E/CN.4/2002/73/Add.2 page 63 conflict with the provisions of chapter I of the Tunisian Constitution” (ST/LEG/SER.E/17, p. 186). 59 See Human Rights Committee, general comment 24, para. 19. 60 Loc. cit. (note 27 above), p. 7. 61 In the case in point, the Convention is not a mechanism for inter-State exchanges of mutual obligations. It concerns the endowment of individuals, i.e. women, with rights. It is not possible therefore to see the legal interest or effect of an objection to a reservation between the reserving State and the objecting State. The principle of reciprocity is inapplicable here, except in regard to the competence of a body established under the Convention. Regarding the example of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, see Human Rights Committee, general comment 24 (para. 17). 62 See ST/LEG/SER.E/17, pp. 188 ff. 63 Most of the reservations that have been the subject of objections were from Muslim States. 64 General recommendation No. 14 on female excision was adopted by CEDAW at its ninth session (1990). 65 With regard to CEDAW’s work in this area, especially in relation to Senegal, Uganda, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Tanzania, the references contained in the report of the Secretary-General on traditional or customary practices affecting the health of women (A/53/354, para. 14) may be consulted. 66 See, by way of example, general recommendation No. 12, of 1989, on violence against women. 67 See paragraphs 6 and 7. The Committee is referring to certain rights and freedoms which relate to the subject of the present study: the right to life; the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; the right to equality in the family, etc. 68 See paragraph 9. 69 Emphasis added. The Committee is referring to articles 2 (f), 5 and 10 (c). 70 See CEDAW’s specific recommendations, as indicated, in particular, in paragraph 24 of general recommendation No. 19, referred to above, and in section III of the present study. 71 72 Paragraph 3 of general recommendation No. 21. Paragraph 14 of CEDAW general recommendation No. 21 illustrates the difficulties involved in dealing with and taking action against certain practices. The Committee states that polygamous marriage, which is permitted in many States “in accordance with personal or customary law”, contravenes a woman’s right to equality with men, which is guaranteed by many constitutions, “and can have such serious emotional and financial consequences for her