María Eugenia Morales Aceña de Sierra v. Guatemala
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
Case No. 11.625, Report No. 4/01, OEA/Ser. L/V/II.98 (2001)
- Written by Whitney Waldenberg, JD
Facts
In 1995 María Eugenia Morales Aceña de Sierra (plaintiff) brought a claim before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the state of Guatemala (defendant), alleging that laws conferring certain roles, rights, and responsibilities on husbands and wives violated the American Convention on Human Rights. At the time of the suit, Guatemalan law gave husbands the near-exclusive power to represent the marital union and to administer marital property, with very few exceptions. In turn, the duty of caring for minor children and the home was delegated almost exclusively to wives. Under these laws, a wife was only allowed to have a job outside of the home if the job responsibilities did not interfere with her duties as caretaker of minors and the home, and a husband could seek redress in court if he opposed his wife’s professional activities outside of the house. The laws also conferred on husbands other exclusive rights to represent their minor children and administer their property. In a prior challenge before the Guatemalan Constitutional Court, the Guatemalan court upheld these laws, citing the protection of women and legal certainty as justification.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
