Governments condemn extrajudicial executions in seminal UN vote

Governments condemn extrajudicial executions in seminal UN vote

The ICJ and other human rights groups celebrate historic first condemnation of killings based on gender identity. 

An international coalition of organizations dedicated to human rights celebrated yesterday’s historic vote in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly to pass resolution A/C.3/67/L.36 condemning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

The vote reversed the events of 2010 when the same body voted to strip the resolution of reference to “sexual orientation.”

The UNGA also expanded upon its commitment to the universality of human rights by including “gender identity” for the first time in the resolution’s history.

The resolution, which is introduced biennially in the Third Committee, urges States to protect the right to life of all people, including by calling upon states to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds.

It was introduced by the Government of Sweden and co-sponsored by 34 states from around the world.

For the past 12 years, this resolution has urged States “to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including… all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation.”

Apart from Human Rights Council resolution 17/19, it is the only UN resolution to make specific reference to sexual orientation.

This year, the term “gender identity” was added to the list of categories vulnerable to extrajudicial killings.

At Tuesday’s session, the United Arab Emirates, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, presented an amendment that would have stripped the resolution of reference to “sexual orientation and gender identity” and substituted “or for any other reason.”

The UAE proposal was rejected in a vote with 44 votes in favor, 86 against, and 31 abstentions and 32 absent.

Another failed effort, led by the Holy See, would have stripped all specific references to groups at high risk for execution; however it was never formally introduced.

The Third Committee also retained language expressing “deep concern” over the continuing instances of arbitrary killing resulting from the use of capital punishment in a manner that violates international law, which some States led by Singapore attempted to have deleted. The Singapore proposal was rejected in a vote with 50 votes in favor, 78 against, and 37 abstentions and 30 absent.

The full resolution passed with 108 votes in favor, 1 against, 65 abstentions, and 19 absent.

Many governments, including Brazil, the United States and South Africa, among others, spoke out to condemn the proposed amendment to remove reference to sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Government of Japan ended the silence that has often characterized the Asian Group’s participation on LGBT rights at the UNGA by stating: “we cannot tolerate any killings of persons because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Our delegation voted against the proposed amendment to this paragraph because we think it is meaningful to mention such killings from the perspective of protecting the rights of LGBT people.”

Some governments condemned the reference to sexual orientation and gender identity, including Sudan on behalf of the Arab Group, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

Trinidad and Tobago stated that specific reference to “gender identity” presented a “particular challenge” for the country.

Speaking frequently, the Government of Egypt stated that it was “gravely alarmed at the attempt to legitimate undetermined concepts like gender identity” by equating them with other forms of discrimination such as that based on race, color, sex, religion, and language.  In reference to sexual orientation and gender identity, Egypt stated: “we are alarmed at the attempts to make new rights or new standards.”

The vote affirms the resolution’s dramatic conclusion in 2010. At that time, the Third Committee removed the reference to “sexual orientation” by a vote of 79 in favor, 70 opposed, with 17 abstaining and 26 not voting and was silent on “gender identity.”

However, in a remarkable turn of events, the resolution was later introduced before the full General Assembly, which voted to reinstate the language by passing it 93 to 55, with 27 abstentions and 17 absent or not voting.

The states’ decision on Tuesday to support the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and introduce “gender identity” into the resolution is one more in a series of positive developments the UN and in regional human rights systems where there is increasingly recognition of the need for protection from discrimination regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The successful expansion of the resolution to include “gender identity” on Transgender Day of Remembrance, a day dedicated to those murdered as a result of their gender identity or expression, was particularly significant.

Contact:

Allison Jernow, t +41 22 979 38 23, e-mail: allison.jernow@icj.org

NOTE:

The vote

  • For a full vote on the Singapore Amendment, click here.  For a photograph of the vote, click here.
  • For a full vote on the United Arab Emirates Amendment to remove sexual orientation and gender identity, click here.  For a photograph of the vote, click here.
  • For a full vote on the passage of the Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions Resolutions, click here.  For a photograph of the vote, click here.
Ukraine: draft law no. 8711 on “homosexual propaganda” violates human rights

Ukraine: draft law no. 8711 on “homosexual propaganda” violates human rights

The Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, voted on 2 October 2012 in favor of a bill that would ban “homosexual propaganda”. The ICJ and ILGA-Europe have condemned the draft law and called on Ukrainian authorities not to adopt it. Two hundred and eighty-nine out of 450 members of parliament supported the bill, which is now expected to move for a second round of reading in parliament later this month.

The organisations are deeply concerned about the impact of Draft Law no. 8711 on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Ukraine as well as the rights of everyone to the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association. ICJ and ILGA-Europe urge the Ukrainian parliament to withdraw the bill from its agenda and call on the Chair of the Parliament and the President, who would both need to sign the bill in order for it to become law, to speak out against it.

The bill would modify several existing laws in Ukraine, including criminal law, and introduce sanctions for the import, production and distribution of products that would “promote” homosexuality. “Promotion of homosexuality” is itself undefined.  “If voted into law, it would lead to the further marginalisation of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans community in the country and would limit the work of human rights defenders,” Evelyne Paradis, Executive Director of ILGA-Europe said.

 ILGA-Europe and the ICJ believe that Draft Law no. 8711 is incompatible with international human rights law. First it is so vague that it fails to conform to the requirement that restrictions must be provided for by law. Under the draft law, it is impossible for an individual to determine what kind of expression is banned. Second, the asserted reasons for the “homosexual propaganda” ban fail the tests of proportionality and necessity.  In other words, the restriction serves no permissible purpose. Third and finally, the homosexual propaganda ban discriminates against LGBT people by prohibiting public discourse on issues that matter to LGBT lives. “Restrictions on rights may not be discriminatory, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is clearly prohibited under international law,” said Alli Jernow, Senior Legal Adviser of the International Commission of Jurists.

The EU should raise these developments in the context of the monitoring of the implementation of the Visa Liberalisation Action Plan. Parliamentary discussion of this law clearly demonstrates that progress is stalled.  If the bill passes a second reading, further negotiations with Ukraine should be delayed or ultimately suspended.  We also call on the Council of Europe to unequivocally denounce Draft Law no. 8711 in representations to the Ukrainian government.

 The law is expected to be discussed at a second hearing in the coming weeks. After that the Chair of the Parliament and the President would need to sign the bill before it would become official law.

ICJ and ILGA-Europe earlier this year issued a joint briefing paper on “homosexual propaganda bans” that have been enacted or proposed in Europe and other Eastern European countries.

Photo credit:  Insight NGO

The ICJ welcomes historic decision in Atala v. Chile

The ICJ welcomes historic decision in Atala v. Chile

The ICJ is pleased with the decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that parental sexual orientation is not a factor in child custody cases.

On 20 March the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that parental sexual orientation is not a factor in child custody cases and that Chile had violated Karen Atala’s rights to equality, non-discrimination and privacy when the Supreme Court of Chile removed custody of her three daughters from her because she had begun a relationship with another woman.

In its first sexual orientation case, the Court held that sexual orientation is a protected ground, included under “other social condition” in Article 1 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

The Court further stated that the best interests of the child test could not be used as a pretext for prohibited discrimination in custody cases.

The Court also found that the Supreme Court of Chile’s reliance on stereotypes and prejudices was a violation of the State’s obligation to protect rights. Finally, the Court stated that the American Convention did not protect a specific form of traditional family and that states must recognize diverse family structures.

The International Commission of Jurists was called by the Inter-American Commission as an expert and submitted written and oral testimony on the role of parental sexual orientation as a factor in child custody cases.
Decision:

(http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_239_esp.pdf)

Expert Submission:

(https://www.icj.org/dwn/database/Jernow%20Written%20Submission.pdf)

Translate »