of</strong> income, a
situation rendered even more difficult due to her disability, this is a
concern
CEDAW, CRC, Fiji Constitution, Human Rights Commission Act, DVAW,
penal code (sexual <strong>of</strong>fences)
– Rule <strong>of</strong> law
– Gender equality
– Non-discrimination
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 123