CCPR/C/142/D/3149/2018

GE.24-22498 (E) 100125 130125

Human Rights Committee

Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional

Protocol, concerning communication No. 3149/2018*,**

Communication submitted by:

A.M.A. (not represented by counsel)

Alleged victim:

The author

State party:

Mexico

Date of communication:

27 December 2017 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rule 92 of the

Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to

the State party on 21 March 2018 (not issued in

document form)

Date of adoption of decision:

1 November 2024

Subject matter:

Gender parity quota in a competition for access

to public service

Procedural issues:

Substantiation of claims; ratione materiae

Substantive issues:

Access to public service; discrimination;

gender-based discrimination; equality before

courts and tribunals; equality before the law;

participation in the conduct of public affairs;

effective remedy

Articles of the Covenant:

2, 3, 5, 14, 25 and 26

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

2 and 3

1.

The author of the communication is A.M.A., a citizen of Mexico born in 1981. He

claims that the State party has violated his rights under articles 2, 3, 5, 14, 25 and 26 of the

Covenant. The author is a lawyer. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party

on 15 June 2002.

Facts as submitted by the author

2.1

On 26 June 2014, a call for candidates issued by the National Electoral Institute with

a view to selecting and appointing presiding councillors and electoral councillors of the local

public authority was published in the Official Gazette of the state of Jalisco. The call for

candidates specified that the 25 female candidates and 25 male candidates with the highest

* Adopted by the Committee at its 142nd session (14 October–7 November 2024).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:

Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Rodrigo A. Carazo, Yvonne Donders, Mahjoub El Haiba, Carlos

Gómez Martínez, Laurence R. Helfer, Marcia V. J. Kran, Bacre Waly Ndiaye, Hernán Quezada

Cabrera, José Manuel Santos Pais, Kobauyah Tchamdja Kpatcha, Teraya Koji and Hélène Tigroudja.

United Nations

CCPR/C/142/D/3149/2018

International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights

Distr.: General

16 December 2024

English

Original: Spanish

CCPR/C/142/D/3149/2018

2

GE.24-22498

scores in the examination would advance to the next stages of the procedure for determining

appointments.

2.2

On 14 July 2014, the author submitted to the National Electoral Institute his

application to register his entry in the aforementioned selection and appointment procedure.

He was duly registered and, on 2 August 2014, he took the examination along with 76 women

and 133 other men.

2.3

On 16 August 2014, the results of the examination were published and the names of

the 25 male and 25 female candidates who would proceed to the next stage were determined.

The author was not among the 25 men with the best results. Therefore, he did not proceed to

the next stage, despite having obtained a higher score than 18 of the 25 women selected.

2.4

On 20 August 2014, the author filed a lawsuit for the protection of the political and

electoral rights of citizens. He argued that the establishment of separate lists of men and

women candidates in the examination had violated his rights to non-discrimination and

equality before the law for women and men, as well as the principle of legality and articles 2,

3 and 26 of the Covenant.1

2.5

On 26 August 2014, the High Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal

Judiciary ruled on the lawsuit, dismissing the author’s petition.2 There was no right to appeal

against this ruling.

2.6

On 30 September 2014, the National Electoral Institute appointed the presiding

councillor and electoral councillors of the local public authority in the state of Jalisco. Of the

seven people appointed, two women had obtained a lower score in the examination than the

author.

2.7

The author states that the same matter is not being examined by another international

body.

Complaint

3.1

The author argues that the gender-based discrimination reflected in the call for

candidates issued on 26 June 2014 amounts to a violation by the State party of his rights

under articles 2, 3, 5, 14 and 25 (read alone or in conjunction with articles 2 (1), (2) and (3))

and 26 of the Covenant. The author did not enjoy the right to equality before the law, and did

not have equal access to public service in the country.3 In order to promote affirmative action

1 The author and the State party use the terms “sex” and “gender” interchangeably. The Committee

notes that although definitions of “sex” and “gender” vary and evolve to some extent, according to

some definitions, the concept of sex refers to a biological construct based on anatomy, physiology,

genetics and hormones, while the concept of gender refers to a cultural construct associated with a

particular sex in a given society, in addition to gender identity and expression. In this case, the

Committee uses the term “gender”. The Committee is not called upon in this case to evaluate the

binary nature of the gender categories (male/female) used in the process for selecting the councillors

of the local public authorities. However, the Committee notes that the right to non-discrimination

applies equally to all persons, irrespective of their gender identity.

2 SUP-JDC-2186/2014. The ruling was adopted unanimously by six votes. In its detailed 37-page

ruling, the Electoral Tribunal stated that gender-based discrimination has given rise to a transition

from a model whereby formal equality is protected to a social model of law that seeks to achieve

material equality between women and men. Formal equality must be complemented by material

equality with a view to creating equal opportunities for exercising other rights through measures

aimed at changing the economic, cultural and social bases of a community. One of the primary

purposes of both the guidelines issued by the National Electoral Institute for the appointment of

presiding councillors and electoral councillors and the call for candidates was to establish gender

balance within local public authorities. Efforts were therefore made to ensure that at least three of the

seven appointees were of the same gender, which meant that the remaining four had to be of a

different gender. The women competed against each other, and the 25 women with the highest

number of correct answers were placed on the corresponding list, while the men competed against

each other for a place on the list of male candidates.

3 The author refers, for example, to the Committee’s general comment No. 25 (1996). See also

Bandaranayake v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/93/D/1376/2005), para. 7.1; and Inter-American Court of

CCPR/C/142/D/3149/2018

GE.24-22498

3

in the area of gender, the National Electoral Institute established two parallel lists of

candidates, disaggregated by gender, to determine the 25 women and 25 men with the highest

scores. Owing to this disaggregation, the 18 women whose scores were lower than the

author’s managed to pass the examination, while he did not proceed to the next stage of the

procedure.

3.2

The parity quotas established in the call for candidates were neither objective, nor

reasonable, nor proportionate to the legitimate aim of reducing or eliminating inequality.

Both men and women could respond to the call for candidates on the same terms and there

was equality of opportunity. In Mexico, the proportions of men and women who have access

to higher education are similar. Therefore, it was neither necessary nor justified to

disaggregate the list of applicants by gender in a competition to test knowledge. A more

reasonable approach would have been to form a single list of men and women candidates,

specifying the results of the examination and the persons who had progressed to the final

stage. This would have ensured that a mixed or plural group of recruits was appointed to the

authority.

3.3

Furthermore, the author did not have access to an effective remedy for the violation

of his rights under the Covenant, which constitutes a violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant.

The High Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary rejected his petition

without analysing the particular circumstances of the case.

3.4

Lastly, the author alleges a violation of the pro personae principle under article 5 of

the Covenant. His rights were interpreted by the authorities in a restrictive sense, promoting,

without justification, differentiated treatment on the basis of gender.

State party’s observations on admissibility

4.1

In its observations of 22 May 2018, the State party submits that the communication

should be declared inadmissible on the ground that it is insufficiently substantiated. 4

Moreover, no arbitrary or discriminatory decision has been taken that amounted to a denial

of justice.

4.2

The author entered a competition for a public post, which was provided for by law.

Although the law provided for distinctions, these were justified, objective and reasonable and

did not put the author at any actual disadvantage or subject him to any other type of injustice

as the measures concerned were affirmative actions relating to gender.

4.3

On 6 June 2014, the General Council of the National Electoral Institute adopted the

guidelines governing the appointment of presiding councillors and electoral councillors to

local public authorities. These guidelines set out the criteria governing the selection process,

stating that the principle of gender equity would be taken into account at each stage and

applied to the constitution of the senior management body and the local public authorities. In

other words, of the seven male and female electoral councillors, at least three must be of the

same gender. According to the guidelines, the selection procedure included the following

stages: the registration of candidates, the verification of requirements, an examination, an

on-site test, the assessment of curricula vitae, an interview, the formulation of lists of

candidates, and the appointments. With regard to the examination, the call for candidates

provided for the establishment of two lists: a list of 25 male candidates and another of

25 female candidates, so that the persons on each list would compete to determine the best

candidates of each gender.

4.4

The author was not admitted to the fourth stage of the procedure, corresponding to the

on-site test, because his score in the examination was not among the 25 highest for persons

of his gender (men). Both the guidelines and the corresponding call for candidates provided

that the selection criterion would respect the principle of gender parity. In the call for

candidates, it was stated that the 25 women and 25 men with the highest scores in the

examination would progress to the next stage. In fact, the list of male candidates was made

Human Rights, case of López Lone et al v. Honduras, judgment of 5 October 2015 (preliminary

objection, merits, reparations and costs), paras. 161, 163, 235 and 236.

4 The State party does not address the question of the exhaustion of domestic remedies.

CCPR/C/142/D/3149/2018

4

GE.24-22498

up of the 29 men with the best results, as those who tied for twenty-fifth place were included.

This criterion was based on the principle of equality established by the highest courts in the

State party and by international organizations. The author was aware of the guidelines

established in the call for candidates prior to sitting his examination.

4.5

The measure taken cannot be considered to constitute a discriminatory act since it was

objective and reasonable. The duty to ensure equality before the law results in the provision

of differentiated treatment under the law only when there are compelling circumstances that

justify it, with the ultimate purpose being to ensure equity between persons. Not all

differentiated treatment can be considered to be discriminatory. The measure implemented

consisted of promoting affirmative action in order to guarantee the equal representation of

women in the public authority in Jalisco.

4.6

With regard to article 2 (3) of the Covenant, the author was able to challenge the

determination that he had failed to qualify, under the pre-established guidelines, by filing a

lawsuit for the protection of the political and electoral rights of citizens. This appeal complied

with the standards established by the Committee and was reviewed by an impartial and

independent tribunal of the National Electoral Institute.

Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility

5.

In his comments of 18 July 2018, the author reiterates his arguments and argues that

the establishment of two lists created a situation of discrimination and was based on a

misconception, since the opportunities for women and men to join the local public authority

in the state of Jalisco were the same. If access to public service is based on merit and equal

opportunity, persons aspiring to join the service may not be subjected to discrimination.

Furthermore, the principle of subsidiarity was not violated since the author’s aim is to have

the Committee determine whether or not his rights have been violated by the State party.

State party’s observations on the merits

6.1

In its observations of 21 September 2018, the State party reiterates that the

communication is inadmissible and submits that the author’s claims are unfounded. The great

disadvantage that women have historically suffered as a result of discrimination under

centuries of male domination has prevented them from enjoying many of the rights

recognized in the Covenant and other human rights instruments, including the Convention

on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which the State party

ratified in 1981. In the Convention, the States parties reaffirmed that the full and complete

development of a country, the welfare of the world and the cause of peace require the

maximum participation of women on equal terms with men in all fields. The States parties

therefore pledged to adopt the necessary measures to eliminate this discrimination. This

commitment is also clearly recognized in article 3 of the Covenant.

6.2

At the national level, the situation of Mexican women makes it essential to design

public policies to combat the historical and structural causes that are preventing them from

developing, restricting their progress in many different areas and thereby hindering the

participation of more than half the Mexican population in development. The General Act on

Equality between Women and Men of 2006 provides for the adoption of policies,

programmes, projects and compensatory mechanisms as affirmative actions to guarantee

equality of opportunity.

6.3

Ruling No. SUP-JDC-12624/2011 of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary

established the mandatory nature of gender quotas and the incorporation of tickets containing

alternate candidates of the same gender, as provided for in the amendments made to the

Federal Code of Electoral Institutions and Procedures. In 2013, only 6.9 per cent of seats in

local authorities were held by women. In 2011, 38.5 per cent and 26.8 per cent of town

councillors and municipal legal officers were women, respectively. Gender parity was far

from being achieved in the executive branches of the three levels of government. Women

accounted for less than 24 per cent of the total number of persons in senior management

positions. In the executive branch of the Federal Government, women occupied only

35.5 per cent of mid-level and senior management positions, mainly holding the lower

ranking positions (deputy directors, department heads, liaison officers). Only 14.6 per cent

CCPR/C/142/D/3149/2018

GE.24-22498

5

of persons in senior management positions in the federative entities were women. Only 2 of

the 11 judges of the Supreme Court were women. In 2012, only 28.6 per cent of the judges

of the high courts of justice were women.

6.4

With regard to the National Electoral Institute, in September 2012, women occupied

22 per cent of federal councillor posts and 44 per cent of local councillor posts and accounted

for 41 per cent of persons in senior management positions. Therefore, it is necessary to

continue implementing temporary special measures with a view to achieving substantive

equality between men and women in political life, as noted by, inter alia, the Committee on

the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in the concluding observations issued to

the State party in 2018.5

6.5

The author neither substantiates his claim of a violation of the Covenant nor explains

on what grounds such a claim might be based since the State party’s conduct is in full

compliance with the Covenant.6 On the basis of the above-mentioned information on the

procedure for selecting councillors (paras. 4.3–4.5 above), the State party reiterates that, in

this case, the distinctions were provided for by law, justified, objective and reasonable and

did not put the author at any actual disadvantage or subject him to any other type of injustice.

To treat in an equal manner persons or groups whose situations are objectively different

constitutes discrimination in effect. 7 Women have been victims of discrimination in all

spheres as a result of male domination, which has created the need to adopt special measures

to reduce the gender gap and thus guarantee their equal access to human rights. For the

reasons given above, the decision to establish two parallel lists of candidates, disaggregated

by gender, and guidelines providing that the appointees must include at least three persons

of each gender, was taken to address the disadvantages that women have historically suffered

in the political and public life of the State, in respect of both their access to office and to

decision-making positions.8

6.6

It is important to point out that, in order to enter the competition, all male and female

candidates had to comply with objective criteria that demonstrated their suitability for the

position, which was verified by the Commission for Relations with Local Public Authorities.

These requirements are set out in a number of laws and internal regulations.

Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits

7.1

In his comments of 1 November 2018, the author reiterates his arguments and states

that he has never objected to the requirement that the Electoral Council of the state of Jalisco

should consist of at least three persons of the same gender. In fact, aiming to ensure that

electoral bodies are composed of both men and women is a worthy goal and is legitimate in

the light of the Covenant. What is problematic is that the mechanism used to achieve this

goal was neither reasonable nor proportionate.

5 CEDAW/C/MEX/CO/9, para. 17 and 18. The State party also provides additional information on the

guidelines for the appointment of presiding councillors and electoral councillors of local public

authorities, and on the history and development of the competition in question. The Committee notes

that, for the 2018 and 2024 electoral processes, the State party reduced the scope of application of the

special measures provided for in the guidelines that established positive discrimination in 2012 (in

which the appointment of 25 men and 25 women, on the basis of parity, was defined). It was

established that there would be 12 men and 12 women in the 2018 electoral process, and 17 men and

17 women in the 2024 electoral process, and that the shortlists would automatically include any

participant who, in the selection process, had obtained a higher score than any of the persons chosen

as a result of the application of the special rule relating to parity.

6 For example, the State party refers to general comments No. 18 (1989) on non-discrimination

(para. 10) and No. 28 (2000) on the equality of rights between men and women (para. 29).

7 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, general recommendation No. 32 (2009),

para. 12.

8 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 23

(1997), para. 15 (the introduction of temporary special measures to encourage the equal participation

of both men and women in the public life of their societies are essential prerequisites to true equality

in political life). See also general recommendation No. 32 (2009) of the Committee on the

Elimination of Racial Discrimination, paras. 12, 16, 20 and 33.

CCPR/C/142/D/3149/2018

6

GE.24-22498

7.2

The State party’s argument justifying the measure is fallacious. In senior public

positions and in positions for which candidates are not required to undergo an objective stage

involving examinations, the State party does not promote the equal participation of women

and men. In fact, only 2 of the 11 judges that make up the Supreme Court are women. Only

2 of the 7 councillors of the Federal Judiciary are women. Only 2 of the 7 magistrates of the

High Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary are women. Only 4 of the

11 electoral councillors of the National Electoral Institute are women. Only 3 of the

18 Secretaries of State are women. Only 1 of the 32 governors is a woman (although there

will soon be three). In all these public positions, appointments are discretionary, and the State

party does not comply with the gender quota that it cites so frequently in the present case.

7.3

When the selection of officials has an objective basis, such as an examination, the

results must be objective, irrespective of the gender of the participants. In the appointment of

judges and magistrates to the federal judiciary, for example, all the candidates take an

examination and those who pass become judges or magistrates, irrespective of their gender.

In 2014, 81 per cent of federal magistrates and 79 per cent of judges were men. In the present

case, the National Electoral Institute should have taken the same approach.

7.4

The author responds to the arguments made by the State party to justify the temporary

special measures and reiterates his arguments. If access to the civil service is based on merit

and equal opportunity, individuals cannot be subjected to any discrimination, including

gender-based discrimination.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

8.1

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must

decide, in accordance with article 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is

admissible under the Optional Protocol.

8.2

With regard to the claims under article 2, read alone, and article 5 of the Covenant,

the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which articles 2 and 5 of the Covenant

lay down general obligations for States parties and do not give rise, when invoked separately,

to claims in a communication under the Optional Protocol. 9 Consequently, the alleged

violations of these articles fall outside the Committee’s competence and are inadmissible

ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.10

8.3

With regard to the State party’s argument that the communication is manifestly

ill-founded, the Committee notes the author’s claim under the first sentence of article 14 (1)

of the Covenant. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with the aforementioned

provision, it is a fundamental duty of the courts to ensure equality between the parties,

including the ability to contest all the arguments and evidence adduced by the other party.11

The Committee notes that the author does not explain the reasons why the proceedings before

the High Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary violated this right. The

Committee therefore considers that this claim is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes

of admissibility and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

8.4

The Committee takes note of the author’s allegation relating to articles 3, 25 and 26

of the Covenant that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of his gender in the

competitive examination for the position of councillor in the public authority of Jalisco.

According to the author, although he was not included in the list of 29 men who progressed

to the next stage of the selection procedure, he obtained a higher gross score than 18 of the

25 women who reached the next stage.

8.5

The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which article 25 (c) of the

Covenant does not entitle every citizen to employment within the public service, but to access

on general terms of equality.12 With regard to article 26 of the Covenant, the Committee

9 See, for example, Taylor et al. v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/138/3666/2019), para. 6.3.

10 Ibid.

11 See, for example, Äärelä et al v. Finland (CCPR/C/73/D/779/1997), para 7.4.

12 Kall v. Poland (CCPR/C/60/D/552/1993), para. 13.6.

CCPR/C/142/D/3149/2018

GE.24-22498

7

recalls its jurisprudence and its general comment No. 18 (1989), to the effect that not every

differentiation of treatment of persons in analogous or relevantly similar situations constitutes

discrimination, if it is based on reasonable and objective criteria and serves a purpose that is

legitimate under the Covenant (para. 13).13 The Committee also refers to its general comment

No. 28 (2000), according to which States parties must ensure that the law guarantees to

women the rights contained in article 25 of the Covenant on equal terms with men (para. 29).

8.6

The author expressly recognizes the legitimacy of the purpose of ensuring that the

seven councillors in the local public authority are appointed on the basis of parity, with at

least three men and three women. In this regard, the Committee notes that the requirement to

have approximately equal numbers of male and female electoral councillors – and two

parallel lists of male and female candidates – formed part of efforts to implement the principle

of gender parity (i.e. to ensure proportional representation according to gender, which

conforms to the approximate gender distribution of the general population).14 The Committee

notes that the electoral councillors of the local public authorities in Mexico are responsible

for preparing, conducting and overseeing elections in each of the country’s federative entities.

In this context, gender parity can promote the balance and proportional distribution of power

in electoral management, which can serve the objectives of democracy. It does not give

preference to the interests of women as a matter of principle. Rather, it seeks to promote good

governance through equal gender representation in the administration of electoral processes.

Therefore, in the present context, the Committee notes that gender equity, which parity

measures are aimed at achieving, is not synonymous with the advancement of women but

with justice for people of all gender identities.

8.7

The author contests the measure implemented to achieve gender parity, i.e., the

establishment of two parallel lists of female and male candidates for the examination. In this

regard, the Committee notes that the call for candidates for the recruitment procedure stated

that the 25 female and 25 male candidates who obtained the highest scores in the examination

would proceed to the next stage of the competition. The guidelines specified that the principle

of gender equity would be taken into account at each stage of the procedure and that the

senior management bodies of local public authorities would include at least three electoral

councillors of the same gender. The Committee also notes that the gender parity measures

were in compliance with the General Act on Equality between Women and Men of 2006, and

ruling No. SUP-JDC-12624/2011 of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary, which

established that such gender quotas were mandatory. Therefore, the Committee considers that

the application of these criteria to the competition was consistent with the relevant standards.

8.8

The Committee notes that the author does not disagree with the higher goal being

pursued. The author claims that the parity quotas established in the call for candidates

represented differentiated treatment that was not objective, reasonable or proportional. The

Committee notes that the call for candidates specified that the same number of male and

female candidates (25) would pass the examination and proceed to the next stage of the

procedure. In fact, in the present case, more men (29) than women (25) were selected to

proceed to the on-site test owing to the aforementioned tie. Furthermore, the same number of

posts were set aside for men and women within the Electoral Council. Therefore, the

Committee’s view is that the author cannot be considered to have been treated differently on

the basis of gender. Rather, the same rule was established for men and women.

8.9

The author argues that, for the purposes of an examination, there is no situation of

inequality between men and women since similar proportions of men and women go to

university. Therefore, according to the author, the men’s and women’s scores should have

been merged into a single category to determine a common cut-off score (see para. 7.1 above).

While accepting that the author was subjected to differentiated treatment on the basis of his

gender, the Committee refers to its statements in paragraph 8.5 above and recalls that its

general comment No. 18 (1989) states that the principle of equality sometimes requires States

parties to take affirmative action in order to diminish or eliminate conditions which cause or

13 D.P. and E.P. v. Sweden (CCPR/C/139/D/3183/2018), para. 8.10.

14 According to the National Institute of Statistics and Geography, in 2015, 51.4 per cent of the

population of Mexico were women and 48.6 per cent were men. See

https://www.inegi.org.mx/temas/estructura/.

CCPR/C/142/D/3149/2018

8

GE.24-22498

help to perpetuate discrimination prohibited by the Covenant and that such action may

involve granting for a time to the part of the population concerned certain preferential

treatment in specific matters as compared with the rest of the population. As long as such

action is needed to correct discrimination in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation

under the Covenant (para. 10).

8.10

In the present case, the Committee takes note of the important information provided

by the State party regarding the causal link between several centuries of male domination and

the discrimination that women in Mexico have faced in connection with public participation

and their access to public decision-making positions. The Committee also notes that gender

parity in access to university education does not necessarily translate into parity in

employment, including access to public service positions with decision-making powers. In

fact, both the author and the State party point out that, during the period in question, women

were underrepresented in several sectors of the civil service, particularly in mid-level and

senior positions (see paras. 6.4, 6.5, 7.2 and 7.3 above). In the competition under discussion,

far fewer women (76) than men (134) took the examination and, in 2012, women had not

achieved parity in respect of the position of councillor in the National Electoral Institute. The

Committee notes that several other factors besides access to education can affect the

representation of a particular group in public decision-making positions (for example, social,

economic and political inequalities; power dynamics that exclude the group from the

networks that dominate the spheres that influence decision-making; the assignment of

stereotyped roles to the group; and inequalities in the domestic sphere that restrict the group’s

availability for such positions). Therefore, the Committee considers that the author’s

argument about levels of education is not sufficient to substantiate the claim that the

establishment of two parallel, gender-disaggregated lists of candidates, based on the same

criteria, constituted differentiated treatment that was not objective, reasonable or

proportionate to the legitimate aim of removing obstacles to equal access to the Electoral

Council.

8.11

With regard to the author’s argument that the State party does not promote gender

parity in other high-level discretionary public positions, the Committee notes that the removal

of structural barriers in order to balance the distribution of power in public functions

generally takes place gradually and that, since the author’s submission, the State party has

made progress towards achieving gender parity in many of the functions mentioned in

paragraph 7.2 above.15 In any case, the Committee does not consider that the lack of gender

parity in one area of government necessarily legitimizes the lack of gender parity in another

area.

8.12

With regard to the right to an effective remedy, the Committee also notes that the High

Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary issued a detailed and reasoned

decision on the author’s petition to contest the selection procedure.

8.13

In the light of the above and the material before it, the Committee considers that the

author has not sufficiently substantiated his claims that, on the basis of his gender, he was

subjected to discrimination or a prohibited form of inequality in connection with access to

public service or that his right to an effective remedy was violated. Consequently, the

Committee declares that his claims under articles 3, 25 and 26 (read alone or in conjunction

with article 2 (1), (2) and (3)) of the Covenant are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional

Protocol.

8.14

In the light of these conclusions, the Committee does not deem it necessary to examine

any other grounds for admissibility.

9.

The Committee therefore decides:

15 In August 2024, for example, 5 of the 11 judges of the Supreme Court were women, including the

President; 4 of the 7 magistrates in the Federal Judiciary Council were women; and 8 of the

19 Secretaries of State were women.

CCPR/C/142/D/3149/2018

GE.24-22498

9

(a)

That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional

Protocol;

(b)

That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the

author.