E/CN.4/2002/73/Add.2 page 36 evidence. In some countries having a Jewish tradition, the bar on women’s eligibility to testify was abolished only relatively recently (in 1951 in the case of Israel).195 Also, in modern Muslim countries, the testimony of a woman has the same value as that of a man (in Tunisia, for example). This shows that religious texts are not closed texts and that cultural practices, even at the State level, can be reshaped according to the requirements of modern life, as with original Islam at the time of its revelation. 4. Inheritance and independent administration of property 139. The persistence of deeply rooted cultural prejudices in many countries can limit a woman’s ability to administer property in her sole ownership or held in common with her husband.196 In Nepal, for example, despite efforts by the State and the constitutional affirmation of the principle of equality, discriminatory practices based on traditions still prevail. This applies to the Muluki Ain, which restricts women’s independent use of their property and right of inheritance of parental property (A/54/38/Rev.1, p. 57, para. 119). Also, in Jordan, the law reportedly prohibits women from concluding contracts in their own name, from travelling alone and from freely choosing their place of residence, which is inconsistent with the country’s Constitution and the Women’s Convention (article 9, paragraph 2, and article 15, paragraph 4) (A/55/38 (Part I), para. 172). Other States’ laws deny legal rights to married women and contain many instances of discrimination in the administration of their property (A/55/38 (Part I), para. 197). 140. Nevertheless, in contrast to many discriminatory State practices in this area, independent administration of property is recognized by religious precepts, as, for example, in the case of Islam, where many verses of the Koran acknowledge a woman’s freedom to administer her own property, even if she is married, and forbid the husband to do so in her place.197 141. Women’s inheritance is, however, a more sensitive issue, which arises, admittedly to widely varying degrees, in several societies having different cultural and religious traditions. In some countries, for example, Hindu religious personal laws do not accord any rights of inheritance to women.198 In other countries, religion-based statutory or customary law sanctions discrimination with regard to inheritance in the event of the death of a husband or father.199 In yet others, although the law does not discriminate in inheritance matters, customary practices are discriminatory. This is true of Guatemala, where son preference is accepted in the practices of some indigenous peoples (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/11, para. 12). 142. The issue arises more acutely in Muslim countries, where not only is discrimination cultural in origin but also its foundations and forms of expression stem from specific and highly codified religious precepts. For example, Koranic prescriptions do not treat men and women equally in matters of inheritance. Gender-based inequality affects not only children, with girls being granted only one half of the share passed on to boys, but also wives since, while the spouses inherit differently depending on whether there is offspring, the husband inherits one quarter or one half of his wife’s property but a wife inherits only one eighth or one quarter of her deceased husband’s property.200 Also, according to one interpretation of the Koran, a nonMuslim wife cannot inherit from her Muslim husband,201 whereas he apparently does not forfeit that right.202 143. Such prescriptions certainly reflect indisputable progress in relation to pre-Islamic customary law, under which women were totally debarred and property was transferred