Sep 6, 2018 | News
The ICJ welcomed the Supreme Court’s judgment in Navtej Singh Johar et al v. Union of India and others, which effectively ends the threat to a large segment of the Indian population that they will be held criminally liable for exercising their human rights.
The Court has issued a long-overdue ruling that the criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships under Section 377 violates the Indian Constitution, and is in breach of India’s obligations under international law. This long-awaited judgment testifies to the work of activists and lawyers in India, who have shown the potential of the law to affirm human rights and equality.
“This judgment will not only have an impact in India. Its influence should extend across the world. The ICJ hopes that it will provide an impetus for other countries, especially those of the Commonwealth of Nations, to revoke similar provisions that criminalize consensual sexual relations,” ICJ Asia Pacific Director Frederick Rawski stated.
The Court underscored that provisions of Section 377 contravened international law and standards on equality, privacy, non-discrimination and dignity guaranteed in international human rights treaties to which India is a party. These include the International Covenant Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights.
The Court also noted that the Yogyakarta Principles, which address sexual orientation and gender identity in international law, reinforce these protections. This is a vital jurisprudential recognition that LGBTI persons are entitled to full equality, and protection of their rights under India’s Constitutional and international human rights law.
In the judgement, which reverses the December 2013 Koushal decision, the Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of fundamental rights to autonomy, privacy, equality, dignity, and non-discrimination. It underscored that decriminalization of homosexuality is only the first step and that LGBTI persons are entitled to equal citizenship in all its manifestations. The Court also recommended that wide publicity be given to judgment to ensure de-stigmatization of identity through sensitization training on barriers to access to justice faced by LGBTI persons.
“Even a landmark decision by the Indian Supreme Court cannot alone end the discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It is time for the Indian Parliament to conduct wide-ranging review of existing legal framework, repeal discriminatory laws, and address other gaps in the law that prevent LGBT persons from fully exercising their rights,” Rawski added.
Background
For background, see the ICJ’s July 2018 Briefing Paper on Navtej Singh Johar et al. v. Union of India and Others, and its February 2017 report, “Unnatural Offences”: Obstacles to Justice in India Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta (Delhi), ICJ International Legal Advisor for India
e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org, t: +91 7756028369
Jul 10, 2018 | News
The SC is set to reconsider the criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships between adults, in response to a writ petition with significant ramifications for addressing the full range of human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity in India said the ICJ.
The Indian Supreme Court commenced hearing the case, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which is joined with five connected cases, today, concerning the constitutional validity of the criminalization of consensual same-sex relations between adults under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in response to writ petitions filed by several LGBTI individuals.
Section 377 criminalizes “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”. Section 377 is a relic of the British colonial penal code and is replicated in several former British colonies even though it was it was finally repealed in Northern Ireland in 1982, following repeals in Scotland in 1980 and England and Wales in 1967.
“Hopefully, the Indian Supreme Court will follow and build upon the strong precedent set by the Delhi High Court in the Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi that declared Section 377 and the criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships to be in violation of the Indian Constitution as well as international law in 2009,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General.
“There are real grounds for optimism as the Indian Supreme court as recently as August 2017 handed a landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others that declared the right to determine one’s sexual orientation and gender identity as core to the right of privacy,” he added
The ICJ has documented how section 377 has created a climate in which arbitrary arrest, extortion, harassment and blackmail of LGBTI persons in India thrives.
“The Indian judiciary’s decision to read down section 377 in Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which was then overruled by the Supreme Court, has been used by several other jurisdictions, such as Trinidad and Tobago as support for putting an end to criminalization of same-sex relationships. So the outcome of this petition before the Indian Supreme Court is of significance not just to people in India, but to the fight against discrimination around the world,” Zarifi said.
“But even a good decision by the Indian Supreme Court will not end the discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity in India. It’s time for the Indian Parliament to repeal section 377 in its entirety and engage in a wide-ranging review to consider which gaps, if any, need to be filled, for example with respect to acts constituting rape or other sexual offences,” he added.
Contact:
Maitreyi Gupta (Delhi), International Legal Adviser for India, t: +91 7756028369 ; e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org
India-Supreme Court and Section377-News-press release-2018-ENG (full story with additional information, in PDF)
Jul 4, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today urged accountability for and the need to address the root causes of violations of human rights of Rohingya people in Myanmar, at the UN in Geneva.
The statement was made in an interactive dialogue with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on his oral update on the situation, at the Human Rights Council.
The statement read as follows:
“The Government of Myanmar is duty-bound to investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators of human rights violations. Yet impunity at domestic level necessitates international action: to secure criminal accountability, to provide redress and to deter repetition of crimes under international law.
In May, the government announced a new inquiry into rights violations in Rakhine State. Its mandate, composition and legal framework remain unclear – and there is no indication this will be more effective than previous national inquiries – which have not shed light on the facts, have rarely led to prosecutions and have failed to provide redress.
Justice cannot be further delayed. The International Commission of Jurists supports calls for establishing an international accountability mechanism.
It is also imperative to address the laws and practices discriminating against Rohingyas and other minorities, particularly the 1982 Citizenship Law, as recommended by the government’s Rakhine Advisory Commission.
As a UN Member State, Myanmar must fully cooperate with all UN organs. This includes allowing access to the Special Rapporteur, and permitting the UN Human Rights Office to establish in the country with a full mandate.
Quiet diplomacy and downplaying human rights concerns have failed to improve the situation for Rohingyas. UN organs and envoys present in Myanmar must engage in frank and direct dialogue with the Government about ongoing human rights violations – consistent with the UN Charter and the Human Rights Up Front initiative.
Human rights violations are the root cause of this humanitarian crisis. There can be no voluntary and sustainable return of Rohingya refugees without addressing the sources of human rights violations.
Thank you.”
May 24, 2018 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
The widespread occurrence of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in Swaziland requires prompt action to enact the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill, says the ICJ in a report released today.
The ICJ’s report found that discriminatory practices based on customary laws and traditional beliefs undermine equality between men and women and contribute to an environment in which SGBV is at crisis point in the country.
“As the Senate of Swaziland deliberates over the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill, it must recall that enactment of the Bill is an essential step in complying with recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee and CEDAW Committee and as a means of discharging the commitments made by His Majesty’s Government during the 2016 Universal Periodic Review,” said Arnold Tsunga, Director of the ICJ Africa Regional Programme.
In earlier submissions to the Senate of Swaziland, the ICJ noted that enactment of the Bill is a matter required of the Kingdom of Swaziland pursuant to its international human rights law obligations, including those arising from the Africa region, to criminalize and sanction the perpetrators of SGBV.
His Majesty’s Vision 2022, the aims and targets of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office and Swaziland’s consensus in the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development reinforce compliance with those obligations.
The Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill 2015, first drafted over ten years ago, has still not been passed into law, including because there is a perception that some of its provisions will infringe Swazi law and custom.
“Legislative and policy reform is needed as is the enhanced technical capacity and commitment of justice actors and policy makers to combat domestic and sexual violence,” Tsunga added.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, Director, ICJ Africa Regional Programme, t: +27.73.131.8411; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Alex Conte, ICJ Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, t: +41.79.957.2733; e: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Download
Swaziland-GRABaselineStudy-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2018-ENG (full report in PDF)
Apr 17, 2018 | Events, Multimedia items, News, Video clips
International commitment to the rule of law is under assault around the world, said a global panel of eminent academics, diplomats, and jurists.
The panelists, speaking at a public event by the ICJ and the Geneva Graduate Institute, commented that this assault is threatening to reverse the progress made over the last 70 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR) came into force.
The panelists addressed progress in asserting the rule of law since the UDHR, for instance through the development of the International Criminal Court and greater awareness and commitment to rights, but also highlighted current challenges at the national level, such as in Venezuela, and at the global level, with ongoing discrimination and violence against women.
“The rule of law is a principle that helps the world and also helps individuals,” said ICJ Secretary General Saman Zia-Zarifi, in his introductory remarks.
“It is a principle that elevates democracy from mob rule and is necessary to harness the energy of democracy and give it a direction and progression towards the protection and promotion of human rights and sustainable development for the betterment of the lives of people around the world,” he added.
Professor Carlos Ayala, ICJ Vice-President and former President of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, spoke about the importance of having regional rights frameworks that were accessible to individuals when the rule of law has been eradicated at a national level.
Speaking in relation to Venezuela, Professor Ayala explained that the rule of law cannot be simply overturned by a political party, even with a majority, as the erosion of the rule of law puts all human rights at risk and these rights must be safeguarded regionally and internationally.
Next Patricia Schulz, member of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, pointed out that in many countries, the rule of law has been weak or never even properly existed.
She addressed failings where access to justice is undermined by systems that are gender discriminatory and explained that in almost all countries, even where the rule of law seems strong, there is a lack of will and/or means to fight gender-based violence.
Professor Andrew Clapham, Professor of Public International Law at the Graduate Institute and member of the UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan, evaluated issues of accountability and the rule of law in the context of international criminal law.
He noted the important role international criminal law and its operational mechanisms have in holding individuals to account, but warned that focusing on prosecution and focusing on issues such as genocide and the use of chemical weapons ran the risk of undermining the universality of ideas enshrined in the UDHR.
His Excellency Luis Gallegos, the Permanent Representative of Ecuador to the United Nations, raised concerns about the politicization of human rights and the capacity of UN mechanisms to address transnational rights issues such as migration.
He said that addressing the rule of law was not a simple question but that states had to come together to consistently and systematically address the rights violations that arose from a break-down in the rule of law.
Final panelist, Sanji Monageng, ICJ Commissioner and Justice of the International Criminal Court, spoke about the need for international organizations to rethink their approach to the rule of law and the way they apply this to cases, to avoid focusing narrowly on singular issues when rights violations need to be addressed homogenously.
Justice Monageng explained that for victims, sexual violence, for instance, is rarely a singular incident but part of broader array of rights violations that have far-reaching impacts.
In his concluding remarks, Professor Robert Goldman, who moderated the event, said that “the rule of law deals with a central tenet of any just society, not only equal protection and equal access but it is something that protects the vulnerable.”
He explained that the treat to the rule of law today is endemic and it is global, but the ICJ is uniquely placed to robustly address these difficult questions and to continue to use the rule of law to defend and advance rights protections.
The event, which took place at the Graduate Institute at the Maison de la Paix, promoted by the Permanent Mission of Germany, was attended by 150 persons including academics, diplomats, lawyers and representatives of civil society and international rights mechanisms. The event was also streamed online by RIDH Global.
You can watch the full event here.
https://www.facebook.com/ridhglobal/videos/10158134493084616/UzpfSTQ3MTQ2NzA4NjIyMTM3MzoxOTk5MjM0NDc2Nzc3OTUy/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ije_iAegxFs&feature=youtu.be
