Jul 17, 2019 | News
On 16 July 2019, the European Court of Human Rights found Russia’s refusal to register associations set up to promote and protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people to violate the rights to freedom of association and to be discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The Court’s judgment was informed by a third party intervention submitted jointly by the ICJ, the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) and ILGA-Europe on 29 July 2016.
The cases were brought by Russian individuals and non-profit organizations (Rainbow House, Movement for Marriage Equality and Sochi Pride House) (Zhadanov and others v. Russia).
The organizations’ registration requests were refused by the authorities and the domestic courts because of formal irregularities in their applications and because their aim was to promote LGBT rights.
In a unanimous judgment, the Court reiterated the importance for individuals to be able to join together to act collectively and establish legal entities. Rejecting as “unconvincing” the Government’s assertion that the applications were refused on procedural grounds, the Court found that in order to obtain registration the organizations would have had to renounce their aims of promoting LGBT rights: “Those grounds touched upon the very core of the applicant organisations and affected the essence of the right to freedom of association”.
Referring to Russia’s submission that the organisations were refused registration to prevent social or religious hatred and disorder, the Court reminded States that they have a positive duty to guarantee the proper functioning of associations, even when they annoy or give offence.
In the present case, rather than taking steps to enable the organizations to carry out their activities without fear of violence, the authorities instead “decided to remove the cause of the tension and avert a risk of disorder by restricting the applicants’ freedom of association”.
The Court therefore found the refusal to register the organizations was not necessary in a democratic society (in breach of Article 11 ECHR).
Having found that the decisive ground for refusing the organizations’ applications for registration was their aim of promoting LGBT rights, the Court held that the applicants had suffered a difference in treatment based on their sexual orientation which could not be reasonably or objectively justified (in breach of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 11).
EHRAC, ILGA-Europe and ICJ’s joint intervention, drafted by Jeremy McBride QC of Monckton Chambers (UK), focused on the extent of legitimate restrictions on the right to freedom of association for the protection of morals, arguing that it was impossible to protect individual rights if citizens were unable to create associations to defend common interests and needs.
It submitted that any restrictions on this right should be strongly justified and legitimate aims which permitted interference should be interpreted narrowly.
“This judgment reaffirms the vital importance for individuals to be able to group together and organize themselves around shared causes. States must act positively to ensure that this right is meaningful, particularly when people belong to vulnerable or marginalised minority groups or hold unpopular views,” said Joanne Sawyer, Lawyer, EHRAC.
“We are very pleased with European Court’s pioneering judgment confirming the vital right to freedom of association for those promoting rights of LGBTI people. This judgment sends a key message to LGBTI activists in Russia and other countries across Europe who are facing similar discriminatory restrictions – refusal to register associations cannot be justified on the ground of protection of morals,” said Arpi Avetisyan, Senior Litigation Officer, ILGA-Europe.
“The ICJ welcomes the Court’s conclusion that Russia’s refusal to register associations established to promote and protect the human rights of LGBT people cannot be justified on the grounds of protecting moral values or the institutions of the family and marriage,” added Livio Zilli, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser.
Jul 12, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ joined other NGOs in an end-of-session statement, highlighting the achievements and shortfalls of the 41st Ordinary Session of the UN Human Rights Council, 24 June – 12 July 2019.
The statement, delivered by International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), reads as follows:
By renewing the mandate of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), the Council has sent a clear message that violence and discrimination against people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities cannot be tolerated. It reaffirmed that specific, sustained and systematic attention is needed to address these human rights violations and ensure that LGBT people can live a life of dignity. We welcome the Core Group’s commitment to engage in dialogue with all States, resulting in 50 original co-sponsors across all regions. However, we regret that some States have again attempted to prevent the Council from addressing discrimination and violence on the basis of SOGI.
The Council session also sent a clear message that Council membership comes with scrutiny by addressing the situations of Eritrea, the Philippines, China, Saudi Arabia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This shows the potential the Council has to leverage its membership to become more effective and responsive to rights holders and victims.
The Council did the right thing by extending its monitoring of the situation in Eritrea. The onus is on the Eritrean Government to cooperate with Council mechanisms, including the Special Rapporteur, in line with its membership obligations.
We welcome the first Council resolution on the Philippines as an important first step towards justice and accountability. We urge the Council to closely follow this situation and be ready to follow up with additional action, if the situation does not improve or deteriorates further. We deeply regret that such a resolution was necessary, due to the continuation of serious violations and repeated refusal of the Philippines – despite its membership of the Council– to cooperate with existing mechanisms.
We deplore that Council members, such as the Philippines and Eritrea, sought to use their seats in this Council to seek to shield themselves from scrutiny, and those States[1] who stand with the authorities and perpetrators who continue to commit grave violations with impunity, rather than with the victims.
We welcome the written statement by 22 States on China expressing collective concern over widespread surveillance, restrictions to freedoms of religion and movement, and large-scale arbitrary detention of Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We consider it as a first step towards sustained Council attention and in the absence of progress look to those governments that have signed this letter to follow up at the September session with a resolution calling for China to allow access to the region to independent human rights experts and to end country-wide the arbitrary detention of individuals based on their religious beliefs or political opinions.
We welcome the progress made in resolutions on the rights of women and girls: violence against women and girls in the world of work, on discrimination against women and girls and on the consequences of child, early and forced marriage. We particularly welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls under its new name and mandate to focus on the intersections of gender and age and their impact on girls. The Council showed that it was willing to stand up to the global backlash against the rights of women and girls by ensuring that these resolutions reflect the current international legal framework and to resist cultural relativism, despite several amendments put forward to try and weaken the strong content of these resolutions.
However, in the text on the contribution of development to the enjoyment of all human rights, long standing consensus language from the Vienna Declaration for Programme of Action (VDPA) recognising that, at the same time, “the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights” has again been deliberately excluded disturbing the careful balance established and maintained for several decades on this issue.
We welcome the continuous engagement of the Council in addressing the threat posed by climate change to human rights, through its annual resolution and the panel discussion on women’s rights and climate change at this session. We call on the Council to continue to strengthen its work on this issue, given its increasing urgency for the protection of all human rights.
The Council has missed an opportunity on Sudan where it could have supported regional efforts and ensured that human rights are not sidelined in the process. We now look to African leadership to ensure that human rights are upheld in the transition. The Council should stand ready to act, including through setting up a full-fledged inquiry into all instances of violence against peaceful protesters and civilians across the country.
During the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial and summary executions, States heard loud and clear that the time to hold Saudi Arabia accountable is now for the extrajudicial killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. We recall that women human rights defenders continue to be arbitrarily detained despite the calls by 36 States at the March session. We urge States to adopt a resolution at the September session to establish a monitoring mechanism over the human rights situation in the country.
We welcome the landmark report of the High Commissioner on the situation for human rights in Venezuela; in response to the grave findings in the report and the absence of any fundamental improvement of the situation in the meantime, we urge the Council to adopt a Commission of Inquiry or similar mechanism in September, to reinforce the ongoing efforts of the High Commissioner and other actors to address the situation.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate on the freedom of peaceful assembly and association. This mandate is at the core of our work as civil society and we trust that the mandate will continue to protect and promote these fundamental freedoms towards a more open civic space.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus. We acknowledge some positive signs of re-engagement in dialogue by Belarus, and an attempted negotiation process with the EU on a potential Item 10 resolution. However, in the absence of systemic human rights reforms in Belarus, the mandate and resolution process remains an essential tool for Belarusian civil society. In addition, there are fears of a spike in violations around upcoming elections and we are pleased that the resolution highlights the need for Belarus to provide safeguards against such an increase.
We welcome the renewal of the quarterly reporting process on the human rights situation in Ukraine. However, we also urge States to think creatively about how best to use this regular mechanism on Ukraine to make better progress on the human rights situation.
The continued delay in the release of the UN database of businesses engaged with Israeli settlements established pursuant to Council resolution 31/36 in March 2016 is of deep concern. We join others including Tunisia speaking on behalf of 65 states and Peru speaking on behalf of 26 States in calling on the High Commissioner to urgently and fully fulfil this mandate as a matter of urgency and on all States to cooperate with all Council mandates, including this one, and without political interference.
Numerous States and stakeholders highlighted the importance of the OHCHR report on Kashmir; while its release only a few days ago meant it did not receive substantive consideration at the present session, we look forward to discussing it in depth at the September session.
Finally, we welcome the principled leadership shown by Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, in pursuing accountability for individual victims of acts of intimidation and reprisals under General Debate Item 5, contrasting with other States which tend to make only general statements of concern, and call on States to raise all individual cases at the interactive dialogue on reprisals and intimidation in the September session.
(text in italics was not read out due to the limited time)
Signatories:
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
- Amnesty International
- ARTICLE 19
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
- Center for Reproductive Rights
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Franciscans International
- Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
- Human Rights House Foundation
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
- International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)
[1] States who voted against the resolution on Eritrea: Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Iraq, India, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Philippines and Pakistan.
States who voted against the resolution on the Philippines: Angola, Bahrain, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Hungary, Iraq, India, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and the Philippines.
Jul 1, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted the negative impacts of criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission, on human rights, as well as an ongoing initiative to develop a set of relevant principles, at the UN Human Rights Council.
The oral statement, delivered during the General Debate under Agenda Item 3, was titled “Developing principles to address the detrimental impact on health, equality and human rights of criminalization with a focus on select conduct in the areas of sexuality, reproduction, drug use and HIV” and read as follows:
“The ICJ welcomes the High Commissioner’s report (A/HRC/41/27) on human rights in the response to HIV.
Unjust criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission is a barrier to the realization of human rights – fostering stigma, discrimination, violence and abuse.
Last year, the ICJ – supported by UNAIDS, OHCHR and UNDP – convened a meeting of jurists to address the harmful effects of misuse of criminal law in relation to HIV and other issues.
The meeting endorsed civil society’s call for jurists to elaborate a set of principles to assist legislatures, the courts, administrative and prosecutorial authorities, and advocates address the deleterious impact on health, equality, and human rights of criminalization in a range of areas. In addition to HIV, jurists concluded the principles should address criminalization of sexual and reproductive healthcare services, including abortion; criminalization of consensual sexual conduct, including sex work, sex outside marriage, same-sex relations, and adolescent sexual activity; and criminalization of drug use and of possession of drugs for personal use.
To ensure the jurists’ principles are effective and protect the most at-risk individuals, the process for developing them is as important as the content of the principles themselves. Thus, broad consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including national and international civil society organizations, UN human rights mandate holders and UN agencies, is ongoing.”
Jun 24, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At the UN, the ICJ today highlighted the rights and duties of judges and prosecutors to exercise their freedoms of expression, assembly and association to defend the rule of law and human rights.
The oral statement was delivered in a Clustered Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
It read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers on freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly of judges and prosecutors.[1]
As the report acknowledges, exercise of these rights can be subject to restrictions arising from the fundamental need for judges and prosecutors to be perceived as independent and impartial. At the same time, as the report also emphasizes, any such restrictions must be provided by law and be demonstrably necessary to such legitimate aims, which in turn crucially requires proportionality.[2] These standards have been recognized both globally and in all regions of the world.[3] Any such restrictions on judges should be adopted and enforced by the judiciary itself.
We particularly welcome the recognition in the report that in situations where democracy and the rule of law are under threat, judges and prosecutors have not only the right, but potentially a duty, to speak out and organize in defence of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, and that this can include participating in peaceful public demonstrations.[4]
Far too often in the ICJ’s work around the world, we see Executive and Legislative bodies, as well as compromised judicial hierarchies, arbitrarily or selectively targeting judges and prosecutors for removal, demotion or other disciplinary measures, precisely for exercising these rights to defend against threats to the rule of law. Examples highlighted in our submission to your study included Egypt, Morocco, Honduras, Hungary and Bulgaria.[5]
Mr. Rapporteur, how can judiciaries, governments, and civil society organisations (including international or regional legal professional associations) act internationally to support judges and prosecutors who are facing such abuse in another country?
The ICJ also welcomes the reports of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We urge all States to strongly support the renewal of this essential mandate at the current session.
Thank you.”
[1] ICJ’s detailed submission to the Special Rapporteur’s consultation is available at: https://www.icj.org/judgesexpression2019/
[2] Paragraphs 39, 45, 46, 89.
[3] In addition to the global and European, Asian, and American standards cited in the report, see the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2005), paras A(4)(s) and (t), and F(d) and (e).
[4] Paragraphs 61, 69, 90, 102.
[5] See for further information: https://www.icj.org/judgesexpression2019/
Jun 13, 2019 | News
The ICJ today applauded the 11 June judgment of the Botswana High Court striking down criminal law provisions criminalizing same-sex relations.
Rightly, the Court considered that, notwithstanding the fact that the provisions at issues on their face criminalized consensual anal penetration, irrespective of the gender of those involved, the law did in fact target and disproportionately affect same-sex relations.
The judgment follows shortly after the Kenyan High Court refused to invalidate an almost identical criminal provision in judgment handed down on 24 May.
“The Botswana High Court’s judgment reaffirms the universality of the rights to be free from discrimination, dignity, privacy and equality, and directly rebuts the often-made false claim that homosexuality is ‘un-African’,” said ICJ Africa Director Arnold Tsunga.
“The ICJ commends the Court, and encourages all African states to repeal archaic criminal provisions criminalizing same-sex sexual intercourse often introduced into their legal systems by colonial powers,” he added.
In a decision referencing international human rights law and standards, and citing a growing wave of global jurisprudence on the unconstitutionality of the criminalization of consensual same-sex relations, identity and expression, the Court concluded that sections 164(a); 164(c), 165 and 167 of the Botswana Penal Code violated the rights to dignity, liberty and equality of homosexual men.
Letsweletse Motshidiemang, a 24 year-old university student who identifies as homosexual, and is currently in a relationship with a man, brought the case before the Court. Advocacy organization “Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals Of Botswana” (LEGABIBO) was admitted as amicus curiae, and supported Motshidiemang’s case.
Despite partial legislative recognition of the need to protect people’s rights, regardless of sexual orientation, and comments made by Botswana President Mokgweetsi Masisi late last year that, “there are also many people of same sex relationships in this country, who have been violated and have also suffered in silence for fear of being discriminated. Just like other citizens, they deserve to have their rights protected”, the Attorney General (AG) had opposed Motshidiemang’s challenge, describing the case as “cry babies”.
In a fitting rebuke of this position, the Court indicated that the AG had not produced a “scintilla or iota of justification” for its defense of the offending provisions and, instead relied on “bare assertion and/or speculations” about public morality.
Given the substantial evidence presented to the Court by the applicant and amicus curiae about the harmful effects of continued criminalization of same-sex relations, the Court observed that it “perpetuates stigma and shame against homosexuals and renders them recluse and outcasts”, finding that “there is no victim in consensual same sex intercourse inter se adults”.
Concluding that such discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons violates sexual autonomy and their “right to choose a sexual partner” the Court found that the provisions go “to the core of [homosexual persons’] worth as a human being[s] and “pollutes compassion” in Botswanan society.
“The judgment is a victory for LGBT persons in Botswana whose consistent advocacy ground firmly in human rights should be applauded. This judgment should catalyze further action from the Botswana authorities to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights by LGBT persons in Botswana,” said Tsunga.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director, t: +63 77 728 3249 ; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Timothy Fish Hodgson, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +27828719905 ; e: timothy.hodgson(a)icj.org
