Mar 6, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Speaking at the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ today urged States to decriminalize consensual sexual relations, including between people of the same sex.
The statement, delivered during an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, read as follows:
“The ICJ welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur on privacy, particularly the recommendation to repeal laws criminalizing consensual sexual activity, cluding between people of the same sex.
The ICJ agrees that criminalization of consensual same-sex relations violates international law and standards, including the rights to privacy, non-discrimination and equal protection.
The ICJ advocates for the abolition of laws that criminalize consensual sexual relations – including between people of the same sex – that still exist in many countries around the world.
In Indonesia, for example, a draft Penal Code currently includes a provision that would criminalize “extramarital” sexual acts between consenting persons, including persons of the same sex. We note that the draft provision may superficially appear to be gender neutral because it would penalize both men and women, but studies have shown that, in practice, criminalization of “adultery” and extramarital sexual relations typically results in disparate, discriminatory impacts against women and girls. Malaysia and other States that are former British colonies in Asia, likewise, have similar provisions in their criminal laws penalizing consensual sexual relations.
Like the Special Rapporteur, the ICJ in urges States to repeal laws that criminalize consensual sexual activity – including between people of the same sex.”
Jan 18, 2020 | Advocacy, News
From 16 to 17 January 2020, the ICJ, in collaboration with the National Police Commission (KOMPOLNAS), UN Women, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) organized a Seminar on Eliminating Gender Discriminatory Practices for the Police.
It was held in Bogor, Indonesia and gathered 30 law enforcement officers from Indonesian provinces that are reported to have the highest rate of incidents of violence against women.
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia and the Pacific Regional Director, stressed to participants that, “Police officers are the first point of contact for women who try to access justice for violations committed against them. It is important therefore for these officers to be well-trained on gender sensitivity and women’s human rights.”
“Only 40 percent of women speak out on violence, and only 10 percent of these report to the police because they are often blamed for the violence they experience or humiliated by those who should protect them,” added Ms. Doreen Buettner, Programme Specialist on Access to Justice of UN Women.
Indonesia is a State Party to the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), having ratified it on 13 September 1984. It has established a gender mainstreaming mechanism under Presidential Instruction No. 9 of 2000 on Gender Mainstreaming in National Development, which obliges all government representatives and agencies, including the police, to mainstream gender in their work in order to eliminate gender-based discrimination.
Ms. Poengky Indarti, Commissioner from the National Police Commission (KOMPOLNAS), stressed that “Gender-responsive police training should not a one-time thing, we need to institutionalize the training for it to be sustainable.”
At the seminar, the discussions were aimed at strengthening the understanding of the members of police officers on women’s human rights, and the importance of eliminating gender stereotyping in their work to enhance access to justice for women.
Ms. Siti Aminah, Commissioner of the National Commission of Violence Against Women in Indonesia (Komnas Perempuan) and Professor Meg Garvin, Executive Director of the National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI) and Clinical Professor of Law at the Lewis & Clark Law School facilitated discussions on common gender stereotypes in Indonesia and strategies, protocols and good practice relating to all aspects of responses to incidents of violence against women.
Contact
Ruth Panjaitan, National Legal Advisor for Indonesia, International Commission of Jurists, e: ruthstephani.panjaitan(a)icj.org
Resources
To access pictures from the event, click here.
Jul 23, 2019 | News
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, does not adequately protect the rights of transgender people and should be revised to address the concerns of the transgender community and to conform with India’s international human rights obligations, the ICJ said today.
“The Transgender Bill as currently drafted still fails to fully protect the rights of transgender people including to self-identify, a right that has been upheld by the Indian Supreme Court,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Director.
“If Parliament passes the Bill in its current form, it will miss an important opportunity to introduce a law that respects, protects and fulfills the human rights of transgender people as required by the Supreme Court’s decision in NALSA and India’s international obligations,” he added.
The Government introduced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, before the Parliament on 19 July 2019.
The current draft, fails to address key concerns that have been repeatedly raised by the transgender community and human rights organizations.
Critically, the Bill continues to mandate sex reassignment surgery for transgender people who seek to identify as male or female.
This requirement clearly contravenes the Supreme Court’s judgment in NALSA v. UOI, which guarantees the right to self-identification, without any need for medical intervention. Nor does the Bill make provision for reservations in employment or education despite a mandate by the Supreme Court in NALSA.
Among the problematic provisions are those which set out lighter sentences for criminal offences when committed against transgender people (including “sexual abuse”, “physical abuse”, “verbal and emotional abuse”, “economic abuse” and denial of “passage to a public place”); inadequate or missing definitions of offences; the retention of provisions that could be used to target transgender people for criminal prosecution; and the absence of mechanisms to enforce prohibitions on discrimination in the law.
The ICJ acknowledges that the draft of the Bill contains improvements over the version passed by the Lok Sabha in 2018.
The new draft removes the requirement for a screening committee to review applications for the issuance of a gender identity certificate. It also no longer criminalizes “compel[ing] or entice[ing] a transgender person” to engage in begging
The ICJ and other human rights organizations have recommended the deletion of these provisions in light of the well-documented historical abuse that such laws enabled by making it possible to target transgender persons, and the resulting effect of creating a specter of criminality around transgender identities.
“The Bill does include some important improvements over its 2018 version, such as the elimination of screening committees for the issuance of identity documents, and problematic criminal provisions relating to begging. However, it still falls significantly short from a constitutional and an international human rights perspective,” said Rawski.
“We urge the Parliament to address the deficiencies that remain – such as provisions on mandatory sex reassignment surgery, which contravene human rights law – before passing it into law,” he added.
The current session of Parliament will close on July 26, 2019 and may be extended by two-three days. If passed by the Lok Sabha, this Bill will be introduced in the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of the Parliament) for consideration.
The ICJ urges the Lok Sabha to reconsider the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill in accordance with the constitutional and international law obligations of the Indian state, and to ensure meaningful consultation with the transgender community in its lawmaking.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Region Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org, t: +66 644781121
Maitreyi Gupta (Delhi), ICJ International Legal Adviser for India, e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org, t: +91 7756028369
Read also
ICJ Briefing Paper on India: Legal and Jurisprudential Developments on Transgender Rights, SAATHII Vistaara Coalition. The paper analyses in detail the domestic judicial developments on transgender rights as well as the legislative process undertaken until the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2018 was passed on 17 December 2018.
ICJ Briefing Paper on The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016, analyzes the 2016 Bill, its shortcomings, and India’s international obligations, as it is the basis of the 2018 Bill.
ICJ Briefing Paper on Implementation of NALSA Judgment discusses the 2014 April NALSA decision that affirmed that transgender people have the right to decide their self-identified gender. The paper analyses the responsibilities placed on Indian authorities, gaps in implementation, and India’s relevant international law obligations.
Jul 17, 2019 | News
On 16 July 2019, the European Court of Human Rights found Russia’s refusal to register associations set up to promote and protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people to violate the rights to freedom of association and to be discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The Court’s judgment was informed by a third party intervention submitted jointly by the ICJ, the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) and ILGA-Europe on 29 July 2016.
The cases were brought by Russian individuals and non-profit organizations (Rainbow House, Movement for Marriage Equality and Sochi Pride House) (Zhadanov and others v. Russia).
The organizations’ registration requests were refused by the authorities and the domestic courts because of formal irregularities in their applications and because their aim was to promote LGBT rights.
In a unanimous judgment, the Court reiterated the importance for individuals to be able to join together to act collectively and establish legal entities. Rejecting as “unconvincing” the Government’s assertion that the applications were refused on procedural grounds, the Court found that in order to obtain registration the organizations would have had to renounce their aims of promoting LGBT rights: “Those grounds touched upon the very core of the applicant organisations and affected the essence of the right to freedom of association”.
Referring to Russia’s submission that the organisations were refused registration to prevent social or religious hatred and disorder, the Court reminded States that they have a positive duty to guarantee the proper functioning of associations, even when they annoy or give offence.
In the present case, rather than taking steps to enable the organizations to carry out their activities without fear of violence, the authorities instead “decided to remove the cause of the tension and avert a risk of disorder by restricting the applicants’ freedom of association”.
The Court therefore found the refusal to register the organizations was not necessary in a democratic society (in breach of Article 11 ECHR).
Having found that the decisive ground for refusing the organizations’ applications for registration was their aim of promoting LGBT rights, the Court held that the applicants had suffered a difference in treatment based on their sexual orientation which could not be reasonably or objectively justified (in breach of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 11).
EHRAC, ILGA-Europe and ICJ’s joint intervention, drafted by Jeremy McBride QC of Monckton Chambers (UK), focused on the extent of legitimate restrictions on the right to freedom of association for the protection of morals, arguing that it was impossible to protect individual rights if citizens were unable to create associations to defend common interests and needs.
It submitted that any restrictions on this right should be strongly justified and legitimate aims which permitted interference should be interpreted narrowly.
“This judgment reaffirms the vital importance for individuals to be able to group together and organize themselves around shared causes. States must act positively to ensure that this right is meaningful, particularly when people belong to vulnerable or marginalised minority groups or hold unpopular views,” said Joanne Sawyer, Lawyer, EHRAC.
“We are very pleased with European Court’s pioneering judgment confirming the vital right to freedom of association for those promoting rights of LGBTI people. This judgment sends a key message to LGBTI activists in Russia and other countries across Europe who are facing similar discriminatory restrictions – refusal to register associations cannot be justified on the ground of protection of morals,” said Arpi Avetisyan, Senior Litigation Officer, ILGA-Europe.
“The ICJ welcomes the Court’s conclusion that Russia’s refusal to register associations established to promote and protect the human rights of LGBT people cannot be justified on the grounds of protecting moral values or the institutions of the family and marriage,” added Livio Zilli, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser.
Jul 12, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ joined other NGOs in an end-of-session statement, highlighting the achievements and shortfalls of the 41st Ordinary Session of the UN Human Rights Council, 24 June – 12 July 2019.
The statement, delivered by International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), reads as follows:
By renewing the mandate of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), the Council has sent a clear message that violence and discrimination against people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities cannot be tolerated. It reaffirmed that specific, sustained and systematic attention is needed to address these human rights violations and ensure that LGBT people can live a life of dignity. We welcome the Core Group’s commitment to engage in dialogue with all States, resulting in 50 original co-sponsors across all regions. However, we regret that some States have again attempted to prevent the Council from addressing discrimination and violence on the basis of SOGI.
The Council session also sent a clear message that Council membership comes with scrutiny by addressing the situations of Eritrea, the Philippines, China, Saudi Arabia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This shows the potential the Council has to leverage its membership to become more effective and responsive to rights holders and victims.
The Council did the right thing by extending its monitoring of the situation in Eritrea. The onus is on the Eritrean Government to cooperate with Council mechanisms, including the Special Rapporteur, in line with its membership obligations.
We welcome the first Council resolution on the Philippines as an important first step towards justice and accountability. We urge the Council to closely follow this situation and be ready to follow up with additional action, if the situation does not improve or deteriorates further. We deeply regret that such a resolution was necessary, due to the continuation of serious violations and repeated refusal of the Philippines – despite its membership of the Council– to cooperate with existing mechanisms.
We deplore that Council members, such as the Philippines and Eritrea, sought to use their seats in this Council to seek to shield themselves from scrutiny, and those States[1] who stand with the authorities and perpetrators who continue to commit grave violations with impunity, rather than with the victims.
We welcome the written statement by 22 States on China expressing collective concern over widespread surveillance, restrictions to freedoms of religion and movement, and large-scale arbitrary detention of Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We consider it as a first step towards sustained Council attention and in the absence of progress look to those governments that have signed this letter to follow up at the September session with a resolution calling for China to allow access to the region to independent human rights experts and to end country-wide the arbitrary detention of individuals based on their religious beliefs or political opinions.
We welcome the progress made in resolutions on the rights of women and girls: violence against women and girls in the world of work, on discrimination against women and girls and on the consequences of child, early and forced marriage. We particularly welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls under its new name and mandate to focus on the intersections of gender and age and their impact on girls. The Council showed that it was willing to stand up to the global backlash against the rights of women and girls by ensuring that these resolutions reflect the current international legal framework and to resist cultural relativism, despite several amendments put forward to try and weaken the strong content of these resolutions.
However, in the text on the contribution of development to the enjoyment of all human rights, long standing consensus language from the Vienna Declaration for Programme of Action (VDPA) recognising that, at the same time, “the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights” has again been deliberately excluded disturbing the careful balance established and maintained for several decades on this issue.
We welcome the continuous engagement of the Council in addressing the threat posed by climate change to human rights, through its annual resolution and the panel discussion on women’s rights and climate change at this session. We call on the Council to continue to strengthen its work on this issue, given its increasing urgency for the protection of all human rights.
The Council has missed an opportunity on Sudan where it could have supported regional efforts and ensured that human rights are not sidelined in the process. We now look to African leadership to ensure that human rights are upheld in the transition. The Council should stand ready to act, including through setting up a full-fledged inquiry into all instances of violence against peaceful protesters and civilians across the country.
During the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial and summary executions, States heard loud and clear that the time to hold Saudi Arabia accountable is now for the extrajudicial killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. We recall that women human rights defenders continue to be arbitrarily detained despite the calls by 36 States at the March session. We urge States to adopt a resolution at the September session to establish a monitoring mechanism over the human rights situation in the country.
We welcome the landmark report of the High Commissioner on the situation for human rights in Venezuela; in response to the grave findings in the report and the absence of any fundamental improvement of the situation in the meantime, we urge the Council to adopt a Commission of Inquiry or similar mechanism in September, to reinforce the ongoing efforts of the High Commissioner and other actors to address the situation.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate on the freedom of peaceful assembly and association. This mandate is at the core of our work as civil society and we trust that the mandate will continue to protect and promote these fundamental freedoms towards a more open civic space.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus. We acknowledge some positive signs of re-engagement in dialogue by Belarus, and an attempted negotiation process with the EU on a potential Item 10 resolution. However, in the absence of systemic human rights reforms in Belarus, the mandate and resolution process remains an essential tool for Belarusian civil society. In addition, there are fears of a spike in violations around upcoming elections and we are pleased that the resolution highlights the need for Belarus to provide safeguards against such an increase.
We welcome the renewal of the quarterly reporting process on the human rights situation in Ukraine. However, we also urge States to think creatively about how best to use this regular mechanism on Ukraine to make better progress on the human rights situation.
The continued delay in the release of the UN database of businesses engaged with Israeli settlements established pursuant to Council resolution 31/36 in March 2016 is of deep concern. We join others including Tunisia speaking on behalf of 65 states and Peru speaking on behalf of 26 States in calling on the High Commissioner to urgently and fully fulfil this mandate as a matter of urgency and on all States to cooperate with all Council mandates, including this one, and without political interference.
Numerous States and stakeholders highlighted the importance of the OHCHR report on Kashmir; while its release only a few days ago meant it did not receive substantive consideration at the present session, we look forward to discussing it in depth at the September session.
Finally, we welcome the principled leadership shown by Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, in pursuing accountability for individual victims of acts of intimidation and reprisals under General Debate Item 5, contrasting with other States which tend to make only general statements of concern, and call on States to raise all individual cases at the interactive dialogue on reprisals and intimidation in the September session.
(text in italics was not read out due to the limited time)
Signatories:
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
- Amnesty International
- ARTICLE 19
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
- Center for Reproductive Rights
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Franciscans International
- Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
- Human Rights House Foundation
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
- International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)
[1] States who voted against the resolution on Eritrea: Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Iraq, India, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Philippines and Pakistan.
States who voted against the resolution on the Philippines: Angola, Bahrain, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Hungary, Iraq, India, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and the Philippines.
