A Report on the 30th Session of the Human
Rights Council
September 14, 2015 – October 2, 2015
For further information on HRC30:
Arvind Narrain | Geneva Director | arvind@arc-international.net
Kim Vance | Executive Director | kim@arc-international.net
http://arc-international.net/global-advocacy/human-rights-council/hrc29
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session30/Pages/30RegularSession.aspx
CONTENTS
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................3
General Debate Under Item 2 and 3 .............................................................................................................5
Clustered Interactive Dialogue on Arbitrary Detention................................................................................5
Interactive Dialogue on the Human Rights of Older Persons .....................................................................8
Interactive Dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on Syria ....................................................................9
General Debate on Follow-Up to and Implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of
Action .........................................................................................................................................................10
General Debate on Human Rights Situations that require the Council's Attention ...................................12
Panel Discussion on the Impact of the World Drug Problem on the Enjoyment of Human Rights ...........12
General Debate on the Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights ...................................................................12
Annual Discussion on Integration of a Gender Perspective Throughout the Work of the HRC ............13
Side Events with LGBTI Specific Themes ...................................................................................................13
Universal Periodic Review..........................................................................................................................14
2
INTRODUCTION
The 30th Session of the Human Rights Council did not have a specific focus on LGBTI issues.
However LGBTI issues were raised in many spaces indicating the increasing mainstreaming of
LGBTI concerns. The increased mainstreaming was accompanied by strong opposition from
those states which did not see LGBTI rights as human rights. In short the polarized debate at the
30 HRC on LGBTI rights continued.
What was a significant step forward in this Council session, was the specific attention which was
paid to transgender and intersex human rights concerns. The fact that the High Commissioner
mentioned the rights of intersex persons in a wider speech on human rights concerns in the world
underscored the gravity of rights violations being faced by intersex persons in all regions of the
world. By having separate side events on both intersex and transgender rights, an effort was
made to disaggregate the LGBTI acronym and promote a greater education on otherwise
marginalized groups and populations.
Focus on intersex: The work of the OHCHR
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in the 30th Session of the
Human Rights Council in the course of a passionate speech which outlined the serious challenges
faced by the world in Syria, Palestine, Sri Lanka, Eritrea among others also choose to highlight
the rights violations perpetrated on grounds of intersex status.
As the High Commissioner put it,
Far too few of us are aware of the specific human rights violations faced by millions of
intersex people. Because their bodies don’t comply with typical definitions of male or
female, intersex children and adults are frequently subjected to forced sterilization and
other unnecessary and irreversible surgery, and suffer discrimination in schools,
workplaces and other settings.1
The OHCHR also hosted a ground breaking meeting to address the rights violations perpetrated
on intersex persons which brought together UN experts including members of treaty bodies like
the CEDAW, CRC, UN bodies like the WHO and Special Rapporteurs like the Rapporteur on
the right to health. There were also experts who have specifically engaged on intersex issues
from the national perspective including representatives from the government of Malta as well as
members of national human rights bodies which had engaged with intersex issues from
Switzerland and Germany. Most importantly there were intersex activists who educated the
‘experts’ on the issues faced by intersex people.
1
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16414&LangID=E
3
The meeting was opened by the High Commissioner who began by stating that when he started
as High Commissioner a year ago, he knew little about intersex people – a reflection of a general
lack of awareness.
“Too many people assume, without really thinking about it, that everyone can be fitted
into two distinct and mutually exclusive categories,” Zeid said. “But in fact, human
beings – like most living beings – are more diverse and complex than that. Our diversity
– the differences between our experiences and perspectives, as well as the shapes of our
bodies – is something that we should celebrate and protect, in all its forms.”2
The meeting provided a great opportunity for the UN system in all its complexity to grapple with
the concerns of intersex activists and think about how these issues could be taken forward within
the UN system. A significant outcome of the meeting was the decision to produce a mapping of
the key principles which affect the intersex community and the need to bring together these
principles as a statement of international law on questions affecting the intersex community.
A listing of some of these principles would include the need to affirm bodily diversity and the
right to psychological and physical integrity of children born intersex, the need to avoid
substituted decision making on behalf of intersex children, the need to facilitate informed
decision making by intersex persons regarding their own bodies and the need to begin the
conversation on justice for the violence inflicted on intersex infants including acknowledgement
of the wrongs which have been perpetrated, reparation and the guarantee of non recurrence.
2
ibid.
4
GENERAL DEBATE UNDER ITEM 2 AND 3
Compared to earlier sessions there were only sporadic mentions of rights of LGBTI persons in
the general debate. However like previous sessions the opposing and supporting voices remained
in their entrenched positions.
Argentina emphasized that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community
continued to suffer from discrimination, despite some progress made.
Saudi Arabia said that it was proud to comply with Islamic Sharia and all international human
rights instruments and stressed that the universality of human rights did not mean imposing
values contrary to those of Islamic faith.
CLUSTERED INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE ON ARBITRARY DETENTION
The Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention produced the United Nations Basic
Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of
Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court. The key controversy provoked by the
principles was that it referenced the specific vulnerability of LGBTI people subjected to arbitrary
detention.
In the first place the principles affirmed universality by stating that
In the present Basic Principles and Guidelines, the terms “everyone”,
“anyone” or “any person” denote every human being without
discrimination based on race, colour, sex, property, birth, age, national,
ethnic or social origin, language, religion, economic condition, political
or other opinion, sexual orientation or gender identity, disability or other
status, and any ground that aims at or may result in undermining the
enjoyment of human rights on a basis of equality. It includes, but is not
limited to, girls and boys, soldiers, persons with disabilities, including
psychosocial and intellectual disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and intersex persons, non-nationals, including migrants
regardless of their migration status, refugees and asylum seekers,
internally displaced persons, stateless persons and trafficked persons and
persons at risk of being trafficked, persons accused or convicted of a
crime, persons who have or are suspected to have engaged in the
5
preparation, commission or instigation of acts of terrorism, drug users,
persons with dementia, human rights defenders and activists, older
persons, persons living with HIV/AIDS and other serious communicable
or chronic diseases, indigenous peoples, sex workers and minorities
based on national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity.
The principles also understood arbitrary detention in the context of discrimination.
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international
law for reasons of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social
origin, language, religion, economic condition, political or other opinion,
gender, sexual orientation, disability or other status, and which is aimed
at or may result in ignoring the equality of human rights.
The principles recognized that both sexual orientation and gender identity were part
of the non-discrimination framework.
Principle 5
Non-discrimination
The right to bring proceedings before a court to challenge the
arbitrariness and lawfulness of detention and to receive without delay
appropriate and accessible remedies may be exercised by anyone
regardless of race, colour, sex, property, birth, age, national, ethnic or
social origin, language, religion, economic condition, political or other
opinion, sexual orientation or gender identity, asylum seeking or
migration status, or disability or any other status.
The principles were showed a keen awareness of how sexual orientation, gender
identity and sex work could be markers which make the access to courts that much
more difficult.
Principle 17
Specific obligations to guarantee access to the right to bring proceedings
before a court
The adoption of specific measures are required under international law to
ensure meaningful access to the right to bring proceedings before a court
to challenge the arbitrariness and lawfulness of detention and to receive
without delay appropriate and accessible remedies by certain groups of
detainees. This includes – but is not limited to children – women (in
particular pregnant and breastfeeding women), older persons, persons
detained in solitary confinement or other forms of incommunicado
detention of restricted regimes of confinement, persons with disabilities,
6
including psychosocial and intellectual disabilities, persons living with
HIV/AIDS and other serious communicable or contagious diseases,
persons with dementia, drug users, indigenous persons, sex workers,
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, minorities as
based on national or ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic identity, nonnationals, including migrants regardless of their migration status, asylum
seekers and refugees, internally displaced persons, stateless persons and
trafficked persons or persons at risk of being trafficked.
The principles also mentioned the specific vulnerability of LGBTI children.
Guideline 18
Specific measures for children
A safe, child-sensitive environment should be established for children
deprived of their liberty. Detained children should be treated with dignity
and respect, and in a manner that takes into account any element leading
to vulnerability, in particular with regard to girls, younger children,
children with disabilities, non-nationals, including migrants regardless of
their migration status, refugees and asylum-seeking children, stateless
children, trafficked children or children at risk of being trafficked,
children from minority, ethnic or indigenous groups and lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender or intersex children.
The principles were indeed remarkable for showing a keen awareness of how LGBTI
persons right to access an effective legal remedy can indeed be stymied purely on
grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. As such they
contribute a remarkable addition to the emerging jurisprudence of rights of LGBTI
persons. It was precisely for this reason, that the principles were targeted by
opposing states.
Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, expressed regret that
the Working Group’s draft guidelines and principles included controversial notions which were
not universally agreed such as sexual orientation and gender identity, or lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and intersex rights.
Iran expressed reservation about the use of controversial and misguided concepts, such as sexual
orientation and gender identity, when discussing arbitrary detention. The Working Group should
remain focused on long established values and principles, and universally accepted human rights,
respecting different cultures.
A vigorous defence of the principles was mounted by Allied Rainbow Communities
International, in a joint statement with International Lesbian and Gay Association, stated that,
7
We are pleased to see that on an issue of much controversy before this Commission, the
principles are forthright. The Principles unambiguously state that when one uses the term
‘everyone’, ‘anyone’, or ‘any person’ you mean every person without discrimination
including LGBTI people. The fact that inclusion is not just a matter of words but
demands a change of substance is elucidated in principle 17, which urges the adoption of
specific measures to ensure meaningful access to marginalized groups such as sex
workers and LGBTI people so as to enable them to effectively challenge arbitrary
detention.
We cannot urge the importance of this principle strongly enough as the reality around the
world is that both sex workers and LGBTI people face arbitrary detention by state
authorities based on nothing more than a deep rooted bias against sexual and gender non
conformity of any type.
The specific measures urged with respect to LGBTI people as well as sex workers must
include measures, which tackle the bias, and prejudice which pervades the bureaucracy,
police as well as the higher echelons of leadership in many states around the world.
INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF OLDER PERSONS
While the independent expert did not directly reference the rights of older LGBTI persons, it was
referenced in the debate.
The United States noted a commitment to helping those who are most vulnerable, including older
persons from racial and ethnic minority communities, older women, older persons with
disabilities, older LGBTI persons, older persons living in rural areas, and older indigenous
persons.
Federatie van Nederlandse Verenigingen tot Integratie Van Homoseksualiteit - COC Nederland,
in a joint statement with International Lesbian and Gay association and Swedish Federation of
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights – RFSL observed:
Research has indicated that LGBTI seniors are far more likely to live alone, face elevated
rates of disability and poor health, and suffer from higher levels of mental distress than
their heterosexual or cisgender counterparts. They live in fear of discrimination, violence
and bullying, and remain fearful and resistant to accessing health services, often out of
concern for being treated unprofessionally. Many are also scared to move into assisted
living institutions or elder care, fearing that their identities, as well as their chosen
partners, will not be recognized or simply ignored. Those who work with elders
frequently indicate that they have received no training on LGBTI rights and issues, while
few states have explicit policies to protect the rights of older LGBTI persons. In many
8
countries, LGBTI seniors are simply invisible. They face pervasive and unique forms of
discrimination and human rights violations that require the Independent Expert’s
attention.
INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON SYRIA
The Report after documenting the violations committed on civilians, those perceived to be
enemies as well as minorities by forces including Jabhat Al Nusra, Daesh and the Syrian Arab
Republic made a series of recommendations to end the conflict in Syria. The Report had a
comprehensive understanding of the nature of violations being perpetrated in the territory of
Syria. In a sub section headed, ‘continuing investigations’ the Report noted that
Investigations continue into the impact of the conduct of the warring
parties on other groups and communities, including but not limited to the
elderly, persons with disabilities, those suffering from chronic illnesses,
migrant workers and sexual minorities.
Sexual minorities have been targeted for execution by ISIS and Jabhat
Al-Nusra. The Commission continues to investigate reports of ISIS
fighters throwing gay men off high buildings, and their being beheaded
by Jabhat Al-Nusra.
Allied Rainbow Communities International noted:
The Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab
Republic unequivocally demonstrates that the rise and consolidation of Daesh as well as
other extremist groups like the Jabhat Al-Nusra threatens the very existence of religious
and ethnic minorities such as the Yazidis, Kurds, Assyrians, Christians, Druze, Ismailis,
Alawites and Shias.
Daesh also has no place for those who are sexual non-conformists - be it those who are in
extramarital relationships or those who happen to be LGBTI. With respect to LGBTI
people, Daesh has demonstrated that its aim is not merely persecution but elimination of
the entire grouping.
Daesh has deliberately and intentionally declared war on human diversity in all its forms
and this calls to mind other mass crimes in the past including the Nazi Holocaust which
targeted Jews, Romas, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities and homosexuals.
History is repeating itself. Daesh’s genocidal project is a powerful reminder of the very
reason as to why on 10 December, 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was
adopted unanimously.
9
GENERAL DEBATE ON FOLLOW-UP TO AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VIENNA
DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION
As in previous Council Sessions the discussion in this context provided countries an opportunity
to discuss LGBTI issues. There were supportive states responses and responses which were
critical of the perception of LGBTI rights as part of the framework of universal human rights
Supportive Responses
Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of the European Union, stressed their commitment to the
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and underlined the importance of human rights
education. They stressed the importance of combatting discrimination on all grounds, including
against women and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons.
Denmark, speaking on behalf of Nordic countries, said the High Commissioner’s latest report on
discrimination and violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender
identity painted a gloomy picture. But the report also highlighted best practices on how to
counter violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex
persons. This taboo would be tackled step by step, by the leadership of political, religious and
other public and private leaders.
Argentina, speaking on behalf of a number of countries, stated that positive progress had been
made at various levels when it came to fighting discrimination and violence against lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons. There was no special international human rights
mechanism applied to the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons. The
issue ought to be dealt with systematically and comprehensively.
United Kingdom stated that human rights were universal and should apply equally to all
people. The international community should thus address all forms of discrimination, including
on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. For too long, the Council had remained
silent on discrimination and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, but
in 2014, it had adopted its second resolution on sexual orientation.
Montenegro stressed that the fundamental rights of everyone, including lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and intersex persons, had to be protected, without excuse. Taking active measures to
combat homophobic and transphobic violence and discrimination was a clear priority of the
Government of Montenegro, which was a co-sponsor and a member of the Group of Friends for
the 2014 Council resolution on combatting violence and discrimination based on sexual
orientation and gender identity. It was of utmost importance to understand that cultural
relativism should not exclude universal standards.
10
Spain said that the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action were the universal commitment
to the promotion and protection of human rights with no exception, and the commitment to fight
all forms of discrimination at the heart of it. The fight against all forms of discrimination
enjoyed unequivocal support of the Member States of the Human Rights Council, all expect
discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, on the grounds of
cultural, religious and societal relativism.
Slovenia said that the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action reaffirmed the universality
of human rights and the principles of equality and non-discrimination. Lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and intersex persons were entitled to the same human rights and fundamental
freedoms as everyone else. Cultural, traditional and religious values could not justify any form
of discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Human Rights Law Centre, in a joint statement with, Allied Rainbow Communities
International; International Service for Human Rights; and International Lesbian and Gay
Association, noted that it was disturbing that in 22 years since the adoption of the Vienna
Declaration and Plan of Action, people continued to suffer systemic discrimination, violence and
persecution as a result of their sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, or because
of their work to stand up and speak out for equal rights.
Critical Responses
Russian Federation underlined that the Human Rights Council should be guided by the principle
of cooperation. Unfortunately, recent discussions had been politicized and the Council had
become instrumentalized by certain States, which wanted to impose new understandings of
human rights under the guise of universality. This would only lead to the increase of
confrontation. As a result, the United Nations system would not be seen as
trustworthy. Cooperation was the only way to avoid such a trend, and would effectively help
build national capacity.
Iran said that the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action underlined universality,
objectivity and non-selectivity in consideration of human rights and the importance of key
concepts such as the enhancement of international cooperation and cultural diversity. However,
matters like the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights and
attention to regional and national specificities had not received the required attention by the
United Nations human rights bodies. At the same time, the establishment of country-specific
mandates and unilateral coercive measures ignored that the Declaration called on States to
refrain from such steps.
11
GENERAL DEBATE ON HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS THAT REQUIRE THE COUNCIL’S
ATTENTION
British Humanist Association said secularism was the only way to ensure freedom of religion for
all. The Constitution of Egypt for example explicitly recognized Islam as the official religion,
and led to Egypt failing to ensure the rights of atheists or persons belonging to other
religions. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons’ rights were also violated in Morocco
in the name of religion.
PANEL DISCUSSION ON THE IMPACT OF THE WORLD DRUG PROBLEM ON THE
ENJOYMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
International Lesbian and Gay Association, in a joint statement with International Service for
Human Rights, highlighted the vulnerability of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons,
and particularly trans-women to drug related problems; they faced discrimination leading to lack
of access to health services because States failed to recognize their gender identity and sexual
orientation.
GENERAL DEBATE ON THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS
Spain said that the attacks on the independence of the High Commissioner’s office were sirens of
relativism which was a dangerous school of thought fighting against human rights. On the report
on equal participation and the analysis of barriers that stood in the way of this, Spain said that the
case of persons with disabilities and persons from the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and trans-sexual
communities merited a deeper analysis within the Human Rights Council.
12
ANNUAL DISCUSSION ON INTEGRATION OF A GENDER PERSPECTIVE
THE WORK OF THE HRC
THROUGHOUT
Action Canada for Population and Development and Sexual Rights Initiative pointed out that
gender parity in representation should not only include women, but all those persons who are not
gender conforming. We are deeply concerned with discussion of gender excluding transgender
and other gender non-conforming people. We would also like to ask the panelists on how one
can expand the scope of discussion to go beyond binary ideas of gender at the very least in the
UN system.
SIDE EVENTS WITH LGBTI SPECIFIC THEMES
There were two side events, which focused on often neglected groupings within the larger
LGBTI framework i.e. the intersex and transgender grouping. By devoting specific time to
discussing the specificity of the problems faced by transgender and intersex people, there was
scope to understand these issues not as subsumed under a larger framework but as independent
concerns.
The side event which focused on the rights of intersex people organized by ILGA had intersex
activists from Germany, Taiwan, Uganda, USA and Australia. The speakers highlighted the
unspeakable crimes committed on intersex people in five continents. The speakers highlighted
the crime of genital mutilation committed by medical professionals in early childhood without
the consent of the child. The discussion was around the need for justice and the possibility of
setting up some kind of a commission which would play a role in reaching justice by
acknowledging the scale of violation perpetrated on intersex persons, and move the debate
forward on both reparations and the guarantee of non recurrence.
The side event focused on transgender rights was organized by TGEU and ARC and had
transgender activists from Samoa, Argentina, South Africa and Germany speaking about their
experiences of violence and discrimination in four continents. Again even while each country
had its specificity the experience of violence and discrimination transcended national boundaries.
As one speaker highlighted, documentation reveals that 1700 murders of trans people have been
documented over the last seven years. However the fact that even in a hostile situation, activism
can achieve a lot was emphasized by the Argentinian experience, which emphasized the dramatic
changes, which have been accomplished by activism. The highlight of the changes in Argentina
was the passing of a law, which recognizes that one, could change one’s gender as a purely
administrative procedure.
13
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
The following references to LGBTI issues were made in the following countries UPR’s. (For
more details please read the report produced by COC Netherlands.)
USA
International Lesbian and Gay Association said that despite significant steps forward, lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transsexual individuals in the United States continued to face discrimination in
different States. The United States should enact laws at federal and state levels, which explicitly
prohibited such discrimination.
MALAWI
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, in a joint statement with
International Lesbian and Gay Association, welcomed that Malawi had accepted two
recommendations on sexual minorities and gender. Concern remained that 17 recommendations
related to sexual orientation had not been accepted. The Government of Malawi was urged to
repeal all discriminatory clauses in its legislation.
Action Canada pour la population et le dévelopement welcomed the acceptance of
recommendations to end gender-based violence, advance gender equality and strengthen the HIV
response. Malawi should ensure the availability of referral health facilities close to police
stations and decriminalize all forms of consenting sexual activity between adults.
Amnesty International regretted the Government’s rejection of recommendations to repeal
provisions in the Penal Code criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual activities between
adults. The Government was strongly encouraged to work towards abolishing the death penalty
and guaranteeing free trial.
Centre for Civil and Political Rights commended the Government for being so progressive in
enacting good laws in the best interests of citizens. At the moment, Malawi was in the process of
drafting a national human rights plan. It was unfortunate that Malawi had rejected
recommendations on the death penalty and the rights of sexual minorities.
MALDIVES
Ali Naseer Mohamed, Foreign Secretary of Maldives, explained that for over 800 years,
Maldivians had embraced and maintained Islamic values, and any efforts to introduce practices
contrary to the values of Islam would not be acceptable to the people of Maldives. Freedoms of
religion, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons and non-traditional forms of family had
been rejected by the people.
14
For over 800 years, Maldivians had embraced and maintained Islamic values, and any efforts to
introduce practices contrary to the values of Islam would not be acceptable to the people of
Maldives. Freedoms of religion, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons and nontraditional forms of family had been rejected by the people.
MONGOLIA
Federatie van Nederlandse Verenigingen tot Integratie Van Homoseksualiteit - COC Nederland
said Mongolia had made huge strides in enabling all people to enjoy their human rights
regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, including criminalizing hate crime.
International Service for Human Rights was concerned about discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation and gender identity and encouraged the Government to continue to strengthen
the independence of the national human rights institution, including through the provision of
sufficient funds.
PANAMA
Federatie van Nederlandse Verenigingen tot Integratie Van Homoseksualiteit - COC Nederland
recognized the commitment of Panama to accept the recommendations of the 2010 Universal
Periodic Review. Nevertheless, the population of different sexual orientation and gender identity
was still at risk, and the Government was called upon to guarantee them equal treatment.
Action Canada for Population and Development, in a joint statement, appreciated Panama’s
participation in the Universal Periodic Review. However, the Government had not accepted
recommendations to repeal its legislation that defined homosexuality as a serious crime. There
had to be legal equality for the same-sex couples.
BULGARIA
Allied Rainbow Communities International commended Bulgaria’s significant legislative actions
and changes regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights since
2010. However, there was no significant development of the effective measures to overcome
continuing discriminatory patterns against these persons through education and training.
HONDURAS
Federatie van Nederlandse Verenigingen tot Integratie Van Homoseksualiteit - COC Nederland,
in a joint statement with International Lesbian and Gay Association, drew attention to gender
identity and sexual orientation and the lack of investigation of crimes against the lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender and intersex community, which continued to be one of the most vulnerable
groups in the country. While there was a specialized unit to investigate such crimes, the judicial
system was not prepared to prosecute such cases.
15
Peace Brigades International Switzerland said lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons
suffered violence, stigmatization and discrimination in Honduras, fuelled by religious
extremism. Authors of such violence were not held accountable as the State had failed to act.
LIBERIA
International Lesbian and Gay Association regretted the lack of support from Liberia to the
recommendation on issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. Lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and intersex persons continued to suffer human rights abuses such as harassment,
attacks, verbal abuse, mob violence and hate crimes.
CROATIA
Vesna Batistic Kos, Permanent Representative of Croatia to the United Nations Office of
Geneva, Croatia attached great importance to the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
persons, and had introduced a civil partnership for same-sex couples. There was no record of
hate-motivated criminal offenses by law enforcement officers, the recommendation relating to
this was therefore noted.
Allied Rainbow Communities International recognized progress made to protect lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender persons’ rights, but was concerned that no legislation recognized the
status of transgender persons, and called on Croatia to enshrine the rights of transgender persons
in its legislation, and to strengthen the protection of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
persons.
Human Rights House Foundation said that Croatia must guarantee access to the legal system to
everyone, including people with little or no education, and amend its legislation on
defamation. The sexual violence, including against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and
intersex persons and Roma, remained an issue and Croatia should amend its Anti-Discrimination
Act and address the misuse of psychiatric detention.
JAMAICA
Wayne McCook, Permanent Representative of Jamaica to the United Nations Office at Geneva,
said that Jamaica had accepted recommendations to establish a national human rights institution
and to conduct human rights training and sensitization, and continued to take steps to end
prejudice and stigmatization affecting all Jamaicans, including lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and intersex persons.
Jamaica had accepted the majority of recommendations on combatting discrimination on any
grounds and in all spheres of life and to further the protection of the rights of vulnerable persons,
including women, children, persons with disabilities and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and
intersex persons. A gender equality framework was currently in place for the Government’s
policies, programmes and plans. Jamaica continued to take steps to end prejudice and
16
stigmatization affecting all Jamaicans, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex
persons. It did not accept any recommendations which sought to characterize the attitudes of
Jamaican society generally as “homophobic”.
International Lesbian and Gay Association, in a joint statement, commended Jamaica’s efforts to
implement recommendations to improve the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and
intersex persons. However, it urged the Government to conduct a legal audit on people living
with HIV and to provide them with better access to social services.
Amnesty International welcomed the acceptance by Jamaica to establish a national human rights
institution, and noted concerns over lack of cooperation from the police with investigations into
the killings of civilians by security forces in 2010. It noted with concern that Jamaica lacked a
legal framework to prevent discrimination and violence on the grounds of sexual orientation or
gender identity.
Rencontre Africaine pour la défense des droits de l’homme welcomed Jamaica’s cooperation
with United Nations human rights mechanisms and its enrolment in initiatives targeting persons
of African descent. It remained concerned about violence and discrimination against women and
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons.
17