93.The Court also notes that one condition that must be fulfilled by a civil status officer to celebrate a marriage without the presence of the parties, is the deposition by the absent party, of an act drawn up by the civil status officer of his area of abode, a condition not required in the marriage celebrated by a religious minister. 94. The Court further notes that the way in which a religious marriage takes place in Mali poses serious risks that may lead to forced marriages and perpetuate traditional practices that violate international standards which define the precise conditions regarding age of marriage and consent of the parties, for a marriage to be valid. 95.The Court notes that, in the procedure for celebration of marriage, the impugned law allows for the application of religious and customary laws on the consent to marriage. lt also allows for different marriage regimes depending on whether it is celebrated by a civil officer or a religious minister - practices not consistent with international instruments, namely: the Maputo protocol and 6EDAW. G. Alleged violation of the right to inheritance for women and natural children 96.1n the Application, it is argued that the impugned law enshrines religious and customary law as the applicable regime, by default, in matters of inheritance, in as much as the provisions of the new Family Code apply only "where religion or custom has not been established in writing, by testimony, experience or by common knowledge or where the deceased, in his life time, has not manifested in writing or before witnesses his wish that his inheritance should be distributed othenryise" (Article 751 of the Family Code). 97.As regards women, the Applicants maintain that in Mali, lslamic law gives a woman half of what a man receives. They also point out that the majority of the population lacks the capacity to use the services of a notary to authenticate a will; that, besides, notaries estimated at 40 in number in the whole country cannot serve the population of over 1S million Malians. 98.The Applicants submit from the aforesaid that, in adopting the impugned law, the Respondent state violated Articre 21 of the Maputo protocolwhich that: Y4 2t >--- @/g