Sudan might have Sharia but a woman judge says that...

Sudan might have Sharia but a woman judge says that her society is changing.
Judge Sania Hamza is one of those top five: a Supreme Court or High Court judge. Her work involves civil and criminal decisions, as well as appeals. But the job has taken on a fresh edge: since enacting a new Constitution in 1998, Sudan - formerly a wholly English common-law country - now imposes Sharia (Islamic law), even on non-Muslims in some regions. Yet the regime has signed up to international and domestic covenants that protect human rights.
Sharia - with its punishments of dismemberment and flogging - and human rights do not sit easily side by side. Yet combining them is what Judge Hamza and her colleagues now seek to do.
"The judges and the Government want to introduce human rights," she says. "The judiciary's role is to apply existing law, but we also play an important role in protecting human rights."
She maintains that Sharia is applied only to Muslims in "personal law" matters - the regulation of marriage, divorce, custody of children and inheritance.
Female circumcision is also in decline. "There are women working very hard to eradicate this. It is now treated as an injury and is prohibited."
But she admits: "We do have a problem with the punishment of children. The Supreme Court has said 'no' to the death penalty for children under 18. Another area is lashing of children. We are trying to stop these."
As for the dismemberment of hands for theft, it is, she says, rare and needs a high standard of evidence.
"If you prove a person was poor and stole to eat, he won't have his hands cut off."
It remains an area "under discussion" in the light of human rights commitments.
"Judges have to apply the law, but they can interpret it in terms of human rights. In a recent civil case a judge said 'No; this is against human rights'."