Feb 27, 2015 | Events, News
Presentación de la obra de teatro DESIDENCIAS y debate. Este es el primer evento de esta indóle que la CIJ lleva a cabo a favor de la promoción de los derechos humanos de las personas LGBTI en Guatemala.
La CIJ en asocio con la Oficina del Alto Comsionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos en Guatemala (OACNUDH), el Programa Conjunto de las Naciones Unidas sobre el VIH/SIDA (ONSIDA), la Procuraduría para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (PDH) y con la colaboración de OASIS, llevó a cabo la presentación de la Obra DESIDENCIAS de la Colectiva Siluetas y la entrega de la Guía para profesionales del CIJ sobre orientación sexual, identidad de género y Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos.
A la actividad asistieron más de 250 personas de diferentes organizaciones de la sociedad civil, operadores de justicia, estudiantes universitarios y público en general.
La Colectiva Siluetas inció a mediadios del año 2001 y actualmente la intergran tres guatemaltecas: Camilia Urrutia, Tatiana Palomo y Lu Robles y, la salvadoreña, Laia Cañénguez. La puesta en escena de la Obra DESIDENCIAS estuvo a cargo de Camila Urrutia, Laia Ribera, Lola Vásquez y Gabriel Álvarez, actrices lesbianas, transgénero y transexuales.
La obra expone muchos tabús dentro de la sociedad guatemalteca sobre la identidad sexual y la orientación de género.
La CIJ impulsará nuevas acciones para la promoción de la no discriminación y del derecho a la igualdad así como de otros estándares internacionales a favor de las personas LGBTI en Guatemala.
Feb 10, 2015 | News
The ICJ today expressed deep concern over the ruling of the Federal Court upholding the conviction on “sodomy charges” of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim by the Court of Appeal under the colonial-era Section 377B of the Penal Code.
The decision today was on the final appeal against the March 2014 decision of the Court of Appeal, which overturned the 2012 High Court’s decision to acquit Anwar Ibrahim (photo) of “sodomy charges”.
The ICJ has called on Malaysia to repeal Section 377B, which criminalizes consensual same-sex relations.
The Federal Court also upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision to sentence Anwar to five years’ imprisonment.
“It is clear from the decision of the Federal Court today that the Government of Malaysia has once again inappropriately used Section 377B of the Penal Code against its political opponents,” said Justice Elizabeth Evatt, Commissioner of the ICJ who was in Putrajaya to observe the proceedings.
“This is deplorable, especially since Section 377B criminalizes consensual same-sex relations and thereby violates a range of international law and standards, including on the rights to privacy, non-discrimination and equal protection,” she added.
This relic of British law has long since been abandoned in the United Kingdom, but is still in force in Malaysia.
However, in the last few years, it has only been used against opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.
The conviction today amounts to the second sodomy conviction for Anwar Ibrahim within the past 14 years.
His first conviction in August 2000 resulted in an imprisonment term of nine years. That decision was overturned by the Federal Court in September 2004.
The ICJ recalls that such “sodomy” charges cannot be considered recognizable criminal offences under international human rights law and standards.
“The criminalization of consensual same-sex conduct is in contravention of a number of human rights, including the right to dignity; equality before the law and equal protection of the law; non-discrimination; liberty and security of person; privacy; opinion and expression; association and peaceful assembly,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, who also observed the hearings.
“Anwar Ibrahim should never have been investigated, charged with, tried, let alone convicted of and sentenced for such charges. The confirmation of his conviction and sentencing on these charges are an affront to human rights and the rule law,” she added.
The ICJ also noted with concern that the right to a fair trial of Anwar Ibrahim was violated in a number of respects, particularly his right to be presumed innocent.
Under international law, a person charged with committing a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Hence, this imposes upon the prosecution the burden to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
“In this case, however, it appeared that the Court of Appeal adopted an approach wherein the burden was on Anwar Ibrahim to prove that he had a credible defense, rather than raising reasonable doubt as to the prosecution’s case,” Justice Evatt said.
The ICJ says that by dismissing the final appeal of Anwar Ibrahim, the Federal Court has in effect adopted the same approach of the Court of Appeal to these issues.
This decision is a clear setback for the rule of law in Malaysia and is incompatible with the presumption of innocence principle, the Geneva-based organization adds.
Anwar Ibrahim has now exhausted all avenues of appeal and has immediately begun serving his sentence.
The ICJ observed the hearings in this case before the Court of Appeal in September 2013, February 2014, and March 2014, and before the Federal Court from 28 to 30 October 2014.
Elisabeth Evatt, a former judge of the Australian Federal Court and Commissioner of the ICJ, acted as the trial observer on behalf of the ICJ at the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Adviser, tel. +662 6198477 ext. 206 or email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Dec 2, 2014 | News
Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in the joint cases of A, B and C v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie.
It affirms the need for national authorities to undertake individualized credibility assessments in asylum cases involving claims of persecution based on sexual orientation.
The ruling concerned a request for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands, through its Council of State, to the CJEU.
The cases arose from three applications for asylum in the Netherlands by three men claiming a well-founded fear of persecution in their countries of origin based on their alleged same-sex sexual orientation.
The Dutch authorities rejected each asylum claim on the basis that each applicant had failed to prove his same-sex sexual orientation.
The Council of State asked the CJEU what limits the EU Qualification Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in particular article 3 (right to the integrity of the person) and article 7 (respect for private and family life), impose on the method of assessing the credibility of a declared sexual orientation, and whether these limits are different from those applying to the assessment of credibility in asylum claims based on other grounds.
Interpreting the Qualification Directive in light of articles 3 and 7 of the Charter, as well as article 1, i.e. human dignity, the Court held that EU law does impose certain requirements on refugee status determination authorities.
The ICJ welcomes the Court’s determination that the competent domestic authorities must ensure that any credibility assessment method must allow for an individualized consideration of each applicant’s claim, having regard to its specific features, and that it is the duty of the State to cooperate with the applicant in the context of the assessment of all the relevant elements of her or his claim.
The ICJ welcomes a number of other aspects of the ruling, including:
- The emphasis on the Netherland’s need to comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
- The fact that the Court firmly came down against seemingly intrusive and lewd questioning of an applicant’s sexual practices and proclivities, which it held to be contrary to respect for private and family life; and,
- The Court’s awareness of the particular challenges relating to the disclosure of one’s sexuality. The court noted that an applicant may be understandably reticent in revealing intimate aspects of his or her life and that therefore late disclosure of same-sex sexual orientation should not necessarily undermine the applicant’s credibility.
See also the ICJ’s commentary on the CJEU judgment in X, Y and Z v. Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel.
Oct 3, 2014 | Agendas, Events
Today, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) held its second expert roundtable on asylum claims based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
Participants included asylum judges, lawyers, and academics, as well as officials from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and staff members from a number of civil society organizations.
Prof. Hathaway, Director of the Program in refugee and asylum law at the University of Michigan Law School, Prof. Anker, Director of the Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, and Judge Lars Bay Larsen, judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union, were the main speakers at the roundtable. Each delivered a presentation focussing on different normative aspects of asylum claims based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
The programme of the second expert roundtable, including a list of all participants, can be downloaded here.
This roundtable forms part of a broader ICJ’S project on international protection claims based on sexual orientation AND/OR gender identity. The programme of the first roundtable organised in Brussels last June can be downloaded here. The ICJ’s commentary on the related CJEU judgment in X, Y and Z v. the Netherlands can be downloaded here.
Sep 26, 2014 | News
As the UN Human Rights Council approached the conclusion of its 27th regular session tonight, it adopted resolutions including on the topics of violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and the protection of civil society space.
The resolutions on civil society space, and on non-violence and non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, were adopted after a series of hostile amendments were defeated.
The resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity, led by Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Uruguay, recognizes the worldwide problem of violence and discrimination, and builds on a resolution on the same subject from 2011. It calls for the High Commissioner for Human Rights to update the report produced under the 2011 resolution.
The States that supported the resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity overcame a series of amendments brought by Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Sudan, Uganda, and United Arab Emirates. The amendments would have among other things deleted all references to sexual orientation and gender identity from the resolution text, fundamentally changing its purpose, and perpetuating a complete denial of the very real violence and discrimination inflicted on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual and intersex people in all regions of the world.
The civil society space resolution, which was led by Chile, Ireland, Japan, Sierra Leone, Tunisia, draws on discussions at a Panel convened by the Council earlier in the year. It affirms the valuable contribution made by civil society in countries around the world, expresses concern about the threats and challenges faced by civil society, and requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to produce practical recommendations for addressing these threats and concerns.
The texts of the resolutions (in the final draft form on which they were adopted – the official final versions are not yet available) are available here: Civil Society Resolution Sexual Orientation Gender Identity Resolution
A joint NGO press release on the resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity is available here.
The ICJ maintains databases of jurisprudence, legislation and UN action on the topic of sexual orientation and gender identity.
