UPR Sexual Rights Database

Stakeholder Summary:
Para 2) Treatment Action Group (TAG) indicated that, despite several recommendations under the 2008 and 2013 UPR reviews […] the United Arab Emirates (UAE) had not acceded to ICESCR nor ICCPR.

UN Compilation:
Para 40) CEDAW was concerned that it was still possible for a husband to prohibit his wife from working and to limit her freedom of movement, pursuant to articles 71 and 72 of the Personal Status Law. It urged the United Arab Emirates to repeal those articles without delay and to review any other provisions that impeded women’s free choice of profession and employment.
Para 47) OHCHR stated that issues relating to women’s rights under personal status laws, such as Federal Law No. 28 (2005), remained in need of development, as they continued to fall outside of the provisions of the CEDAW.
Para 48) CEDAW was concerned that the principle of equality of women and men had still not been enshrined in the Constitution and national legislation, and that discrimination against women had not yet been defined in accordance with the CEDAW and prohibited by law.
Para 49) [CEDAW] was particularly concerned about the de jure maintenance of male guardianship of women and girls, the impossibility for an Emirati woman to sign her own marriage contract, the continued practice of dowry, the obligation imposed on a woman to obey her husband, including sexually, the maintenance of polygamy and the limited grounds available to women to seek divorce, while men could unilaterally request a divorce for any reason.
Para 50) CEDAW took note of the 2011 decree granting nationality to children born of Emirati women and foreign fathers upon reaching the age of majority. However, it remained concerned that Emirati women were still denied equality regarding nationality compared with the rights guaranteed to men.
Para 51) [CEDAW] was deeply concerned that a divorced woman lost custody of her daughters when they reached 13 years of age and of her sons when they reached 11 years of age, or even before those ages if she remarried.
Para 52) [CEDAW] noted with serious concern that, in 2010, the Federal Supreme Court had issued a ruling upholding the right of men to chastise their wives and children and that, in 2013, the United Arab Emirates had not accepted the recommendation made during the second cycle of the universal periodic review to repeal article 53 of the Penal Code, which authorized that right. The Committee was also concerned about the slow progress that had been achieved in enacting comprehensive legislation on violence against women.
Para 53) [CEDAW] was concerned about violence against women resulting from the criminalization of consensual sexual relations between adults outside of marriage, under article 356 of the Penal Code, and the use of that article to criminalize women in prostitution and women who were victims of trafficking, sexual exploitation and abuse. It was concerned that, in all those cases, women faced harsh sanctions, such as prison sentences, torture and the death penalty, and inhuman, cruel or degrading punishment in the form of stoning or flogging. It was also concerned that hundreds of women were reportedly serving sentences after being convicted of having sexual intercourse outside of marriage (zina).
Para 54) [CEDAW] was concerned that access to justice by women and girls, including effective legal remedies, was severely hampered by the reluctance to register complaints and the negative attitudes of law enforcement officials towards women denouncing acts of violence committed against them.
Para 55) [CEDAW] was also concerned about the discriminatory treatment of women in courts, especially foreign women, the lack of interpretation services and legal aid and the disproportionately severe sentences imposed on foreign women in criminal court proceedings.

Stakeholder Summary:
Para 52) HRW stated that discrimination on the basis of sex and gender was not included in the definition of discrimination in the 2015 anti-discrimination law, …
Para 53) GCENR stated that the nationality law discriminated on the basis of gender with regard to the conferral of nationality on non-national spouses. Article 3 enshrined the right of Emirati men to confer nationality on foreign spouses, however, the same right was denied to Emirati women.
Para 54) According to HRW, Federal Law No. 28 of 2005 regulated matters of personal status, and some of its provisions discriminated against women. For instance, the law provided that, for a woman to marry, her male guardian must conclude her marriage contract; men had the right to unilaterally divorce their wives, whereas a woman who wished to divorce her husband must apply for a court order; a woman could lose her right to maintenance if, for example, she refused to have sexual relations with her husband without a lawful excuse; and women were required to “obey” their husbands. A woman might be considered disobedient, with few exceptions, if she decided to work without her husband’s consent.
Para 55) HRW continued that Article 53 of the Penal Code allowed the imposition of “chastisement by a husband to his wife and the chastisement of minor children” so long as the assault did not exceed the limits prescribed by Sharia, or Islamic law. Marital rape was not a crime. Furthermore, in 2010, the Federal Supreme Court issued a ruling—citing the Penal Code—that sanctioned husbands’ beating and inflicting other forms of punishment or coercion on their wives, provided they did not leave physical marks.
Para 56) According to HRW, Article 356 of the Penal Code criminalizing (but not defining) “indecency” provided for a minimum sentence of one year in prison. In practice, UAE courts used this article to convict and sentence people for zina offenses, which included consensual sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage.