Dec 19, 2013 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ is profoundly concerned at the judgment of 11 December 2013 of the Supreme Court of India, which effectively recriminalizes consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults in private.
The decision by India’s highest court in Suresh Kumar Koushal and another v NAZ Foundation and others overturned the 2009 decision of the Delhi High Court.
That earlier judgment had held section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to be unconstitutional to the extent that it violated the rights to equality before the law, non-discrimination, life and personal liberty guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
Section 377 criminalized certain consensual sexual acts in private between adults that are particularly associated with same-sex conduct.
The 2009 High Court’s ruling had the effect of decriminalizing such conduct between adults in private in India.
Its decision was based on an in-depth analysis of India’s obligations under international human rights law and standards, as well as international comparative law.
The High Court had examined the scope of the rights to equality, non-discrimination and personal liberty under the Indian Constitution and determined Section 377 to be unconstitutional.
Section 377, which was enacted in 1860, is a historical relic from colonial times bequeathed to India under the British empire; it made it an offence to voluntarily have “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” with any man, woman or animal.
Those convicted are liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years or for life and a fine.
The Supreme Court decision of 11 December reversed the High Court’s courageous and much celebrated decision.
Purporting to uphold the separation of powers, the judgment of the Supreme Court overturned the High Court by ruling that it acted in excess of its judicial review jurisdiction by failing to exercise restraint and to accord the necessary deference to the Indian legislature in its review of the constitutionality of section 377.
The Court effectively holds that the provision is not inconsistent with human rights and India’s obligations under international human right law, and that it is up to the Indian Parliament to amend or repealed it.
The ICJ is deeply troubled by the reasoning of the Supreme Court judgment.
It would appear to constitute an abdication of the essential role of the judiciary in safeguarding human rights.
In this case, the Court failed to uphold and protect the rights to equality and non-discrimination; equality before the law and equal protection of the law; dignity; privacy; freedom of expression and association; family life; and the highest attainable standard of health.
The judgment is inconsistent with India’s obligations under international human rights law.
The judgment also disconcertingly dismisses without apparent reason the wealth of evidence before the court documenting how the criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct leads directly to human rights violations.
Nov 7, 2013 | News
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) today declined to hold that the criminalisation of consensual same-sex activity necessarily constitutes “persecution” for the purposes of EU asylum law.
This ruling is out of step with international human rights and refugee law, the ICJ and Amnesty International said.
In X, Y and Z v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel the Luxembourg-based CJEU considered three joined cases arising from asylum requests lodged in the Netherlands by nationals of Senegal, Sierra Leone and Uganda.
The three men claimed that they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on their – undisputed – same-sex sexual orientation and the fact that sex between men is criminalised in their home countries.
“The Court skirted around the real issue in this case and missed a key opportunity to state clearly that to criminalise consensual same-sex conduct ultimately amounts to criminalising people for who they are and, therefore, amounts to persecution per se, regardless of how often sentences of imprisonment are enforced,” said Sherif Elsayed-Ali, Amnesty International’s Head of Refugee and Migrants’ Rights.
A key question facing the Court was whether “the criminalisation of homosexual activities and the threat of imprisonment” for the same constitute “persecution” under EU asylum law.
The Court did affirm that the prosecution and imprisonment of a person for such conduct would constitute persecution.
However, according to the two organizations, the mere existence of laws that criminalise consensual same-sex sexual activities – and which thus effectively criminalise individuals for their sexual orientation and who they are – also runs contrary to international human rights law and jurisprudence, as well as a growing raft of national court decisions.
“The Court should have found that these laws, even when they have not recently been applied in practice are capable of giving rise to a well-founded fear of persecution in lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and intersex people, and who accordingly should be recognised as refugees when they apply for asylum,” said Livio Zilli, Senior Legal Adviser at the International Commission of Jurists.
Amnesty International has extensively documented how these laws provide state actors with the means to perpetrate human rights violations and contribute to an atmosphere of state-supported homophobia.
They enable harassment and abuse, and deny lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) individuals – or those perceived to be LGBTI – effective state protection to which they are entitled under international human rights law.
Contact:
Livio Zilli, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ, t + 41 22 979 38 23 ; e-mail: livio.zilli(a)icj.org
Notes:
In its request to the CJEU, the Dutch Council of State asked the Luxembourg-based CJEU to answer the following questions:
1) “Do foreign nationals with a homosexual orientation form a particular social group as referred to in Article 10(1)(d)” of the Qualification Directive?
2) “Which homosexual activities fall within the scope of the Directive”; “how should national authorities assess what constitutes persecution in this context” and “whether applicants for refugee status should be expected to conceal, or exercise restraint in expressing, their sexual orientation in their country of origin” in order to avoid persecution?
3) Do the criminalisation of same-sex sexual activity and the possibility of imprisonment upon conviction constitute persecution within the meaning of the Qualification Directive?
Read also:
Criminalization of same-sex acts and the threat of imprisonment give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution
Nov 7, 2013 | News
FIDH, ILGA-Europe, ICJ, AIRE-Centre and HLHR welcome this important decision. The organizations had submitted written comments about the case to the Court in June 2011.
In a judgment in the joint cases of Vallianatos and Mylonas v. Greece and C.S. and others v. Greece delivered today, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Greece had violated the European Convention on Human Rights by excluding same-sex couples from a “civil union”, restricted in Greece to heterosexual couples.
“All Member States of the Council of Europe must condemn any form of discrimination against homosexuals. Homosexual couples, as heterosexual couples, involved in a stable relationship, should benefit from a legal recognition”, said Karim Lahidji, FIDH President. He added: “Twenty-two of the Member States of the Council of Europe have created a legal form of recognition for same-sex couples. Greece must change its law to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights”.
Evelyne Paradis, Executive Director of ILGA-Europe, said: “The European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed already established principle that sexual orientation discrimination is in breach of the European Convention. Now the Court took yet another step to say that if a country provides legal recognition to unmarried heterosexual couples in a form of civil unions, same-sex couples also must be able to benefit from such legal recognition. European consensus on the legal recognition of same-sex partnership is constantly growing and we welcome the fact the Court is taking it into account and reflect in its jurisprudence.”
Livio Zilli, Senior Legal Adviser at the International Commission of Jurists, said: “The Court reiterated that the Convention was a living instrument to be interpreted in the present-day conditions and that the state was obliged under the Convention to take account of societal developments, as well as the fact that there is no single way or choice when it came to people’s exercise and enjoyment of their right to family or private life.”
In its decision, the Court ruled that Greece had failed to provide a convincing justification for excluding same-sex couples.
The Government’s argument, according to which the law’s main purpose was to protect children of unmarried parents, did not constitute a valid reason, because the law’s real objective was the legal recognition of a new form of family life.
Therefore, exclusion of same-sex couples breaches the Convention.
In November 2008, Greece adopted a law creating the “civil unions”, an alternative to marriage.
However, the first article restricts such unions to “two physical individuals of different sex who have reached the age of majority”. An animated debate relating to the inclusion of same-sex couples took place before the adoption of this law.
During the debate before the Hellenic Parliament, the Minister of Justice at the time, declared: “We mustn’t include same sex couples. We are indeed convinced that the needs and demands of the Hellenic society do not cross this line; as a legislator, the political party in power is accountable to the Greek people; we have our own beliefs and negotiations are over; I believe it is the way to go”.
In their written comments, FIDH, ILGA-Europe, ICJ and AIRE-Centre recalled that the European Court has repeatedly condemned direct discrimination based on sexual orientation as a violation of protected rights.
The Court’s case-law reiterates that when it comes to a difference in treatment based on sex or sexual orientation, the principle of proportionality does not merely require that the measure chosen is in principle suited for realising the aim sought.
It must also be shown that the discriminatory treatment is necessary in order to achieve that aim, otherwise the measure will be in violation of the Convention. Creating a “civil union” only for unmarried different-sex couples amounts to direct discrimination and therefore violates the Convention.
Today’s decision follows recent jurisprudence of the Court against discrimination of same-sex couples. On February 2013, in the X. and others v. Austria case, the European Court condemned Austria for banning a homosexual person to adopt the biological child of his/her partner. It decided that the ban of unmarried same-sex couples, which are in the same situation than unmarried different-sex couples, was not justified and violated article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with article 8.
Contact:
Livio Zilli, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ, e-mail: livio.zilli(a)icj.org
Additional information:
- Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Vallianatos and Mylonas v. Greece and C.S. and others v. Greece
- According to the Rainbow Europe’s Index (May 2013), Greece came 25th among 49 European countries in terms of laws and policies affecting the human rights of LGBTI people.
Greece-Vallianatos_CEDH-news-press release-2013-FR (full French text in pdf)
Jun 20, 2013 | News
Today the ICJ launches two new innovative legal tools: the Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity UN Database and the Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Legislative Database.
The UN Database gathers all the SOGI-related doctrine and jurisprudence of the UN human rights system in one searchable database.
It is the electronic version of the UN Compilations, which the ICJ has issued regularly since 2005.
The documents are organized by source (such as treaty body, special rapporteur or working group) and it is possible to search the database by source or by country, region or key word.
The Legislative Database is the result of a year-long pilot project in collaboration with the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law.
Student researchers gathered and analyzed laws from twenty-four countries in all regions of the world. Each country is introduced with a legislative overview.
The laws themselves are LGBT-friendly or neutral with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity. It is searchable by country and topic.
The purpose was to provide the actual texts of laws as comparative examples for use in legislative reform efforts.
The ICJ is very pleased to announce the launch of these new resources to help activists and lawyers around the world advocate for LGBT human rights.
Both databases were created by HURIDOCS.
The hard copy version of the 2013 edition of the UN Compilation can be downloaded below:
SOGI UN Compilation electronic version – publications-2013 (full text in pdf)
May 13, 2013 | News
On 13 May, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal granted W, a transgender woman, the right to marry her male partner. The ICJ, which made submissions in the case, applauds this decision.
W is a resident of Hong Kong who has undergone gender reassignment surgery, paid for by the Hong Kong Government, and who holds a national identity card and passport recording her sex as female.
In 2008 she applied to the Registrar of Marriages seeking confirmation that she could marry her male partner.
The Registrar denied her request on the grounds that “the biological sexual construction of an individual is fixed at birth and cannot be changed.”
Because “only an individual’s sex at birth counts,” the Registrar would not celebrate the marriage.
The trial court and court of appeal upheld the Registrar’s interpretation of the Marriage Ordinance and Matrimonial Causes Ordinance and ruled that it did not conflict with Hong Kong’s Basic Law or its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
These courts relied on the 1970 British case of Corbett v. Corbett, which held that sex was fixed immutably at birth.
W won her case at the Court of Final Appeal, which ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Marriage Ordinance and Matrimonial Causes Ordinance ignored the “psychological and social elements of a person’s sexual identity” and thus were inconsistent with the constitutional right to marry.
Furthermore, the ordinances were unconstitutional because they denied W the right to marry at all and thus impaired the very essence of the right.
While the Court granted the parties leave to make further submissions as to the exact nature of the declaratory relief, it held that “a transsexual in W’s situation” should in principle be granted a declaration that she is in law a woman within the meaning of the marriage ordinances and “therefore eligible to marry a man.”
Importantly, the Court also stated: “We would not seek to lay down a rule that only those who have had full gender reassignment surgery involving both excising and reconstructive genital surgery, qualify. We leave open the question whether transsexual persons who have undergone less extensive treatment might also qualify.”
“This is a historic decision,” said Alli Jernow, Senior Legal Advisor at the International Commission of Jurists. “Not only has W won her own case at the Court of Final Appeal, her courage and commitment have changed the lives of transgender people in Hong Kong.”
The parties have an additional 21 days to file written submissions. The Court’s proposed order gives the Hong Kong legislature time to respond but indicates that even in the absence of intervening legislation, the marriage ordinances would be given a remedial interpretation to include W.
Photo by K.Y. Cheng: Michael Vidler, solicitor of the appellant, holds the judgment in his hand outside Court of Final Appeal.
