Submission in the case of Sabalić v. Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights granted permission to the AIRE Centre, ILGA-Europe and the ICJ for a third-party intervention in the case of Pavla Sabalić v. Croatia (Application No. 50231/13).
Australian Court: Resort cannot use religion to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
The ICJ welcomes the 16 April 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeal of Victoria, Australia, in Christian Youth Camps Ltd & Anor v Cobaw Community Health Services Ltd & Ors [2014] VSCA 75. The ICJ intervened as amicus curiae in the case.
ICJ submission to the UN Secretary-General on the question of the death penalty
The ICJ has submitted a briefing to the UN Secretary-General on capital punishment in connection with real or purported engagement in consensual sexual relations, in view of his forthcoming report on the question of the death penalty to the Human Rights Council.
The submission focuses on country developments regarding the retention, imposition and carrying out of capital punishment in connection with real or purported engagement in consensual sexual relations.
The ICJ opposes the death penalty under any circumstances and considers that laws criminalizing real or purported engagement by adults in consensual sexual relations contravene international human rights law and standards.
The UN Secretary-General will submit his report to the 27th session of the Human Rights Council (September 2014), covering developments between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014 on the question of the death penalty.
SGreportDeathPenalty-AnalysisBrief-2014
Justice Sir Nicolas Bratza and Professor César Landa join the ICJ
The ICJ is delighted to announce that two new Commissioners were elected in December 2013: Justice Sir Nicolas Bratza (UK) and Professor César Landa (Peru).
Justice Sir Nicolas Bratza is a former President of the European Court of Human Rights. His term on the court ended on 31 October 2012, and he resigned as a Justice of the High Court on 1 November 2012.
Professor César Landa is the Dean of the Faculty of Law at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru. Prior to this, Processor Landa was the President of the Constitutional Court of Peru. He also served as a Judge on the Constitutional Court.
In a year of significant change within the ICJ Commission, Justice Bratza and Professor Landa are the 14th and 15th new members to join the Commission in 2013.
Biographies for all our Commissioners can be found here.
India: appalling judgment recriminalizes same-sex consensual acts between adults in private
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.
Recent News
El Salvador: Crimes against humanity within the framework of public security policy11 Mar 2026
HRC61: Joint oral statement of The ICJ in the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Counter-terrorism and Human Rights11 Mar 2026
A Human Rights-Based Approach to Decriminalizing Conduct Associated with Poverty and Status10 Mar 2026
HRC61: Oral statement of The ICJ in the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities06 Mar 2026