This is the ICJ Submission to the Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review of Tunisia, published on 20 November 2007.
Search results
ICJ submission to the Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review of Morocco
This is the ICJ Submission to the Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review on Morocco, published on 20 November 2007.
Liberty and JUSTICE submission to the UN Human Rights Council universal periodic review of the UK
JUSTICE, the UK section of the ICJ, and Liberty made written submissions to the Human Rights Council on the Universal Periodic Review of the UK.
NJCM submission to the UN Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review of the Netherlands
NJCM, the Dutch section of the ICJ, as part of a coalition of Dutch NGOs, made written submissions to the Human Rights Council on the Universal Periodic Review of the Netherlands.
The submission addressed the legal status of UN human rights instruments in Dutch law; the role of the Netherlands in setting international human rights law standards; issues in reporting under UN human rights treaties; national processes for assessing compliance with human rights; gender policy and mainstreaming; counter-terrorism policy; rights of aliens; and rights to health and education.
Netherlands-Dutch NGOs-UPR-non-judicial submission-2007 (full text, PDF)
ICJ submission to the Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review of Poland
The ICJ made written submissions to the Human Rights Council on the Universal Periodic Review of Poland, as part of the first round of Universal Periodic Review.
This submission focused on an issue which should be central to the Council’s review of human rights in Poland: the existence of at least one CIA-run secret detention centre in Poland, and of renditions of suspects to and from this centre, between 2003 and 2005. In addition, the ICJ drew the attention of the Council to recent difficulties in the judicial appointments process in Poland, which raise concerns regarding judicial independence.
Poland-ICJ Submission UPR-Analysis briefs-2007 (full text, PDF)
ICJ intervention on the guidelines for the preparation of information under the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism
ICJ Intervention on the Guidelines for the preparation of information under the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism.
Statement by the ICJ on the progress reports and further discussion or decisions of the working group on the universal periodic review
Oral statement of the ICJ on the Progress reports and further discussion or decisions of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, released on Monday 4 December 2006 at the third session of the Human Rights Council.
Joint contribution on the criteria for the successful establishment of the universal periodic review mechanism
Please find attached a document on launched by the ICJ and other NGOs on the Universal Periodic review of the UN Human Rights Council.
Joint UPR mechanism-Publication-2006 (full text, PDF)
The universal periodic review of the Human Rights Council
Document submitted by the ICJ to the UN Human Rigths Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review on 15 August 2006.
1. The General Assembly Resolution
In Resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006, establishing the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly decided:
“That the Council shall, inter alia: […](e) Undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfilment by each state of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all states.
UPR Human Rights Council-Analysis briefs-2006 (full text, PDF)
Laos: States should ask “Where is Sombath?” at upcoming review of human rights record
15 December 2024: On the 12-year anniversary of the unresolved enforced disappearance of Lao civil...
Pakistan: UN review spotlights human rights failures
Pakistan’s fourth Universal Periodic Review (UPR) has drawn global attention to a number of serious human rights violations in the country, said the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) today.
Nepal: failure to implement UN review recommendations
The ICJ today highlighted Nepal’s failure to implement recommendations accepted under its Universal Periodic Review, at the United Nations.The statement was made during General Debate on the Universal Periodic Review, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. The statement read as follows:
“The UPR can help ensure that States comply with international human rights standards, but only if accepted recommendations are in fact implemented. Lack of follow-up on States’ implementation after adoption of UPR outcomes allows States to disregard their UPR commitments, undermining the mechanism, as is illustrated by the example of Nepal.
More than two years after its last review, the Government has still not implemented accepted recommendations related to transitional justice and accountability for past human rights violations.
Of particular concern is the continuing failure of the Government to establish credible transitional justice mechanisms to effectively address past human rights violations.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons continue to fall short of international standards, both in constitution and operation.
The recently published draft bill on transitional justice provides for short-term community service as an alternative punishment for perpetrators convicted of international crimes, including torture and enforced disappearance. Such manifestly inadequate punishment would constitute a form of impunity.
Furthermore, the establishment of a special court under the bill will not be effective unless crimes such as torture, enforced disappearance, war crimes and crimes against humanity are criminalized in national law in accordance with international standards.
The ICJ urges the Council to adopt measures to ensure effective implementation of accepted UPR recommendations.”
Pakistan: UN review highlights human rights failures
Pakistan’s third Universal Periodic Review (UPR) has drawn global attention to a number of serious human rights failures in the country, said the ICJ today.
On 16 November, the UPR Working Group of the Human Rights Council adopted a draft UPR outcome report for Pakistan. Pakistan received a total of 289 recommendations – a substantial increase from its previous UPR in 2012, when Pakistan received 167 recommendations. As many as 111 State delegations took the floor to make statements, and 14 States submitted their questions in advance.
“That well over a hundred delegations participated in the review indicates the global community’s interest in Pakistan’s human rights situation,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
Key recommendations urge Pakistan to:
- Reinstate a moratorium on executions with the view to abolishing the death penalty;
- Repeal or amend “blasphemy laws” to bring them in line with international human rights law;
- Ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and a number of other human rights treaties;
- Ensure effective protection of the rights of religious minorities, human rights defenders, journalists and other vulnerable groups;
- Strengthen the National Commission for Human Rights;
- Ensure prompt, impartial and effective investigations of human rights violations and bring perpetrators to justice;
- Set 18 as the minimum legal age for marriage; and
- Ensure effective implementation of laws on violence against women.
“The States’ recommendations echo the concerns of dozens of civil society organizations and even the National Commission of Human Rights – who all agree that the Government must take urgent measures to address the downward spiral of rights in the country”, Rawski said.
Pakistan will now examine the recommendations and respond to the Human Rights Council at latest by the Council’s next session in March 2018.
Pakistan’s review comes at a time of serious concern about the rights situation in the country.
The Government lifted the informal moratorium on the death penalty and carried out nearly 500 executions in less than three years – among the highest execution rates in the world; Parliament enacted laws allowing military courts to try civilians for certain terrorism-related offences in secret trials; and the authorities started a new wave of crackdowns on NGOs, journalists and human rights defenders, including subjecting them to enforced disappearance.
Persecution of religious minority communities also continues despite the Government’s claims that religious minorities “enjoy equal rights as equal citizens of Pakistan”. Last month, three Ahmadi men were sentenced to death for blasphemy for allegedly scratching anti-Ahmadi pamphlets that had the “Mohr-e-Nabbuwat” (seal of the Prophet Muhammad) printed on them. And earlier this week, the Islamabad High Court directed the Government to respond to a petition demanding a separate database for Ahmadis in the civil service to ensure they are not “posted in offices involving sensitive matters”.
“As a member of the Human Rights Council, Pakistan is expected to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, something it has clearly failed to do,” added Rawski.
“Pakistan should make use of this process by accepting the recommendations made during the review and adopting a concrete, action-based national human rights plan to ensure their effective implementation.”
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 64 478 1121, e: frederick.rawski@icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Pakistan-UPR-PressRelease-2017-eng (download the press release)
Additional information
UN Member States reviewed Pakistan’s human rights record for the third time on Monday, 13 November, through the UPR process.
The UPR is a unique mechanism of the UN Human Rights Council aimed at improving the human rights situation of each of the 193 UN Member States. Under this mechanism, the human rights record of all UN Member States is peer-reviewed every four to five years by the UPR Working Group, consisting of the 47 UN Member States of the Human Rights Council; however, any UN Member State can take part in the discussions and the dialogue during the UPR of the reviewed States. States then make recommendations to the country under review, which has the option of accepting or noting the recommendations.
ICJ Intervention on the review of mandate of the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
The ICJ in the intervention on 13 December 2007 pointed to the necessity of the mandate on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism because of increase of terrorism and rapid developments in counter terrorism.
Marching ahead: It’s time to decriminalize
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.
Guatemala: civil society organizations asked authorities to accept the UPR recommendations aimed at guaranteeing judicial independence and stopping the criminalization of independent judges and prosecutors
ICJ and partners call on South Africa to address ongoing xenophobia and discrimination against non-citizens
Oral statement of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and partners at the adoption of South Africa’s Universal Periodic Review outcomes under agenda item 6 of the United Nations Human Rights Council’s 52nd Regular Session. The statement was delivered by ICJ Legal and Policy Office intern Collin Christner.
Moldova justice reforms must be effectively implemented (UN Statement)
The ICJ called on Moldovan authorities to effectively implement their justice reforms in line with international standards during the discussion of its third Universal Periodic Review before the UN Human Rights Council.
Venezuela must restore judicial independence and UN Fact-Finding Mission be renewed (UN Statement)
The ICJ today delivered a statement before the UN Human Rights Council during the consideration of the report by Venezuela in the third cycle of the UN Universal Periodic Review.
Poland : Judicial independence must be restored
The ICJ submitted today its written contribution to the fourth Universal Periodic Review of the human rights situation of Poland by the UN Human Rights Council and called on the Polish Government to restore the independence of the judiciary.
Tajikistan: Justice system must be reformed to protect human rights (UN Statement)
The ICJ today stressed the need of judicial reform in Tajikistan in its statement before the UN Human Rights Council during the discussion of the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Tajikistan.
Lebanon: ICJ calls for ensuring the independence of the judiciary and reinforcing women, refugees and migrant workers rights at UN Human Rights Council
Today, the ICJ made an intervention during a debate on the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Lebanon before the UN Human Rights Council.
Thailand civil society, government, discuss improving laws governing land rights to protect economic, social, and cultural rights
Thailand’s laws and practices governing the rights of land users may result in unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on various economic, social, and cultural rights, particularly for forest dwellers and indigenous communities, the ICJ said during discussions last week with members of Thai civil society as well as government authorities.
On 28 May 2021, the ICJ co-hosted a discussion on international human rights law and standards on land rights in Thailand, with 70 members of civil society organizations, human rights lawyers, and academics in attendance. On 4 June 2021, the ICJ spoke at a discussion on the same topic, organized by Thailand’s Ministry of Justice, bringing together 80 governmental officials from several Ministries.
“Thailand’s land regulatory laws do not adequately protect the rights of indigenous people to access their ancestral lands and natural resources and to conduct cultural practices,” said Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ Legal Advisor. “We hope the Thai government will improve its general policies for land use and tenure, especially for indigenous peoples and forest dwellers, in line with its obligations under international law.”
Dr. Seree Nonthasoot, member of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) from Thailand, spoke at both discussions to introduce participants to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) to which Thailand is a party and the role of the CESCR. The CESCR is a body of independent experts from across the world established by ICESCR and tasked with providing authoritative interpretations of ICESCR in its body of jurisprudence.
“The CESCR recommended [that] Thailand […] effectively remove all obstacles to enjoyment of traditional individual and communal rights by ethnic minorities in their ancestral lands […] and ensure that forced evictions are only used as a measure of last resort. These should be addressed without any further delay,” said Dr. Seree Nonthasoot.
Specific issues highlighted by participants in the discussions included:
- Prosecution and Eviction: The use of laws ostensibly designed to counter climate change and forest conservation policies and legislatures, such as the Forest Act, the National Reserved Forests Act and the National Park Act, to prosecute forest dwellers and indigenous communities for trespassing and forcibly evict them from the land belonging to national reserved forests and national parks;
- Participation and Consultation: The inadequate participatory mechanisms and consultations with people affected by land-related policies and practices, in particular the increasing use of online mechanisms as the main platforms for consultation in Thailand, despite the low rate of access to the internet among affected communities;
- Judicial Recognition: The lack of explicit judicial recognition of historical and other indigenous forms of evidence and knowledge in order to establish validity of territorial claims;
- Impact of Tourism: The impact of tourism development projects on communities’ economic, social and cultural rights in land-related contexts, including on their traditional landownership and livelihood practices;
- Compensation and Assessment: The impact of large-scale land acquisitions in areas that had already been occupied or used, without carrying out adequate impact assessments and with inadequate compensation.
Sanhawan Srisod introduced participants to the CESCR’s draft General Comment No. 26, which is open for public comment until 27 July 2021. If a revised General Comment is adopted by the CESCR, it will provide an authoritative interpretation of States’ ICESCR obligations relating to land.
At the meeting’s conclusion, participants discussed advocacy strategies to strengthen Thailand’s legal frameworks once the draft General Comment is adopted by the CESCR.
Further reading
Thai Companies in Southeast Asia: Access to Justice for Extraterritorial Human Rights Harms
Joint submissions by ICJ and its partners to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
Sri Lanka: ensuring equality and non-discrimination for lesbian, gay, bisexuals and transgender people
An opinion piece by Mathuri Thamilmaran, ICJ National Legal Adviser in Sri Lanka.
On 1 March 2021, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa elicited considerable public interest through a single tweet. In his tweet commemorating Zero Discrimination Day, he declared his intent to ‘secure everybody’s right to live life with dignity regardless of age, gender, sexuality, race, physical appearance and beliefs’.[1]
According to reports, the tweet made history as the first public acknowledgment by a South Asian Head of State of everyone’s right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexuality and gender, thus affirming, effectively, one’s right to live life with dignity regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression. It comes at a time when the President has initiated the drafting process of a new Constitution and a first draft is expected soon.
The tweet has opened up a much-needed conversation on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIE) in Sri Lanka, particularly regarding the Government’s obligation to ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people are not discriminated against in law or practice.
As it stands, the Sri Lankan Constitution guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law of all persons (Article 12). It also prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, language, caste, sex, political opinion and place of birth.
Notably, therefore, the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity and/or expression.
Sections 365 and 365A of Sri Lanka’s Penal Code (1883) criminalize “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” and “acts of gross indecency”, respectively. Both sections have been used to criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relations, albeit the Penal Code does not provide a definition of the terms used by those sections. Those convicted of the ‘crime’ may face up to ten years’ imprisonment.
Section 399 of the Penal Code criminalizes “gender impersonation”, and has often been used against transgender persons with cases being filed against them “for misleading the public”. Further, the loitering provisions of the Vagrants Ordinance (1842) have been used to intimidate, extort, detain and interrogate individuals whose appearance do not conform to gender norms.
In addition, Article 16 of the Constitution states that ‘existing written law and unwritten law shall be valid and operative notwithstanding any inconsistency’ with the provisions of the Fundamental Rights chapter.
As a result, judicial review of existing laws, such as the Penal Code and Vagrants Ordinance, is precluded, thereby shielding the authorities from any scrutiny, including in cases that have given rise to abuse allegations. These provisions have all contributed to an increase in human rights violations by police officers against LGBT persons.
Just last year, a special investigation by a local newspaper found that inhumane methods, including flogging and anal/vaginal examinations, which amount to torture or other ill-treatment, were being used against LGBT people by Sri Lankan authorities to obtain “evidence” of same-sex sexual relations. There had also been instances where H.I.V. tests had been ordered by courts and their results publicly revealed in court, a clear violation of the right to privacy of the individuals concerned.
Following these revelations, the Minister of Justice, Hon. Ali Sabry, made an official statement that he had instructed the relevant authorities to stop such harmful practices while also reiterating his belief in non-discrimination on the basis of ‘gender, sexual preference or identity’. Further, it was reported that as recently as this month, judges were warning the police not to harass transgender persons by misusing the laws and to treat them with dignity.
In 2014, the then Sri Lankan government made representation before the UN Human Rights Committee that Article 12 of the Constitution included non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, but, as seen above, explicit provisions and application of the law seem to negate this argument.
Furthermore, in 2017, during its Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council, Sri Lanka committed to taking steps to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Since then, however, attempts to include SOGIE in the National Action Plan on Human Rights have been dropped due to opposition within the Cabinet.
Sri Lanka’s neighbours in South Asia have made progressive strides, with both India and Bhutan having decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations in recent years. Bhutan’s penal code provision regarding ‘sex against the order of nature’ had been enacted only in 2004 but activism and the recognition that the law would dissuade those in same–sex relations from actively seeking treatment for H.I.V. led to the decision to decriminalize.
In 2018, the Indian Supreme Court read down section 377 of the Indian penal code which was used to criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relations, and stated that its application to consensual relations between LGBT persons was unconstitutional as it was in violation of certain fundamental rights, including the right to equality.
In 2018, Pakistan enacted a law recognizing the human rights of transgender people, including the right to legal recognition of one’s preferred gender identity. Among other things, the understanding that most of the discriminatory legal provisions were remnants of British colonial rule and the need to move past such influence has led to these developments.
In Sri Lanka, homophobia is primarily seen as cultural issue, but there are indications that times are changing. Sections of the media now allow more space for discussions of LGBT persons’ human rights, even covering Pride events, while a Supreme Court judgment in 2016 noted that ‘consensual sex between adults should not be policed by the state nor should it be grounds for criminalisation’.
If a discriminatory law passed as late as 2004 can be discarded by Bhutan, then surely Sri Lanka too can follow its neighbours and break free from its colonial era shackles and guarantee equality for LGBT persons.
It is time that Sri Lanka steps up to fulfil its international human rights obligations by ensuring equality to all persons, including LGBT people, and that it delivers on the expectations raised by the President’s tweet and previous public pronouncements. Last year the President appointed an ‘Expert Committee’ to undertake the drafting of a new Constitution.
The inclusion of SOGIE as prohibited discrimination grounds in the Fundamental Rights protection provided by the (new) Constitution would be a first step in fulfilling the state’s international law commitments as well as rebuilding its relationship with LGBT people.
[1] https://twitter.com/GotabayaR/status/1366258501886955526
SriLanka-SOGI discrimination-News-opeds-2021-TAM (version in Tamil)
SriLanka-SOGI discrimination-News-opeds-2021-SIN (version in Sinhala)