Jul 21, 2019
On 19 July, the ICJ, jointly with ILGA Europe, FIDH, KPH and NELFA submitted a third-party intervention in the case of X. v. Poland before the European Court of Human Rights.
The case concerns the refusal of the Polish authorities to grant a lesbian mother custody of her children.
It raises issues concerning whether such a refusal is the result of discrimination on the grounds of her sexual orientation, and therefore, as such, would constitute prohibited discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 8.
In the brief, the ICJ, together with its partners, set forth the current status of play of the case-law related but not limited to child custody decisions where one or both of the parents are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex (LGBTI) individuals.
The third-party interveners have urged the Court to build upon its recent jurisprudence asserting and protecting the rights of LGBTI persons by drawing on its approach to consider the European Convention on Human Rights as a living instrument that needs to be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions.
Europe-X v Poland_TPI-Advocacy-Legal submissions-2019-ENG (full intervention, in PDF)
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 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 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
May 20, 2019 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ has made a submission to Ms. Karima Bennoune, the United Nations Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights (“Special Rapporteur”) in response to a call for submission, in advance of her forthcoming report to the General Assembly on how actors from across the cultural ecosystem access and use public spaces and the impact this has on their cultural rights.
ICJ’s submission draws on its ongoing work on the human rights of LGBTQ persons in India and includes findings from the ICJ’s forthcoming report on the rights of LGBTQ persons in the home, at work and in public spaces. The ICJ, concludes that LGBTQ persons’ rights to adequate housing, decent work, and equal access to public spaces are frequently violated throughout India.
The interviews conducted by the ICJ reveals that LGBTQ persons have challenges in accessing a variety of public spaces including streets, public transport, sanitation facilities, cultural and religious events, parks and shopping malls, challenges which are not faced by, or not faced in the same way by, non-LGBTQ persons. The ICJ submits that these findings are in contravention of Indian constitutional law and international human rights law.
Read the full submission here.
