Secondly, whilst Mali posited in its submissions that no issues could arise in the application of international treaties as they supersede all law within the country, not all states are likely to adopt this stance. Article 20 of the Tunisian Constitution for example, places international treaties on a hierarchical level above laws but explicitly below the country’s constitution, and whilst Tunisia officially lifted reservations to important provisions of CEDAW in 2014, it maintained that it would not take any legislative decision that conflicts with Chapter I of its constitution, which affirms that Islam is the religion of the country. It is possible that tension may arise in future between domestic interpretations of Islamic law in Tunisia and international human rights standards, and the Court’s jurisdiction may be disputed in such an eventuality. Such friction may also arise in the case of other African states whose legal systems are based on, or contain elements of, Islamic law which often applies exclusively in family matters.
Finally, it is now clear that irrespective of states’ arguments that the Court should defer to their legislatures in the context of family law, which is frequently within the scope of religious or customary law, the Court will demand close adherence to the standards set out in applicable human rights treaties. Whilst this stance is to be commended from a rights-based skype database perspective, in addition to the problems which may arise between religious law and treaty standards, it is not clear what the practical implications of this will be for states. It must be remembered that in Mali, previous attempts to codify international standards in the context of family law resulted in large-scale civil unrest. as, following the Court’s judgment, the Muslim Associations of Mali released a collective statement labelling it an affront to the nation’s social and religious values and calling on citizens to “take action to save the country from this danger”. Whilst there has been no official news that the Malian government has taken steps to implement the judgement as of yet, this statement is likely to be of concern and the Court should open dialogue with Mali and other states to discuss how this ruling can be followed without disturbing public order.