Feb 24, 2017 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
The Indian authorities must end discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the formal justice system, the ICJ said in a report released today.
The 60-paged report “Unnatural Offences”: Obstacles to Justice in India Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity documents the challenges queer persons in India face while trying to access justice, starting from the impact of laws that criminalize people for their real or imputed sexual orientation and gender identity; to police harassment, violence and abuse; and to discrimination and other hurdles within the justice system.
Based on 150 interviews across nine cities in India, including with people who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, the report uses the term “queer” to refer to any individual who identifies with a non-normative sexuality or gender identity.
It includes individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and gender-queer, and also encompasses persons who may not fit into any of these identity categories.
“Criminalization, police violence, and the prejudiced attitudes of officials in the courts’ system have a profoundly detrimental impact on the ability and willingness of queer persons to resort to legal avenues to obtain justice,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“The systemic discrimination and violence faced by queer persons in India, and the challenges they face accessing justice, are clearly contrary to India’s international human rights law obligations and the Indian Constitution,” he added.
The report also draws on responses from various government departments to ICJ’s requests under the Right to Information Act, both on the enforcement of the law against queer individuals and on gauging how legal entitlements have operated.
It describes how:
- Laws like Section 377 of the IPC and some other broad and vaguely formulated laws, such as those that criminalize sex work and begging, are used by the police to persecute people based on their real or imputed sexual orientation and gender identity, and inhibit queer persons from accessing justice.
- Even where the law purportedly provides legal entitlements and protections, queer persons continue to face a range of difficulties in accessing them.
- Police violence, abuse and harassment are one of the biggest barriers to queer persons’ access to the justice system in India.
- The challenges that lawyers who argue cases involving the human rights of queer persons combine with the biases of officials in the formal justice system compounding the difficulties queer persons face in obtaining justice.
“The inspiring work of activists and human rights lawyers in India has led to positive judicial decisions showing the potential of the law to affirm human rights and ensure justice for all persons, irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” Zarifi said.
“Indian authorities should build on this momentum and take immediate steps to end the discrimination and violence queer persons face,” he added.
The ICJ report makes a number of recommendations to Indian authorities, which include:
- Ensure that police officers promptly register and investigate any complaint regarding violence or any other criminal act filed by a queer person and/or on their behalf;
- Provide legal and sensitization training relating to sexual orientation and gender identity to lawyers and judges under the State and District Legal Services Authority along with outreach programmes to facilitate queer individuals’ access to the justice system;
- Repeal section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and vaguely worded criminal laws that invite discriminatory application, or substantially revise them to ensure there is no scope for abuse in their enforcement;
- Withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill 2016 as currently drafted, engage in meaningful and substantial public consultation with members of the transgender community; and ensure that any process introduced for the legal recognition of gender identity is consistent with international human rights law and the NALSA.
Contact
Sam Zarifi (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Ajita Banerjie, ICJ Consultant in Delhi, t: +91 9920995526 ; e: ajita.banerjie@icj.org
Additional information
The Indian authorities have an obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the rights to equality before the law, equal protection of the law and freedom from discrimination; the rights to privacy, liberty and security of the person, including the right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention; the right to life, to freedom from torture and other ill-treatment; and the right to access justice and to an effective remedy, for all persons, including queer people, without discrimination as to their real or imputed sexual orientation and gender identity.
As the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed, the Indian Constitution also guarantees several of these rights.
For example, in the seminal case of NALSA v UOI, the Court affirmed transgender persons’ right to their self-identified gender identity, based on the rights to equality, non-discrimination, freedom of expression and dignity.
India-SOGI report-Publications-Reports-Thematic report-2017-ENG (full report in PDF)
Nov 11, 2016 | News
The ICJ today condemned efforts by a group of States led by the African Group of the UN Members States to halt the work of the UN Independent Expert charged with protecting people from discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI).
The organization said that the move constituted an unwarranted interference with the independence and capacity of the Human Rights Council to discharge its mandate for the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without discrimination.
On 3 November 2016 Botswana on behalf of the African Group introduced a draft resolution before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly in New York questioning the authority for the mandate of the Independent Expert Vitit Muntarbhorn (photo) and deferring action indefinitely on confirming the mandate’s establishment.
The ICJ is calling on the African Group to withdraw its draft resolution.
If a vote on the resolution does go ahead, the ICJ said that States must resoundingly reject it and send a signal to the world that the rights of all persons must be protected on an equal basis and that the UN Human Rights Council is capable of acting to secure such protection.
The ICJ considers that adoption of the resolution would represent a dramatic setback to the Human Rights Council’s efforts to tackle violence and discrimination based on SOGI.
Each year, the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly considers the Human Rights Council’s annual report.
This year, that report contains Human Rights Council resolution 32/2 on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Human Rights Council’s adoption of resolution 32/2 on 30 June 2016 made history by establishing the first-ever mandate of an Independent Expert of the Human Rights Council on protection against violence and discrimination based on SOGI.
In September this year the Human Rights Council appointed Prof. Vitit Muntarbhorn of Thailand to discharge this mandate.
Since then, Prof. Muntarbhorn has duly taken up his position and has begun fulfilling this work.
The draft resolution that the African Group has tabled at the Third Committee questions the basis in international law for the establishment of the Independent Expert’s mandate on SOGI and seeks to defer action on Human Rights Council resolution 32/2 indefinitely.
Since the Human Rights Council was set up in 2006, none of its resolutions mandating the establishment of a Special Procedure has ever been challenged by the General Assembly.
The ICJ considers that the adoption of the African Group’s resolution would set an extremely detrimental and regressive precedent by blocking the Human Rights Council from carrying out its own mandate.
It would undermine the UN’s preeminent human rights body’s overall authority by sapping its independence and ability to fulfil its mandate for the promotion and human rights for all without discrimination as it sees fit.
Contact
Livio Zilli, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser and UN Representative, t: +41 22 979 38 23 ; e: livio.zilli(a)icj.org
Read also
What is the Future of the SOGI Mandate and What Does it Mean for the UN Human Rights Council?
Sep 16, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
On 16 September 2016, the ICJ made a submission to the Universal Periodic Review of India.
The submission brings to the attention of the members of the Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the UPR issues concerning:
- discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity;
- death penalty;
- impunity and accountability;
- freedom of speech, expression and association;
- ratification and implementation of international human rights instruments.
india-icj-upr-submission-advocay-non-legal-submission-2016-eng (full text in PDF)
Aug 10, 2016 | News
A law in Belize that disproportionately affects gay men was today ruled unconstitutional by the country’s Supreme Court after a three-year wait for the judgment.
Section 53 of Belize’s Criminal Code, an old British colonial law, banned ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’ and thereby made consensual gay sex between adult men in private illegal in Belize. Today the legal provision has been ruled ‘unlawful’ to the extent that it can be applied to same-sex activity.
In handing down the judgment, Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin agreed that Section 53 amounts to a violation of the constitutional rights to dignity, privacy, equality and non-discrimination on grounds of sex. He found that there was no justification in the form of ‘public morality’ and therefore the law must be modified. He awarded costs to the Claimaint, Caleb Orozco.
The case is the culmination of years of work by a Caribbean-led coalition of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) activists, academics and legal experts. The individual claimant is Caleb Orozco, a Belizean gay man and prominent LGBT human rights advocate.
Today Orozco said: “This is the first day of my life in which it is legal for me to be me. This is a history-making judgment for Belize, the country which I am proud to call home. Our judicial system has been proven to be robust and unprejudiced. This judgment should give other oppressed minorities the confidence to speak up and stand up for themselves in situations of human rights abuse in the way I have. Our courts really are there to protect us all. In striking down Section 53, Belize has also rejected a poisonous remnant of colonial rule. We have reaffirmed ourselves as a society built on dignity and respect for all our people. This is a proud day.”
Simone Hill, President of the United Belize Advocacy Movement (UNIBAM) said before the judgment: “This is about our human rights. As citizens of this country our rights should be respected without fear or favour. Win or lose, we will continue the fight to ensure the victory of the protection of our rights.”
The case was heard in May 2013 and presided over by Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin. Today’s ruling – some three years and three months later – upholds Belize’s LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans) community’s human rights to privacy, equality, dignity and non-discrimination, all of which are protected under the country’s constitution.
A group of churches, namely the Roman Catholic Church of Belize, the Belize Church of England Corporate Body, and the Belize Evangelical Association of Churches were admitted as ‘Interested Parties’ in the case opposing Mr Orozco’s claim and seeking to maintain the criminalisation of gay men in Belize.
Meanwhile, the International Commission of Jurists, the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and the Human Dignity Trust were joint ‘Interested Parties’ in support of Mr Orozco.
Téa Braun, Legal Director of the Human Dignity Trust, said:
“This is a great victory for human rights and the rule of law.
Intimacy in private between two adults of their own free will should not be a matter for the law. The only outcome of such laws is to blight the lives of members of the LGBT community by fostering a climate of oppression and state-sponsored discrimination. The bravery and resilience of colleagues across the Caribbean who have worked tirelessly on this case is an inspiration. Caleb Orozco is a hero and a trailblazer. The Human Dignity Trust is immensely proud to have worked alongside him and his legal team.”
Alex Ward, President of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, which passed a resolution on the ‘Decriminalisation of Sexual Orientation’ in 2009, said: “This is a sound and just ruling which we whole heartedly welcome. It is the CLA’s mandate to uphold the rule of law across the Commonwealth and today marks a considerable success in maintaining the integrity of the Belizean Constitution and protecting its citizens’ fundamental rights.”
Livio Zilli, Senior Legal Adviser at the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), said: “The ICJ hails the courage, commitment and tenacity of the entire LGBT movement in Belize, and Caleb Orozco’s in particular, and salutes this decision as a critical contribution to upholding people’s human rights whatever their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
While convictions under Section 53 in Belize were rare, the law carried a sentence of up ten years’ imprisonment effectively for consensual homosexual sex.
There are still 76 legal jurisdictions across the world that make same-sex intimacy between consenting adults a crime. Of these, 38 countries are, like Belize, members of the Commonwealth.
The Interested Parties that joined in support of the case were represented by Godfrey Smith SC and Debevoise & Plimpton led by Lord Goldsmith QC. Tim Otty QC, founder of the Human Dignity Trust, Tristan Jones, Jessica Gladstone, Nicola Leslie, Conway Blake, were key members of the victorious legal team.
Jun 30, 2016 | News
The United Nations Human Rights Council, in a defining vote, adopted a resolution on 30 June 2016, on “Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation, and gender identity,” to mandate the appointment of an independent expert on the subject.
It is a historic victory for the human rights of anyone at risk of discrimination and violence because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, a coalition of human rights groups said today. This resolution builds upon two previous resolutions, adopted by the Council in 2011 and 2014.
The Core Group of seven Latin American countries – Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Uruguay – and 41 additional countries jointly presented the text.
The resolution was adopted by a vote of 23 in favor, 18 against and six abstentions.
“This is truly momentous,” said Micah Grzywnowicz, of the Swedish Federation for LGBTQ Rights (RFSL). “This is our opportunity to bring international attention to specific violations and challenges faced by transgender and gender non-conforming persons in all regions. It’s time for the international community to take responsibility to ensure that persons at risk of violence and discrimination because of gender identity are not left behind.”
“It’s a historic resolution,” said Josefina Valencia, of the International LGBTI Association for Latin America and the Caribbean, ILGA LAC. “Latin America has played a very important role to build a common course for the advancement of our human rights. We are proud of the international solidarity and the commitment shown by States for equality.”
The positive vote responds to a joint campaign of a record 628 nongovernmental organizations from 151 countries calling on the Human Rights Council to adopt the resolution and create the independent expert.
“It is important to note that around 70 percent of the organizations are from the global south,” said Yahia Zaidi of MantiQitna Network. “This is a powerful cross-regional message of strength to the UN to protect the rights of LGBTI persons. The independent expert will be a focal point for all violations based on SOGI and hence help grassroots organizations to better utilize the otherwise complex labyrinth of the UN system.”
The expert will be tasked with assessing implementation of existing international human rights law, identifying best practices and gaps, raising awareness of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, engaging in dialogue and consultation with states and other stakeholders, and facilitating provision of advisory services, technical assistance, capacity-building, and cooperation to help address violence and discrimination on these grounds.
“To have an independent expert can be a ‘game-changer’ in counteracting violence which fuels the HIV epidemic in key populations and more specifically in LGBT communities,” said Alain Kra of Espace Confiance.
“It will ease the work of all human rights defenders and it is essential for our governments and people to have the knowledge on how to protect LGBT communities from any violence and discrimination they face,” added Joleen Mataele of the Tonga Leiti’s Association.
Although a number of hostile amendments seeking to introduce notions of cultural relativism were adopted into the text by vote, the core of the resolution affirming the universal nature of international human rights law stood firm.
The International Commission of Jurists believes that the UN Human Rights Council made history by creating a mandate empowering a UN Independent Expert specifically to address human rights violations perpetrated against people in all regions of the world because of discrimination against their real or imputed sexual orientation or gender identity.
Results of the vote
Voting in favor of the resolution
Albania, Belgium, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Georgia, Germany, Latvia, Macedonia, Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Vietnam
Voting against the resolution
Algeria, Bangladesh, Burundi, China, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Morocco, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Togo, United Arab Emirates
Abstaining on the resolution
Botswana, Ghana, India, Namibia, Philippines, South Africa
Organizations supporting this statement:
- Access Chapter
- AIDES France
- Amnesty International
- ARC International
- Clóset de Sor Juana AC
- Egale Canada Human Rights Trust
- Espacio de Mujeres Lesbianas Salvadoreñas por la Diversidad (ESMULES)
- Federatie van Nederlandse Verenigingen tot Integratie van Homoseksualiteit – COC Nederland (Netherlands)
- Foundation for SOGI Rights and Justice (FORSOGI), Thailand
- FRI, the Norwegian Organisation for Sexual and Gender Diversity
- GALANG Philippines
- GATE – Global Action for Trans* Equality
- Human Rights Law Centre
- Human Rights Watch
- Iranti-org (South Africa)
- International Commission of Jurists
- ILGA LAC, Asociación Internacional de Lesbianas, Gays, Bisexuales, Trans e Intersexuales para América Latina y el Caribe
- International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA)
- Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana (LEGABIBO)
- LGBT Denmark – the National Organization for Gay Men, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgendered People
- MantiQitna Network
- OutRight Action International
- Pacific Sexual Diversity Network
- Pan Africa ILGA
- Proyecto Arcoiris, colectivo anticapitalista e independiente
- Samoa Faafafine Association
- Swedish Federation for LGBTQ Rights (RFSL)
- TLF Share Collective – Philippines
- Tonga Leitis Association
