Outcomes of the UPR segment (10th cycle) at the 17th session of the

Published: June 9, 2011

Nauru
? Nauru accepted recommendations to decriminalise sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex (recommendations 79.38; Slovenia, 79.74; United Kingdom and 79.75; Slovenia). It indicated that it would take three years to prepare such legislation. Nauru also accepted a recommendation to recognize the principle of non-discrimination, which prohibits discrimination on any ground, including sexual orientation (79.75; Sweden);
? Various states commended Nauru for accepting these recommendations, the Canadian HIV/AIDS legal network delivered a statement presented by John Fisher (see annex).
Rwanda
? No references during working group session
? No statement made at Human Rights Council

Nepal
? Nepal accepted recommendations:
? To ensure that the new Constitution fully guarantees the right to freedom of religion or belief and the right to requality and non-discrimination in line with international standards (106.1; Italy);
? To enact legislation to ensure members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community citizenship rights, consistent with the equal rights enumerated in the Nepali Supreme Court’s 2008 decision (106.5; United States of America);
? To take steps to ensure non-discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity including in the proposed civil and criminal laws (New Zealand); Implement fully the Supreme Court decision regarding sexual and gender minorities (106.23; Norway);
? Eliminate all forms of discrimination and pass the bill on caste-based discrimination and untouchability (106.24; Denmark);
? Take concrete steps to ensure the security of human rights defenders, including journalists (106.26; Czech Republic)
? Action Canada for Population and Development and Blue Diamond Society delivered a joint statement calling for the implementation of the Court decision and avoiding the recriminalization of SOGI issues (see annex).

Saint Lucia
? Saint Lucia is unable to fully accept a recommendation to take the necessary measures to ensure that the constitution guarantees the same rights to all inhabitants of the country, without distinction based on sexual orientation (89.55; Canada), arguing that “the language “sexual orientation” still requires standard international definition. Otherwise, the constitution of Saint Lucia guarantees the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms to all Saint Lucians, in a similar manner as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
? Saint Lucia accepted a recommendation to ensure that thorough investigations of allegations of acts of violence committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation or identity are promptly conducted (89.88; Canada), explaining that all reported allegations of violence are thoroughly and promptly investigated, using all available resources. Saint Lucia condemns all forms of violence and human rights violations committed against all persons, including those of different sexual orientation.
? Saint Lucia rejected recommendations to decriminalize consensual relations between adults of the same sex (89.92-89.96), “Due to contrary legislative provisions, and deeply entrenched societal morals and values which are still to be overcome. Saint Lucia is currently in the process of constitutional reform and will continue to progressively amend its laws in keeping with the country’s development and democratic processes. Saint Lucia will endeavor to raise public awareness, with regard to discrimination against any persons, where such discrimination occurs.
? Kenita Placide made a strong statement on behalf of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and United Strong (see annex). Amnesty International expressed disappointment to Saint Lucia’s unwillingness to decriminalise consensual same-sex relations.
Oman
? Oman rejected recommendations to recognize the full and equal enjoyment of human rights by all and immediately abolish the law that criminalizes homosexuality (91.3; Sweden) and to take effective measures to combat discrimination on any grounds, including sexual orientation and gender identity (91.4; Sweden).
? No further references were made.

Austria
? Austria accepted a recommendation to Include a sexual orientation and gender identity perspective with regard to measures against incitement to hatred (93.32; Spain). Austria accepted recommendations to harmonize all anti-discrimination laws to ensure equal protection on all grounds of discrimination including sexual orientation and gender identity (93.35; UK; 93.36; Iran and 93.38 +93.44; Norway);
? Austria accepted a recommendation to treat equally same sex relationships with opposite sex relationships, including the right to equal consideration for adoption and access to reproductive medicine (93.44; Netherlands), but rejected a recommendation to amend the legal status of same-sex partnerships to enable the right to adopt and have children (94.10; UK).
? Justus Eisfeld delivered a statement on behalf of ILGA-Europe (see annex).

Myanmar
? No references to SOGI issues made throughout the process
Australia
? Australia accepted the following recommendations:
? Continue to implement the harmonization and consolidation of anti-discriminatory laws and to move forward with the promulgation of laws protecting persons against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender (86.66; Colombia);
? Introduce a national legal provision prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender (86.67Switzerland);
? As a high priority, introduce Federal law which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation (86.68; New Zealand);
? Take measures to ensure consistency and equality across individual States in recognising same-sex relationships (86.69;United Kingdom); ? Australia rejected a recommendation to amend the Marriage Act to allow same-sex partners to marry and to recognise same-sex marriages from overseas (86.70; Norway), explaining that “The government does not intend to amend the Marriage Act 1961, but that it will continue to support a nationally consistent framework for relationship recognition that would need to be implemented by States and Territories.”
? Sheherezade Kara delivered a statement on behalf of ILGA-Europe (annex).

Georgia
? No references during working group session
? No statement made at Human Rights Council

Saint Kitts and Nevis
? The government and Saint Kitts and Nevis rejected recommendations to decriminalize sexual activity between consenting adults and abolish discriminatory laws and thus bring its legislation in conformity with its commitment to equality and non-discrimination (76.50 – 76.56; Sweden, Spain, Uruguay, Canada, Norway, USA and France). It explained that the State does not discriminate against persons based on their sexual orientation and that there is no record to date that any person has brought before the courts any claims of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, nor there is known any report of violence targeting persons based on their sexual orientation. The State however expressed its will to continue to engage the public on this issue through a consultative process.
? In his statement the representative said that it considers the current constitution to protect all people against discrimination. If the current provisions would be challenged by the court, then the government would consider changing the current law.
? Amnesty made a statement on SO/GI issues, as well did Kenita Placide on behalf of Caribbean forum for Liberation of genders and sexualities and COC Netherlands (annex).

Sao Tome and Principe
Sao Tome and Principe supported the following recommendations:
? Bring legislation into conformity with its support for the GA joint statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity and its international human rights obligations by repealing the provisions which criminalise sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex (64.55; Norway);
? Develop awareness-raising campaigns and programs against sexual orientation discrimination (64.56; Brazil);
? Repeal the provisions under its criminal legislation that punish sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex (64.57; France);
? Bring its legislation into conformity with its commitment to equality and non-discrimination, and its international human rights obligations, by repealing all provisions which may be applied to criminalise sexual activities between consenting adults (64.58; United Kingdom).

Namibia
? Namibia did not support the recommendations to decriminalize consensual same-sex conduct (93.1; Portugal and 93.2; France) and to adopt legislative measures that include prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (93.3; Spain).

Niger
? No references during working group session
? No statement made at Human Rights Council

Mozambique
? Mozambique did not support recommendations to:
o Repeal the laws criminalising sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex and guarantee fully the right of association including for NGOs working on the question of sexual orientation (91.4; France);
o Repeal criminal sanctions against sexual activity between consenting adults (91.5 Netherlands);
o Amend articles 70 and 71 of the Penal Code with a view to not criminalising sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex; ensure the right to association of LGBTs and facilitate the registration and activities of NGOs specialised on issues of sexual orientation and gender identity (91.6; Spain);
o Ensure the right to freedom of association and enable the registration of NGOs working on issues of sexual orientation and gender identity (91.8; Netherlands).

Estonia
? Estonia supported recommendations to:
? Take all necessary measures to combat discrimination against homosexuals (77.45; Belgium);
? Develop public awareness and education programs that advance tolerance on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity (77.46;Netherlands);
? Undertake awareness raising programs on gender identity and sexual orientation for civil servants, including security forces and bodies (77.47; Spain);
? Estonia however did not accept recommendations to give legal recognition to same-sex couples (80.11; Netherlands and 80.15; Northern Ireland) and to recognize same-sex marriages (80.16; Norway).
? Estonia was not able to fully endorse the recommendation to pay special attention to acts of violence against homosexuals (79.12; Finland) It clarified: “Estonia is committed to taking measures to enhance the level of public awareness and protection of the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. Estonia pays attention and condemns all forms of
violence, and has in place the respective legislative and policy instruments. The awareness raising activities with regards to tolerance towards LGBT community are carried out in cooperation with Human Rights Centre campaign Diversity Enriches;
? Additionally Estonia could not give a definitive answer to the recommendation to develop policy instruments based on the Yogykarta Principles to combat discrimination
against sexual minorities (79.13; Belgium).
? Björn van Roozendaal delivered a statement on behalf of COC Netherlands (see annex).

Paraguay
? Paraguay supported a recommendation to continue to make progress in measures to prevent discrimination against any person due to its sexual orientation or gender identity (84.25; Colombia);
? Paraguay additionally considered the following recommendations already implemented:
? Adopt and promulgate as soon as possible the draft law on all forms of discrimination and to include in this draft law discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (85.26; France);
? Take the necessary measures to effectively combat discrimination based on sexual orientation in law as well as practice (85.27; Sweden)

Full text of article available at link below –

Leave a Reply