Nov 7, 2023
An opinion piece by Mathuri Thamilmaran, National Legal Advisor – Sri Lanka at the International Commission of Jurists
Recently, the Mauritius Supreme Court ruled that a 185-year-old law criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual conduct was unconstitutional. This latest ruling adds Mauritius to the growing number of States where, in the past few years, consensual same-sex sexual relations have been decriminalized, either through the adoption of specific legislation or as a result of judicial decisions. It is anticipated – and very much hoped – that Sri Lanka will join this global wave of change in the coming months.
Like Sri Lanka, most of these States had laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual conduct originally imposed on them as a result of colonial rule. The British introduced the Penal Code in 1833, when Sri Lanka (Ceylon) was still a British colony. The Sri Lankan Penal Code was modeled on the Indian Penal Code of 1860. While three colonial powers – the Portuguese, the Dutch and the British – had ruled Sri Lanka, it was the British who codified the criminalization of consensual same-sex sexual conduct through the introduction of criminal provisions proscribing “unnatural offences”, namely, “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” (section 365) and “gross indecency” (section 365A) in the Sri Lankan Penal Code. None of these terms has been defined in the law but, in practice, they have been interpreted and applied to those who engage in consensual same-sex sexual conduct or are perceived to do so.
Sri Lanka gained independence from the British in 1948. But, 140 years since their enactment, these penal provisions continue to be in place with a few amendments and, while rarely enforced, they have been used as a tool of harassment, blackmail and persecution against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and non-binary persons by State and non-State actors alike. Criminalizing same-sex sexual conduct between two consenting individuals only serves to perpetuate discrimination, violence and stigma motivated in whole or in part by ignorance of, prejudice and hatred against real or imputed same-sex sexual orientation.
Human Rights violations and abuses against LGBT and non-binary persons in Sri Lanka have been documented by many Sri Lankan civil society organizations throughout the years. For example, criminalization of consensual same-sex sexual conduct has been shown to lead to instances of extortion by both public and private actors. Another documented detrimental impact of criminalization relates to the right of access to health care of the individuals concerned, while raising more broadly public health concerns. Branded “criminals” by the law, LGBT and non-binary persons are less likely to access health services due to fear of being outed, discrimination, stigma and opprobrium, thus making it harder for them, for example, to receive vital messages about safe sexual conduct and HIV/ AIDS prevention.
Sri Lanka is a State party to all core international human rights treaties and to some of their protocols and it is thus bound by international human rights law. The latter enshrines the principle of non-discrimination and guarantees to everyone the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law without discrimination in law and in practice. The UN Human Rights Committee has called upon States to ensure that their domestic law comply with the prohibition against discrimination, including the obligation not to discriminate against a person on prohibited grounds such as “race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. In Young v. Australia (2003) the Committee held that the prohibition against discrimination under Article 26 of the ICCPR Covenant comprises also discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In 2022, while addressing the Human Rights Committee, the Sri Lankan government stated that Article 12 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka included non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Such a statement is contradicted by the criminal provisions proscribing consensual same-sex sexual conduct, and by the documented human rights violations and abuses committed against LGBT and non-binary persons over the years. The Committee, in its Concluding Observations published in April 2023, expressed concern that “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons continue to face criminalization under sections 365, 365A and 399 of the Penal Code and discrimination on a daily basis, including in accessing health care, employment and housing” and that they are “victims of arbitrary arrests and detention and are subjected to forced anal examinations in an attempt to gather evidence for prosecutions for same-sex conduct.” The Committee called upon the government to repeal the aforesaid legal provisions, to protect LGBT persons from discrimination of any kind, and to combat negative stereotypes and prejudice against them through training and awareness programmes.
Further, in 2023, during its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the Human Rights Council, Sri Lanka stated that a number of criminal proceedings had been revisited on grounds of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Working Group of the UPR subsequently made recommendations to decriminalize same-sex sexual conduct. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka did not explicitly accept such recommendations and instead only took note of them. The UPR recommendations echo the recommendation made by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) in 2022 that the criminalization of consensual same-sex sexual conduct between women under section 365A of the Penal Code violated their right to non-discrimination and therefore Sri Lanka should decriminalize consensual same-sex sexual conduct between women. In light of this, the continued criminalization of consensual same-sex sexual relations puts Sri Lanka at odds with its international human rights law obligations and erodes its credibility on the global stage.
In May 2023, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka published its Special Determination on the constitutionality of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill of 2023, whose stated objective is to repeal “provisions that make sexual orientation a punishable offence”. The recognition, for the first time, by the country’s highest court that the criminalization of homosexuality was an affront to the rights of equality and non-discrimination, dignity and privacy of a person, among others, was a watershed moment for human rights activists who had worked with LGBT persons in pursuit of this outcome. The Supreme Court’s determination also put to rest unsubstantiated rhetoric depicting homosexuality as a threat to society. On the strength of the Supreme Court’s determination that the Bill is constitutional, the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill now requires a simple majority in Parliament to pass and become law.
Parliament is expected to vote on the Bill in the coming months. It is a private member’s Bill tabled in Parliament by parliamentarian Premnath Dolawatte. Under the Bill, section 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code of 1883 will be repealed and replaced with reference only to “bestiality” as an “unnatural offence”, while section 365A will be fully repealed.
It is heartening to witness States around the globe reconsider and rectify outdated laws that stigmatize and criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relations. Sri Lanka should not hesitate to follow suit and finally take that vital stride towards a more just and inclusive society. Decriminalization of consensual same-sex sexual conduct would send a powerful message that Sri Lanka recognizes and respects the autonomy of individuals to choose their partners and live their lives authentically. The Supreme Court has taken the first step in that direction, it is now time for the Sri Lankan Parliament to ensure that the Bill is passed.
Nov 7, 2023
Yesterday, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and Amnesty International (AI) jointly submitted an amicus curiae legal brief to the Bangkok South Civil Court in a class-action lawsuit filed by two residents of Cambodian villages, representing at least 23 families out of a potential class of more than 700 affected families in the Oddar Meanchey Province, Cambodia, against Mitr Phol Sugar Corporation Ltd., a Thai company.
This lawsuit, based on Thai and Cambodian tort laws, alleges human rights abuses committed by Mitr Phol’s apparent subsidiary in Cambodia, Angkor Sugar Co. Ltd.
In 2008, Angkor Sugar Co. Ltd. was granted an economic land concession to operate an industrial sugar plant in Oddar Meanchey Province. The complaint alleges that after the concession was granted, Angkor Sugar Co. Ltd. colluded with local authorities to forcibly seize land held by individuals from local communities, resulting in the destruction of their houses, the burning of villages and crops, and physical harm to some villagers.
This marks the first-ever class-action lawsuit filed in Thai courts by plaintiffs from another country for abuses committed by a Thai company outside of Thailand.
Today, the Court held a session to examine the list of evidence submitted by both parties. The next appointment date will be on 27 March 2024 for the examination of evidence, after which the court will set the witness examination date.
The ICJ/AI amicus brief sets out the principal applicable international human rights law and standards, and comparative jurisprudence for the Thai court to consider in resolving this case. The organizations submit that the human rights responsibilities of a parent company, such as Mitr Phol, extend beyond its own conduct to include the activities of subordinate entities. To this end, Mitr Phol has a duty to exercise due diligence in monitoring and controlling their subsidiaries in Cambodia, whose conduct they may influence. Failure to carry out this due diligence should result in liability as a consequence of the actions of their subsidiaries.
The brief also highlights that under international standards, business enterprises have a responsibility to respect all internationally recognized human rights wherever they operate, such as the right to adequate housing.
The Thai court itself also has a duty that extends beyond the national borders of Thailand to ensure access to justice, effective remedy, and reparation for individuals from communities living in proximity to the operations of Thai companies and their subsidiaries in other countries when their rights are violated.
The need to apply international human rights standards is recognized by the government of Thailand, as evidenced in the adoption of its National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, and is also recognized by Mitr Phol through the company’s Code of Conduct.
Background
Victims of corporate human rights abuses face multiple barriers in holding companies to account and securing access to justice.
Although this case is the first of its kind in Thai courts, in recent years, other cases involving human rights abuses committed by Thai state-owned enterprises abroad were brought to Thai courts by Thai citizens, but they ended with limited success. These cases included an unsuccessful lawsuit brought by Thai villagers against Thai governmental agencies regarding the construction of the Xayaburi Dam in Lao PDR and its transboundary environmental destruction affecting communities in Thailand.
The limitations identified encompass the legal nature of corporations, evidentiary challenges, conflict of laws, and statutes of limitation.
Despite calls from CSOs to initially address the weak implementation of the first NAP, Thailand’s Second National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2023-2027) was endorsed by the Thai Cabinet on 25 July 2023.
The NAP identifies ‘cross-border investment and multinational enterprises’ as one of the four key priority issues in the NAP. The Second NAP includes an action point that requests the Ministry of Justice to “study and recommend amendments to the laws or propose measures to ensure access to justice and effective civil, criminal and administrative remedies for local and overseas communities within the areas where companies or Thai state-owned enterprises operate and are affected by such operations.”
The submission in English can be downloaded here
The submission in Thai can be downloaded here
Further reading
Thailand: Barriers persist in access to justice for victims of human rights abuses involving Thai transnational corporations abroad – ICJ report
Contact
Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ Associate International Legal Adviser, e: sanhawan.srisod@icj.org
Nov 6, 2023 | News
Today, the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) opens its 71st Ordinary Session. To mark the occasion, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), in collaboration with inkyfada, looks back at AfCHPR’s September 2022 judgement against Tunisia, in which it ordered the republic to return to constitutional democracy and establish an independent constitutional court. The ICJ examines the impact of the judgement on human rights in Tunisia, and how individuals can operationalize the AfCHPR to challenge the curtailment of fundamental freedoms, judicial independence and rule of law in Tunisia.
ICJ’s questions and answers:
It has been more than a year since the African Court on Human and People’s rights issued its judgment in case No. 017/2021, “Ibrahim Ben Mohamed Ben Brahim Belguith v. Republic of Tunisia”, of 22 September 2022. The case was brought by Mr. Belguith, a national of Tunisia and a lawyer, who complained of violations of his rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other human rights instruments as a result of the promulgation of several Tunisian presidential decrees adopted under the “state of exception” pursuant to article 80 of the 2014 Constitution since 25 July 2021. In this judgment, the African Court ordered Tunisia to repeal these decrees, to return to constitutional democracy within two years and to ensure the establishment and operation of an independent constitutional court within the same period.
What does this judgment mean and why is it important for the rule of law and human rights in Tunisia? The ICJ provides answers in the Q&A below:
-
- What is the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights?
* The African Union
* The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
* The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
* The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
* Tunisia’s adherence to the African Human Rights System
-
- Why was the African Court seized of the situation in Tunisia? Contextual overview
* President Kais Saied’s power grab of 25 July 2021
* The absence of a Constitutional Court
-
- What did the 22 September 2022 judgment rule?
* How the African Court came to rule on the matter: the application
* What the judgment ruled:
-
- What are the next steps?
* Implementation
* Other complaints against Tunisia pending before the African Court
Download the full Q&A in English here
Download the full Q&A in French here
Download the full Q&A in Arabic here
Nov 3, 2023 | News
Former Deputies and Mayors Face Prosecution and Prolonged Incarceration for Political Speech.
The Turkish government should abide by international law and implement the binding judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) by immediately releasing politicians Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ, who formerly co-chaired the opposition Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), four rights organizations said today.
The four nongovernmental organizations—Human Rights Watch, the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, the International Commission of Jurists, and the International Federation for Human Rights—made their call on the seventh anniversary of the politicians’ wrongful imprisonment.
“The seventh anniversary of the unlawful incarceration of Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ is a stark reminder of the Erdoğan presidency’s willingness to use detention for political ends to silence democratically elected opposition politicians representing millions of Kurdish and leftist voters in Turkey,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “In defying the binding ECtHR judgments ordering the politicians’ release, Turkey is flagrantly violating its legal obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and international law more broadly.”
On November 4, 2016, months after being stripped of their parliamentary immunity, Demirtaş, Yüksekdağ and eight fellow members of parliament from the HDP were arbitrarily detained and placed in pretrial detention, with four others incarcerated over the following five months. At the time, the HDP held 10.7 percent of seats in Turkey’s parliament and was backed by over five million voters. While the 12 other deputies whose cases are covered in the ECtHR judgments are no longer in detention, Demirtaş and Yüksekdağ remain incarcerated.
All the former parliamentarians have been repeatedly prosecuted in individual proceedings based exclusively on their exercise of their right to freedom of expression, protected under international law. This included their political speeches and activities, which did not involve or advocate violence. When a mass trial was opened against them in 2021, many of those ongoing individual case files were merged. The vague and wide-reaching accusations against them in this trial include allegations of “undermining the unity and territorial integrity of the State” (separatism) and even “murder.” These accusations relate to their support for protests that mainly took place in cities in southeast Turkey between October 6 and 8, 2014. The politicians have been held responsible for all offences allegedly committed over the course of these protests, which were organized against the brutal siege of the Kurdish-majority northern Syrian town of Kobane by the extremist armed group Islamic State (also known as ISIS). During the protests, 37 people reportedly died.
The evidence against the politicians, on the basis of which Demirtaş and Yüksekdağ are currently detained, consists of two social media postings supporting protests over the Kobane siege sent from the HDP Twitter account, together with the politicians’ nonviolent political speeches, lawful activities, and witness statements against them added to the case file years later that raise serious questions of credibility.
The ECtHR determined in three judgments—two pertaining to Demirtaş in November 2018 and December 2020, and one to Yüksekdağ and 12 others in October 2022—that their detention on the basis of speeches and social media postings was a politically motivated move to silence them, “stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate, the very core of the concept of a democratic society.” The court found that their rights to liberty, to freedom of expression, and to be elected had been violated. The facts forming the basis on which Demirtaş and Yüksekdağ are detained and were prosecuted for in the 2021 mass trial are substantially the same as those contained in the proceedings which the ECtHR found to be insufficient grounds for their detention.
“Despite the European Court ruling that the grounds to justify Yüksekdağ and Demirtaş’s detention were insufficient, the Ankara public prosecutor in April 2023 requested their conviction on numerous alleged offences concerning their political speech, which may result in their life imprisonment without parole,” said Temur Shakirov, interim director of the International Commission of Jurists’ Europe and Central Asia Programme. “This underscores the ultimate political motives behind the ongoing case targeting the two and reinforces doubts about the fair administration of justice in the country.”
After Demirtaş and Yüksekdağ’s detentions in November 2016, Turkey held a landmark referendum and several crucial election campaigns. The April 16, 2017 constitutional referendum introduced a system of governance concentrating power in the hands of the president. It was followed by the June 24, 2018 presidential election in which Demirtaş ran as a candidate from his prison cell against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the March 31, 2019 local elections, and, most recently, the May 14-28, 2023 parliamentary and presidential elections.
“With two prominent figures of the opposition in detention, the country has been deprived of a significant measure of meaningful democratic debate and fair elections around these crucial campaigns,” said Reyhan Yalçındağ, vice president of the International Federation for Human Rights. “With the March 2024 local elections fast approaching, the Committee of Ministers and the other Council of Europe bodies need to use all available means to ensure the end of the continuing violations of Demirtaş’s and Yüksekdağ’s rights, including their rights to participation in public affairs, which is also a violation of the rights of millions of voters.”
The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, responsible for overseeing member states’ implementation of ECtHR judgements, has issued six decisions and two resolutions calling on Turkey to release Demirtaş from detention. At its December 5-7 session this year, the Committee of Ministers will for the third time examine Turkey’s failure to implement the judgment pertaining to Yüksekdağ and release her from detention.
The four nongovernmental organizations have made a joint submission to the Committee of Ministers asking it to issue a decision in December calling for the release of Yüksekdağ.
“Turkey has ignored the Committee’s numerous decisions and interim resolutions calling for Demirtaş’s immediate release. This refusal to comply with Turkey’s international obligations has been repeated in the case of Yüksekdağ,” said Ayşe Bingöl Demir, director of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project. “The Committee must intensify its scrutiny against Turkey in relation to these cases without further delay, and this must include the triggering of infringement proceedings, in line with the route rightly followed in the case of the imprisoned rights defender Osman Kavala.”
Eighteen other elected former party officials and mayors from the HDP and an affiliated party, the Democratic Regions Party, are also currently detained. Among them is the prominent former elected mayor of Diyarbakır, Gültan Kışanak, detained since October 25, 2016, and Sebahat Tuncel, former co-chair of the Democratic Regions Party, detained on November 6, 2016. Kışanak’s pretrial detention has exceeded the legal limit of seven years under Turkish law, notwithstanding that seven years’ pretrial detention is a flagrant violation of international human rights law. The detentions of the politicians are blatantly arbitrary and politically motivated, and those imprisoned should be immediately released, the organizations said.
Press release in Turkish: Turkey Demirtas and Yuksekdag press release TURKISH
Nov 2, 2023 | News
The International Commission of Jurists renews its call for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip following the most recent Israeli attacks on the densely populated Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza on 31 October and 1 November 2023.
According to the Gaza Health Ministry, the two strikes killed at least 195 people. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) claimed that the 31 October airstrike targeted and killed Ibrahim Biari, a claim Hamas denied. The IDF further claimed that Biari was one of the Hamas commanders responsible for the 7 October attacks in Israel.
Intentionally directing an attack against civilians or civilian objects or intentionally launching an attack knowing it will cause disproportionate civilian harm is a war crime. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern that these attacks may be “disproportionate attacks that could amount to war crimes”.
Gaza’s Health Ministry maintains that the number of Palestinians killed since 7 October has surpassed 9,000 and the Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed concern that more than 3,500 children have been killed.
The ICJ considers that an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire by all sides, and an immediate cessation of hostilities in the Gaza Strip, including direct, indirect and disproportionate attacks on civilians and civilian objects, are necessary to stop further loss of civilian life.
According to the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, there is already clear evidence that war crimes may have been committed in Israel and Gaza since 7 October.
In this regard, the ICJ notes the visit by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan KC, to the Rafah Crossing on the Gaza-Egypt border on 29 October 2023 and, in particular, commends his commitment to investigate the ongoing attacks, and his call for all further attacks to cease immediately. The Prosecutor confirmed that his Office has an ongoing investigation with jurisdiction over the Palestine situation, including current events in Gaza.
In light of the above, the ICJ considers that, only an immediate ceasefire will prevent war crimes, and prevent the risk of crimes against humanity and genocide.
The ICJ calls upon Palestinian armed groups to adhere to their obligations under international humanitarian law, including by releasing all hostages in their custody, and urges the IDF, particularly its military advocate generals, to ensure full respect for international humanitarian law in the conduct of hostilities.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, email: said.benarbia@icj.org
Katherine Iliopoulos, Legal Adviser, ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, email: katherine.iliopoulos@icj.org
