Mar 8, 2014 | News
The ICJ today condemned as a miscarriage of justice, Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s conviction on sodomy charges.
The ICJ said the overturning of his 2012 High Court acquittal — following an appeal by the Malaysian government — by a Court of Appeal panel contravenes international human rights standards and the rule law.
“The ICJ condemns the use of the colonial-era Article 377B of the Malaysian Penal Code, which prohibits consensual same-sex sexual conduct, in conflict with international standards regarding respect for the right to privacy,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“This article is seldom used in Malaysia, but this is the second time it has been used to convict Anwar, and both times its use seemed clearly motivated to hobble his ability to challenge the government as a politician.”
The sodomy charges against Anwar, which date back to 2008, were dismissed by the High Court on 9 January 2012, but the Court of Appeal today overturned that acquittal and instead sentenced Anwar to five years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal ruling took less than two hours.
The ICJ has been observing the proceedings in what has been called Anwar’s ‘Sodomy 2’ trial. ICJ Commissioner Justice Elizabeth Evatt AC, from the Australian High Court and a former member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, was at the Court of Appeal today on behalf of the ICJ.
“This decision certainly casts doubts on the independence and impartiality of the Malaysian judiciary and tarnishes the reputation of the country’s legal system,” said Zarifi.
The judgement means Anwar will not be able to run for election in a local state seat later this month.
After sentencing, Anwar’s lawyers were successful in arguing for a stay in execution and bail, pending appeal.
CONTACT
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), t:+66 819077653, e-mail: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Feb 27, 2014 | News
The ICJ is profoundly concerned at the recent enactment of legislation in Nigeria and Uganda that heralds further persecution based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
On 24 February 2014, Uganda’s President, Yoweri Museveni, gave his assent to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill recently adopted by the Uganda Parliament by signing it into law.
His Nigerian counterpart, President Goodluck Jonathan, had signed the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Bill into law on 7 January this year.
In both countries pre-existing legislative provisions already criminalized consensual same-sex sexual activity in private in contravention of international human rights law and standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
These core global instruments each affirm the universal and inalienable rights to human dignity, equality and non-discrimination.
“Carnal knowledge…against the order of nature,” for example, was already a criminal offence in both Nigeria and Uganda, carrying, upon conviction, maximum sentences of 14 years’ imprisonment in the former and life imprisonment in the latter.
The new Nigerian legislation makes people of the same gender who contract a marriage or civil union liable upon conviction to 14 years’ imprisonment.
Further, it makes criminally responsible anyone who “administers, witnesses, abets or aids” a same-sex marriage or civil union ceremony, rendering those found guilty of the offence liable to 10 years’ imprisonment.
It also outlaws the registration, activities and funding of any “gay” organization, making them offences attracting 10 years’ imprisonment upon conviction.
In Uganda, the new law, among other things, explicitly criminalizes consensual same-sex conduct between women and makes it an offence for people to discuss and be open about their sexuality.
Further, it criminalizes “homosexuality”, “aggravated homosexuality” and same-sex marriages, all of which carry sentences of life imprisonment upon conviction.
Moreover, it makes it a criminal offence to make available information about sexual orientation, safe sex and gender identity. Renting premises to those who may “practice homosexuality” is also a crime.
The ICJ considers that laws or regulations that directly or indirectly criminalize consensual same-sex sexuality or conduct provide State actors with the means to perpetrate human rights violations, including through harassment, extortion and discriminatory “criminal” investigations, prosecutions, trials and imprisonment.
Equally, these laws enable non-State actors to persecute with impunity individuals based on their real or perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
Indeed, laws that criminalize same-sex consensual sexual activity contribute to an atmosphere of State-supported homophobia and transphobia and serve as both the motivation and justification for harassment, extortion and physical abuse of people based on their real or attributed sexual orientation and/or gender identity by non-State actors.
In the circumstances, not only is cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment at the hands of non-State actors on the basis of real or perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity not prevented, but such treatment and other human rights abuses are fostered when the authorities enact laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexuality or conduct.
Overall, the existence of such laws works to deprive individuals who are, or are perceived to be, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex of adequate protection from violence and discrimination, including police protection and judicial redress.
This makes the provision of effective protection by State authorities extremely unlikely if not altogether impossible given that extending such protection would in turn be tantamount to aiding and abetting the perpetration of the very acts that such laws criminalize.
Putting the same point another way: protection is neither effective nor available when laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual relations or acts exist, because the individuals who need protection would effectively be outing themselves to the authorities should they decide to seek protection from them.
Accordingly, the existence of these laws entails a real risk of violations of the right to life, to liberty and security of the person, and to mental and physical integrity.
In light of the above, the ICJ considers that Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act and Nigeria’s Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act contravene each country’s respective Constitution and their international treaty and customary law obligations by which both countries are bound.
In particular, the Acts directly violate the right to dignity; equality, including equality before the law and equal protection of the law; non-discrimination; liberty and security of person; privacy; opinion and expression; association and peaceful assembly; and the right to access health services and care without discrimination.
Both pieces of legislation also undermine and criminalize the critical work of human rights defenders and civil society organizations that seek to combat discrimination and persecution based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
They also have very serious public health implications, including, for example, as a result of the fact that they hinder the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has strongly denounced both pieces of legislation.
In relation to the Nigerian law, the High Commissioner said: “rarely have I seen a piece of legislation that in so few paragraphs directly violates so many basic, universal human rights”.
She further noted that the legislation “purports to ban same-sex marriage ceremonies but in reality does much more.
It turns anyone who takes part in, witnesses or helps organize a same sex marriage into a criminal. It punishes people for displaying any affection in public towards someone of the same sex.
And in banning gay organizations it puts at risk the vital work of human rights defenders who speak up for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and intersex people”.
In his reaction to the enactment of the Nigerian legislation, the Executive Director of UNAIDS, Michel Sidibé, expressed concern that: “The provisions of the new law in Nigeria could lead to increased homophobia, discrimination, denial of HIV services and violence based on real or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity … It could also be used against organizations working to provide HIV prevention and treatment services to LGBT people.”
In relation to the Ugandan legislation, the High Commissioner said: “Disapproval of homosexuality by some can never justify violating the fundamental human rights of others” adding that the law “will institutionalise discrimination and is likely to encourage harassment and violence against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. It is formulated so broadly that it may lead to abuse of power and accusations against anyone, not just LGBT people.”
The ICJ urges the Nigerian and Ugandan authorities to urgently repeal the new legislation, as well as the pre-existing legislative provisions criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual activity in private.
Contact:
Livio Zilli, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Programme, t +41 22 379 3823; email: livio.zilli(a)icj.org
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)
