CEDAW/C/60/D/48/2013 resubmit the appeal. 11 The authors have unsuccessfully requested a corrected drawn order on several occasions. 12 Complaint 3.1 The authors claim that the application by the State party of customary inheritance law, as codified in the Local Customary Law (De claration) (No. 4) Order, has prevented them from administering and inheriting property when their husbands died and has therefore deprived them of their rights under articles 2 (c), 2 (f), 5 (a), 13 (b), 15 (1), 15 (2), 16 (1)(c) and 16 (1)(h) of the Conv ention, read together with the Committee’s general recommendations Nos. 21 and 27 on equality in marriage and family relations and older women and protection of their human rights, respectively. 3.2 The authors emphasize that millions of other women remain governed by discriminatory customary provisions in the State party and experience the same violations that they have themselves faced. In this respect, the authors explain that male relatives are systematically preferred over female relatives and describe in detail the various forms of discrimination experienced by women in inheritance matters, whether as widows, daughters, mothers or other female relatives of the deceased. In this connection, the authors stress that codified customary law not only denies widows property rights and prevents them from inheriting, but also grants daughters and other female relatives only a limited share of inheritance, prevents mothers from enjoying equal rights to inherit a child’s estate and prohibits women and girls from inheriting clan land. The authors recall that, in its concluding observations to the State party in 1990, 1998 and 2008, the Committee consistently expressed its concern about the existence of such discriminatory provisions in inheritance law and about the delay in eliminating them. 13 3.3 The authors consider that their rights under articles 2 (c), 2 (f) and 5 (a) with regard to administration, ownership and acquisition of property upon the dissolution of marriage have been violated by the State party, owing to prevailing cultural norms and traditions. The authors submit that, consequently, the State party has failed to take legislative action to abolish the existing codified customary law, despite having acknowledged several times that its provisions were di scriminatory against women. 14 In addition, the State party’s courts have also failed to provide the authors with an effective remedy and to protect them against the application of those discriminatory customary rules by refusing to overturn them. 3.4 The authors further allege a violation of article 13 (b) because they have not been provided with equal economic rights and opportunities. They submit that, without equal inheritance rights, the inability to benefit from land ownership has denied them access to mortgages and other forms of financial credit. __________________ 11 12 13 14 6/13 The Court of Appeal held that the defect “rendered the appeal incompetent” and struck it out “with liberty to properly refile the same without payment of fees”. Annexes show that the authors made requests on 23 May and 9 August 2012. See A/45/38, para. 99; A/53/38/Rev.1, part two, para. 230; and A/63/38, part two, para. 111. The authors refer to reports of the Law Reform Commission of Tanzania in which it has been stated, among other things, that women have been denied their basic rights. They refer also to the State party’s reports to the Committee in 1988, 1997 and 2007, in which specific reference was made to customary inheritance law being discriminatory. 15-05820