CEDAW/C/60/D/48/2013 property, is discriminatory and thereby amounts to a violation of article 2 (f) in conjunction with articles 5, 15 and 16 of the Convention. 33 7.7 Furthermore, the Committee notes that, despite having acknowledged in its judgement of 8 September 2006 34 that the authors were discriminated against by the application of the State party’s customary law provisions, 35 the High Court refused to impugn the relevant provisions on the ground that it was impossible to effect customary change by judicial pronouncement and that doing so would be opening a Pandora’s Box. The Committee further takes notes of the absence of a response to the authors’ appeal by both the Attorney General and the Court of Appe al over a period of four years, the dismissal of the case by the Court of Appeal on a mere procedural technicality for which the authors were not responsible and the absence of any action by the Registrar of the High Court to provide a corrected version of the drawn order. The Committee is of the view that such shortcomings on the part of the judiciary constitute a denial of access to justice and thereby amount to a failure to provide an effective remedy to the authors, in violation of article 2 (c). 7.8 With regard to article 13, the Committee takes note of the authors’ contention that widows in the State party are forced to perpetually depend on their male relatives and their children and therefore do not enjoy equal economic opportunities. The Committee also notes that the authors were evicted from their homes when their respective husbands died. Consequently, E.S. had to return to her family and S.C. to rent a house without the support of their late husbands’ families. The Committee therefore considers that the authors were left economically vulnerable, with no property, no home to live in with their children and no form of financial support. The Committee is of the view that that state of vulnerability and insecurity has restricted the authors’ economic autonomy and prevented them from enjoying equal economic opportunities, in violation of article 13. 7.9 In the circumstances and in the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the State party, by condoning such legal restraints on inheritance a nd property rights, has denied the authors equality in respect of inheritance and failed to provide them with any other means of economic security 36 or any form of adequate redress, thereby failing to discharge its obligations under articles 2 (c), 2 (f), 5 (a), 13 (b), 15 (1), 15 (2), 16 (1) (c) and 16 (1) (h) of the Convention. 8. In accordance with article 7 (3) of the Optional Protocol and taking into account all the foregoing considerations, the Committee considers that the State party has violated the rights of the authors under articles 2 (c), 2 (f), 5 (a), 13 (b), 15 (1), 15 (2), 16 (1)(c) and 16 (1)(h) of the Convention, read in the light of general recommendations Nos. 21, 28 and 29. __________________ 33 34 35 36 12/13 See General recommendation No. 29, para. 10. See para. 2.9 above. The Committee recalls that under general recommendation No. 28 States parties are required to ensure that the principle of equality between women and men and of non -discrimination is enshrined in domestic law with an overriding and enforceable status (para. 31). See also paragraph 33: “Courts should draw any inconsistency between national law, including national religious and customary laws, and the State party’s obligations under the Convention to the attention of the appropriate authorities, since domestic laws may never be used as justification for failures by States parties to carry out their international obligations.” See General recommendation No. 29, para. 49. 15-05820