CEDAW/C/60/D/48/2013 3.5 With regard to article 15 (1), the authors submit that they were denied equality before the law under the Local Customary Law (Declaration) (No. 4) Order. They add that, although some provisions appear neutral, such as rule 28, which provides that a husband is not to inherit the property of his wife, 15 they are in effect discriminatory because women do not own property during the marriage, even if jointly acquired. 3.6 The authors also claim that the application of codified customary inheritance law, in particular rules 2 and 5, has prevented them from administering the property of their late husbands by denying them legal capacity with regard to the administration of property, in violation of article 15 (2). 3.7 In addition, the authors state that, by having been denied letters of administration and excluded from inheriting property upon the dissolution of their marriage, they were not afforded the same rights as men, which amounts to a violation of articles 16 (1)(c) and 16 (1)(h). 3.8 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the authors submit that the available domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged by the State party, given that their appeal has been pending before the Court of Ap peal for more than six years and has still not been heard on the merits. The authors also recall that it took more than four years for the Court to hold a hearing and that it dismissed the appeal on a procedural technicality, which the authors have sought to address by obtaining a corrected version of the order of the High Court, to no avail. In this regard, the authors refer to the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which a period exceeding three years between the initial incident and the issuance of a decision has been considered to be an unreasonably prolonged delay. 16 3.9 The authors also submit that no effective remedies have been provided by the State party, given that neither the High Court nor the Court of Appeal has provided adequate means of redress. In particular, the authors argue that the High Court erred when it held that legal reform through the district councils would be the best way to remedy the discrimination created by the customary law provisions. 17 The authors consider such a remedy to be inadequate and unlikely to bring effective relief because it would amount to using the same mechanisms that actually created the discriminatory provisions and may therefore propagate such discrimination. The effectiveness of the remedy is also limited in practice for the authors, given that there are seven district councils in Shinyanga alone, which are predominantly male and can exercise their discretion in deciding to amend customary law. 3.10 Furthermore, the authors recall that they have used remed ies available before local primary courts in order to attempt to be granted letters of administration, to no avail. They submit that challenging the ordinary process of administration through civil action would not have proved an effective remedy, given that the courts would __________________ 15 16 17 15-05820 There are exceptions to this rule, i.e. if the wife left a will or if she had no children and no relatives left in her clan. See communication No. 2/2003, A. T. v. Hungary, views adopted on 26 January 2005, para. 8.4. It is stated that “a delay of over three years from the dates of the incidents in question would amount to an unreasonably prolonged delay within the meaning of article 4, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol, particularly considering that the author has been at risk of irreparable harm and threats to her life during that period”. The authors explain that the High Court relied on section 8 (2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act to consider that it did not have to declare the impugned provisions unconstitutional when other adequate remedies for the violations alleged were available. 7/13