Jun 3, 2014 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs
The ICJ’s commentary analyses in detail the 7 November 2013 judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in joined cases arising from three asylum claims asserting a well-founded fear of persecution based on same-sex sexual orientation.
Positively, in X, Y and Z v. Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel, the Court found that asylum applicants who have a same-sex sexual orientation and come from countries where consensual homosexual conduct is criminalized, form a particular social group for the purposes of EU refugee law.
Further, the Court’s recognition that sexual orientation is a characteristic so fundamental to one’s identity that one cannot be expected to renounce or conceal it, or to exercise greater restraint in its expression than heterosexuals, is welcome.
Likewise, the Court’s finding that the enforcement of a term of imprisonment that sanctions consensual homosexual acts must be regarded as a disproportionate or discriminatory punishment, and is thus persecutory, is a step forward, particularly given that in some EU countries this was hitherto not the case.
However, in some important respects this judgment represents a missed opportunity. The Court failed to clarify the inconsistency between secondary EU refugee law and the UNHCR’s authoritative interpretation of “a particular social group” in the Refugee Convention’s definition of a refugee.
Further, in choosing to maintain the narrow scope of the questions referred to it, the Court ended up with an unwarrantedly restrictive reading of EU refugee law, which ignores the numerous persecutory effects of criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Court missed a chance to state that these laws, even when they are not enforced in the sense that there exists a recent record of enforcement through the actual imposition of terms of imprisonment, have a persecutory effect, as they criminalize an essential characteristic of one’s identity.
Background
The ICJ decided to publish this commentary for a number of reasons.
First, the CJEU plays an important role in shaping international refugee law jurisprudence.
Further, asylum applications based on a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of real or imputed sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression are unfortunately likely to increase, both within the EU and beyond.
Moreover, the CJEU’s judgment in this case is likely to have a bearing on the determination of asylum claims premised on membership of other particular social groups.
Lastly, the implementation by the EU and its Member States of the recently “recast” Common European Asylum System will likely give rise to several new referrals to the Court, whose interpretation of the recast instruments will also depend on its asylum case law precedents, including the CJEU’s judgment in this case.
CommentaryXYZ-Advocacy-2014
May 19, 2014 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has just finalized its review of El Salvador, one of the State parties under examination during the 52nd session of the Committee held between the 28 April and 23 May 2014.
May 19, 2014 | Advocacy, News, Open letters
A joint statement from civil society groups, including ICJ, calling on Cambodia’s National Assembly to delay debate on the three draft laws related to the judiciary.
May 14, 2014 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The European Court of Human Rights granted permission to the AIRE Centre, ILGA-Europe and the ICJ for a third-party intervention in the case of Pavla Sabalić v. Croatia (Application No. 50231/13).
May 14, 2014 | Events, News, Position papers
The ICJ today called on the Pakistan Senate to reject a Bill that would grant the military and law enforcement authorities sweeping powers to detain individuals, in contravention of international human rights standards.
Apr 3, 2014 | Advocacy, Legal submissions
The ICJ today made a further submission to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.
The ICJ submission addressed a number of issues for a draft set of “Basic Principles and Guidelines” on the right of anyone deprived of liberty to challenge the lawfulness of his or her detention, and the right of victims of arbitrary or unlawful detention to an effective remedy.
The document supplements an earlier submission by ICJ, delivered in November 2013, and responds to a number of questions raised by members of the Working Group when the ICJ appeared before it in its November session. The new submission addresses the following issues:
- The ability of persons other than the detained individual and his or her lawyer to initiate proceedings challenging the detention.
- Entitlement of a detained person to disclosure by the government of information relevant to their detention, in the context of challenging the lawfulness of the detention.
- The right of the detained individual physically to appear before the court.
- The scope of the obligation to provide compensation to victims of arbitrary or otherwise unlawful detention, apart from particular treaty provisions.
- Whether, in terms of the right to remedy and challenge, any distinction is to be drawn between the criminal justice system and other forms of detention such as detention of migrants, detention on psychiatric and various existing administrative regimes.
- Military courts and the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention.
- Whether exceptions to the right to challenge lawfulness of detention before a court exist, under customary international law.
The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which will next meet in Geneva 22 April to 1 May 2014, was requested by the Human Rights Council to prepare the draft “Principles and Guidelines” before the end of 2015. The Working Group is presently developing a first draft. A stakeholder consultation on the draft is contemplated for September 2014.
The new supplemental submission may be downloaded in PDF here: ICJ-Advocacy-WGADhabeas-2ndSubmission-03042014
The earlier submission may be downloaded here.
