Sexual orientation removed from UN resolution condemning executions

24 November 2010 by

The Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Commitee of the United Nations has narrowly voted to remove sexual orientation from a draft resolution against extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

In light of the guarantee of the right to life, liberty and security of person in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the resolution condemns all extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and demands that all States take effective action to prevent, combat, investigate and eliminate such executions.

For the past 10 years, the resolution has included sexual orientation in the non-exhaustive list of discriminatory reasons for which killings have been committed:

6 “Urges all States to: …

(b)  ensure the effective protection of the right to life of all persons under their jurisdiction and to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including those targeted at specific groups of persons, such as …  all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation … ”

The reference to sexual orientation had been included in the resolution since 1999, based on the repeated and express concern of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as victims of such crimes – a concern that persists in his most recent report [at paragraph 59].

The amendment proposed that:

in operative paragraph 6 (b), replaceany discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation’ withdiscriminatory reasons on any basis’ ”

Whilst the seemingly broader language of the amendment might, at first glance, appear motivated by a desire to be comprehensive, it is clear from the language of amendment’s proponents that the motivation was otherwise.

In a UN press release it was reported that the representative of Benin, on behalf of the African Group, proposing the amendment stated that:

sexual orientation had no legal foundation in any international human rights instruments and there was no legal justification to highlight it”

whilst the representative of Morocco, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that:

the Group was seriously concerned by controversial and undefined notions that had no foundation in international human rights instruments. Intolerance and discrimination existed in cases of colour, race, gender and religion, to mention only a few …  An attempt to create new rights was a matter of concern for the Group.”

No amendment was proposed to generalise the specific references in paragraph 6 (b) to killings targeted at racial, national, ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities; street children; human rights defenders including lawyers, journalists and demonstrators; refugees; migrants or indigenous people. Only the reference to sexual orientation was deleted.

The representative of Sweden in advocating against the amendment reminded the Committee that:

Sexual orientation had often been the motive for extrajudicial killings. The deletion of the reference would amount to the Committee looking the other way concerning arbitrary executions based on sexual orientation.”

The representative for Switzerland noted that

protection of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals was important … It was important to point out that homophobic violence [is] a reality caused by law enforcement forces in many countries throughout the world … The number of people killed on the basis of sexual identity had reached new levels, which was a major concern for all”.

The representative of the United Kingdom in voting against the amendment submitted that:

… to accept the amendment was to accept that these people did not need mention, and was an affront to human dignity.”

In a recorded vote the Committee then approved the amendment to paragraph 6 by 79 votes in favour to 70 against and 17 abstaining. The draft resolution as amended, was then approved by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 0 against, with 10 abstentions including the United States.

The vote has caused consternation amongst states and human rights campaigners. In an explanation of their vote, the US Mission to the UN said:

the United States strongly agrees with and appreciates the cosponsors’ efforts to retain language specifically condemning ESAs targeting vulnerable groups, particularly members of the LGBT community, and we were dismayed that this reference could not survive an unfriendly amendment.”

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) which has UN consultative status commented:

This vote is a dangerous and disturbing development … it essentially removes the important recognition of the particular vulnerability faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people – a recognition that is crucial at a time when 76 countries around the world criminalize homosexuality, five consider it a capital crime, and countries like Uganda are considering adding the death penalty to their laws criminalizing homosexuality.”

Stonewall called the vote “deeply disturbing … a worrying and regressive step” whilst the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) condemned the vote stating:

Yesterday’s vote is a real disgrace set up by 79 governments trying to stop the increasing recognition of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, trans and intersex people as human beings like all others.”

Reuters quotes Philippe Bolopion, United Nations Advocacy Director of Human Rights Watch, as saying:

It’s a step backwards and it’s extremely disappointing that some countries felt the need to remove the reference to sexual orientation, when sexual orientation is the very reason why so many people around the world have been subjected to violence”.

The resolution is expected to be formally adopted by the UN General Assembly in December.  Although the UN General Assembly lacks formal legislative authority and resolutions are generally held to be non-binding on member states, the International Court of Justice has considered such resolutions, whilst being recommendatory in nature, capable of having legal significance as being reflective of customary international law.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: