SOGI Casebook chapters Archives: Universality equality and non discrimination
Romer v. Evans, United States Supreme Court (20 May 1996)
Procedural Posture Respondents (who included LGBT persons and municipalities) brought litigation against State authorities in a State trial court challenging the adoption of Amendment 2 to the Constitution of the State of Colorado. The trial court granted a permanent injunction against enforcement of Amendment 2. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed. The State of Colorado appealed […]
Report of the Secretary-General on international and domestic measures taken to protect human rights and prevent discrimination in the context of HIV/AIDS, E/CN.4/1995/45, 22 December 1994
13. Secondly, individuals and groups in society who are disadvantaged and/or do not enjoy the full exercise of their rights are particularly vulnerable to infection as they have limited or no access to HIV/AIDS-related education, prevention and health-care programmes. Such groups include women, children, minorities, migrants, indigenous peoples, men having sex with men, commercial sex […]
Concluding Observations, A/49/38, paras. 608-665, 12 April 1994: New Zealand
612. The Government had passed a new Human Rights Act in 1993, extending the grounds of prohibited discrimination. Its grounds would now cover gender issues, including pregnancy, childbirth, sexual harassment, marital and family status, sexual orientation, disability, age, race, religion, employment status and political opinion. The Act would come into force in 1994. (…) Link […]
Concluding Observations, CCPR/C/79/Add.27, 4 November 1993: Norway
7. With respect to equality and non-discrimination, developments relating to the granting to foreigners of the right to vote in local elections and to hold local office as well as legislative steps relating to the registration of partnership of the same sex are welcomed by the Committee. link to the full text of the Concluding […]
Communication No. 61/1979: Finland, CCPR/C/15/D/61/1979, Leo R. Hertzberg, Uit Mansson, Astrid Nikula and Marko and Tuovi Putkonen, represented by SETA (Organization for Sexual Equality) v Finland, April 2, 1982
10.1 Concerning Leo Rafael Hertzberg, the Committee observes that he cannot validly claim to be a victim or a breach by the State party of his right under article 19 (2) of the Covenant. The programme in which he took part was actually broadcast in 1976. No sanctions were imposed against him. Nor has the […]