The Yogyakarta Principles at Ten

ABSTRACT

From 6 to 9 November, 2006, a group of experts finalised the text of the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of international Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. The Principles have garnered praise for enshrining the rights of persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. Yet, they have also attracted critique as to their improvement beyond what some have described as radial and aspiration vision. The present article assesses the Principles in the light of almost a decade of experience. It seeks to determine the extent of the Principles impact, legal rigour, and engagement with actual lived experience. The article discusses the backdrop of the Principles, recalls their purpose and contents before moving on to a reflection on, inter alia, their influence at the national and regional levels in addition to that within the UN system. It concludes that a substantial revision of the text is not yet required, but rather, a better appreciation of the application of the Principles is needed.

KEYWORDS:

• Sexual Orientation
• Gender Identity
• Yogyakarta Principles
• Human Rights

Acknowledgements

My thanks to Mesenbet Assefa Tadeg for assistance with the referencing of this article as well as to the two anonymous reviewers whose comments were extremely helpful.

Notes

¹Philip Alston (Australia), UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions and Professor of Law, School of Law, New York University; Maxim Anmeghichean (Moldova), European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association; Mauro Cabral (Argentina), Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission; Edwin Cameron (South Africa), Justice, Supreme Court of Appeal, Bloemfontein, South Africa; Sonia Onufer Corre'a (Brazil), Research Associate at the Brazilian Interdisciplinary AIDS Association (ABIA) and Co-chair of the International Working Group on Sexuality and Social Policy (Co-chair of the experts' meeting); Yakin Erturk (Turkey), UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, Professor, Department of Sociology, Middle East Technical University, Ankara; Elizabeth Evatt (Australia), former Member and Chair of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, former Member of the UN Human Rights Committee and Commissioner of the International Commission of Jurists; Paul Hunt (New Zealand), UN Special Rapporteur on the right to the highest attainable standard of health and Professor of Law, Department of Law, University of Essex; Asma Jahangir (Pakistan), Chairperson, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan; Maina Kiai (Kenya), Chairperson, Kenya National Commission on Human Rights; Miloon Kothari (India), UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing; Judith Mesquita (United Kingdom), Senior Research Officer, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex; Alice M Miller (United States of America), Assistant Professor, School of Public Health, Co-director of the Human Rights Program, Columbia University; Sanji Mmasenono Monageng (Botswana), Judge of the High Court (The Republic of the Gambia), Commissioner of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Chairperson of the Follow Up Committee on the implementation of the Robben Island Guidelines on prohibition and prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights); Vitit Muntarbhorn (Thailand), UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Professor of Law, Chulalongkorn University (Co-chair of the experts’ meeting); Lawrence Mute (Kenya), Commissioner of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights; Manfred Nowak (Austria), Professor and Co-director of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights, Austria, and UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Ana Elena Obando Mendoza (Costa Rica), feminist attorney, women's human rights activist, and international consultant; Michael O'Flaherty (Ireland), Member of the UN Human Rights Committee, Professor of Applied Human Rights and Co-director of the Human Rights Law Centre, School of Law, University of Nottingham, and Rapporteur for the development of the Yogyakarta Principles; Sunil Pant (Nepal), President of the Blue Diamond Society, Nepal; Dimitrina Petrova (Bulgaria), Executive Director, The Equal Rights Trust; Rudi Muhammad Rizki (Indonesia), UN Special Rapporteur on international solidarity, and Senior Lecturer and the Vice Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty of Law, University of Padjadjaran, Indonesia; Mary Robinson (Ireland), Founder of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative, former President of Ireland, and former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; Nevena Vuckovic Sahovic (Serbia and Montenegro), Member of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, and President of the Child Rights Centre, Belgrade; Martin Scheinin (Finland), UN Special Rapporteur on counterterrorism, Professor of Constitutional and International Law, and Director of the Institute for Human Rights, Finland; Wan Yanhai (China), founder of the AIZHI Action Project and Director of Beijing AIZHIXING Institute of Health Education, China; Stephen Whittle (United Kingdom), Professor in Equalities Law, Manchester Metropolitan University; Roman Wieruszewski (Poland), Member of the UN Human Rights Committee, and Head of Poznan Centre for Human Rights; and Robert Wintemute (United Kingdom), Professor of Human Rights Law, School of Law, King's College London.

²Full text available at: http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/ (accessed 28 August 2015).

³C Sidoti, Asia Pacific Forum Manual for National Human Rights Institutions on Human Rights and Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status, forthcoming 2016.

⁴D Brown, ‘Making Room for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in International Human Rights Law: An Introduction to the Yogyakarta Principles’ (2010) 31 Michigan J of Int L 821.

⁵P Tozzi, ‘Six Problems with the Yogyakarta Principles’, International Organisations Research Group Briefing Paper No 1. (C-Fam, 2007) available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1551652 (last accessed 26 November 2015).

⁶For an extensive review of the forms of vulnerability, see M O'Flaherty and J Fisher, ‘Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International Human Rights Law: Contextualising the Yogyakarta Principles’ (2008) 8 HRLR 207.

⁷See http://76crimes.com/76-countries-where-homosexuality-is-illegal/ (accessed on 4 September 2015).

⁸Report of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, A/56/156 (3 July 2001) para 17.

⁹Report of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, E/CN.4/2004/9 (5 January 2004) para 123.

¹⁰Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, E/CN.4/2002/83 (31 January 2002) para 102.

¹¹ http://antigaylaws.org/ (accessed 12 September 2015).

¹²M O'Flaherty, ‘Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity’, in D Moekli et al (eds), International Human Rights Law (OUP, 2014) 305.

¹³Ibid.

¹⁴Ibid.

¹⁵Ibid.

¹⁶Ibid.

¹⁷Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Discrimination and Violence Against Individuals Based on their Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, A/HRC/29/23 (2015).

¹⁸Ibid, para 3.

¹⁹European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, LGBT Survey (2014) 12.

²⁰See O'Flaherty in Moekli (n 12).

²¹O'Flaherty and Fisher (n 7).

²²Sonia Onufer Corrêa and Vitit Muntarbhorn ‘Introduction to the Yogyakarta Principles’ The Yogyakarta Principles (2007) 6–7.

²³Address of the Rapporteur, launch event of the Principles (March 2007).

²⁴Preamble to the Yogyakarta Principles.

²⁵Ibid.

²⁶ An activists’ guide to the Yogyakarta Principles (2010) 23, at www.ypinaction.org/content/activists_guide (accessed 1 September 2015).

²⁷See General Comment 3, Article 2 Implementation at the National Level, Human Rights Committee UN Doc HRIGEN1REV. 1 at 4 (1994; General Comment 3, The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations, Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (2003) UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/REV.6 at 14; See also Frédéric Mégret, ‘Nature of Obligations’ in Moecklli (n 12) 96.

²⁸N 2 above.

²⁹P Ettelbrick, Z Trabucco, ‘The Impact of the Yogyakarta Principles on International Human Rights Law Development: A Study of November 2007–June 2010 – Final Report’ (10 September 2010).

³⁰Available at http://www.ypinaction.org/content/Principles_Unofficial_Translation (accessed on 28 August 2015).

³¹See the Williams Institute note Yogyakarta Principles Working Group Meeting Summary, The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, Global Art of Justice Conference, Los Angeles, California (11–12 March 2009).

³²O'Flaherty and Fisher (n 7).

³³Ettelbrick and Trabucco (n 29) 45.

³⁴Ibid, 27

³⁵Ibid, 54.

³⁶ An Activists’ Guide to the Yogyakarta Principles 2010, available in English, French, German and Spanish, is at www.ypinaction.org/content/activists_guide (last accessed 26 November 2015).

³⁷‘The Jurisprudential Annotations to the Yogyakarta Principles’ (2007) available at http://www.sxpolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/yogyakarta-principles-jurisprudential-annotations.pdf (accessed on 9 September 2015).

³⁸ https://www.youtube.com/results?q=the+yogyakarta+principles (accessed on 2 September 2015).

³⁹O'Flaherty and Fisher (n 7).

⁴⁰Report on the Launch of the Yogyakarta Principles, ARC International, available at http://www.ypinaction.org/files/45/Report_on_Launch_of_Yogyakarta_Principles.pdf (accessed on 9 September 2015) 5.

⁴¹Ettelbrick and Trabucco (n 29).

⁴²General Comment 20, Non Discrimination in Economic, social and Cultural Rights, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2009) E/C.12/GC/20.

⁴³Concluding Observation of the Committee Against Torture, Mongolia, adopted on 20 January 2011, CAT/C/MNG/CO/1, para 25; Concluding Observation of the Committee Against Torture, Finland, adopted on 29 June 2011, CAT/C/FIN/CO/5-6, para 24; Concluding Observation of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Panama 5 February 2010, CEDAW/C/PAN/CO/7, para 22.

⁴⁴ Naz Foundation v Government of NCT of Delhi (Delhi High Court, 2 July 2009; Blue Diamond Society, et al v Nepal Government, Writ No 917 of the year 2064 (BS) (2007 AD) (Supreme Court of Nepal, 21 December 2007). Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v Commission on Elections (COMELEC) (Philippines Supreme Court (8 April 2008).

⁴⁵UN General Assembly, Statement on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, 18 December 2008, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/49997ae312.html (accessed 9 September 2015).

⁴⁶Statement of Argentina (18 December 2008) video-archived (at 2 hours, 25 mins) at: http://www.un.org/webcast/ga.html (last accessed 26 November 2015).

⁴⁷Stephanie Farrior, ‘Human Rights Advocacy on Gender Issues: Challenges and Opportunities’, (2009) 1 J of Human Rights Practice 89.

⁴⁸Statement of Syria (18 December 2008), video-archived (at 2 hours, 32 mins) at: http://www.un.org/webcast/ga.html (last accessed 26 November 2015.

⁴⁹Joint Statement Delivered by Norway on Behalf of Nordic States Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, UN Human Rights Council (2007); Statement of the Minster of Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, H.E. Mr Maxime Verhagen, UN Human Rights Council (2008); Statement of Czech Republic (during interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, UN Human Rights Council (2007); Statement of Ireland, UN Human Rights Council (2008); statement of Slovenia on behalf of the EU (5 March 2008), considered as the first affirmation of the Yogyakarta Principles by the EU, see Ettelbrick and Zeran (n 29) 19.

⁵⁰Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health (27 April 2010) A/HRC/14/20 5; Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism (3 August 2009) 8.

⁵¹Report of the Special Rapporteur (n 50) para 48.

⁵²Ibid.

⁵³Ettelbrick and Trabucco (n 29).

⁵⁴Ibid.

⁵⁵Ibid v11.

⁵⁶Ibid.

⁵⁷Born Free and Equal: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in International Human Rights Law, United Nations Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (2012) available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/BornFreeAndEqualLowRes.pdf (accessed 9 Sep. 2015).

⁵⁸See eg 2011 report at para 75.

⁵⁹UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCR Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, 21 November 2008, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/48abd5660.html (accessed 13 September 2015.).

⁶⁰Ibid, 6.

⁶¹UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection No 9 Claims to Refugee Status based on Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity within the context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees available at http://www.unhcr.org/50ae466f9.pdf (accessed 13 September 2015).

⁶²See Concluding Observation on Mongolia and Finland (n 43).

⁶³See recommendations of the Human Rights Committee to Bolivia, contained in concluding observations adopted in 2015, CCPR/C/BOL/CO/3.

⁶⁴ Irina Fedotova v Russian Federation, CCPR/C/106/D/1932/2010, Human Rights Committee, Views adopted by the Committee at its 106th Session (15 October–2 November 2012).

⁶⁵Ibid, para 10.7.

⁶⁶See (n 19).

⁶⁷Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2010) 5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1606669 (accessed 12 September 2015).

⁶⁸Human Rights and Gender Identity, Issue Paper by Thomas Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1476365 (accessed 13 September 2015).

⁶⁹ Hämäläinen v Finland (App No 37359/09) ECHR 16 July 2014.

⁷⁰Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judge Sajo, Keller and Lemmens, paras 15–16.

⁷¹ X, Y, Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel, C-199/12 – C-201/12, European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union (7 November 2013).

⁷²Ibid, para 18.

⁷³See for instance www.oas.org/en/iachr/lgbti/links/, last visited on 24 November 2015.

⁷⁴ Homero Flor Freire v Ecuador, Report No 81/13, IACHR 4 November, 2013. See also Angel Alberto Duque v Colombia, Report No 5/14, IACHR 2 April 2014.

⁷⁵ Atala Riffo and Daughters v Chile, Inter American Court of Human Rights (Judgement of 24 February 2012).

⁷⁶See e.g. http://arc-international.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/El-Escrito-de-amicus-curiae-en-ingles.pdf (accessed on 2 September 2015).

⁷⁷See Review of the Use of the Yogyakarta Principles in Domestic and International Litigation, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, for the International Service for Human Rights (28 January 2015).

⁷⁸ Pant v Nepal Government (2007) Writ No 917, translated in (2008) 2 Nat Jud Acad L J 261.

⁷⁹ Naz Foundation v Government of NCT of Delhi (2009) 160 DLT 277 (High Court of Delhi).

⁸⁰Ibid.

⁸¹ Koushal v NAZ Foundation (2013) (Supreme Court of India).

⁸² National Legal Services Authority v Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438.

⁸³Ibid, para 53.

⁸⁴ Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v Commission on Elections (2010) GR No 190582.

⁸⁵Ibid, para. 52.

⁸⁶ Case No 071263822 (2007) RRTA 115 (Australian Refugee Review Tribunal); Case No 1000927 (2010) RRTA 444 (Australian Refugee Review Tribunal), para 48.

⁸⁷ Case No 1204063 (2012) RRTA 694 (Australian Refugee Review Tribunal), para 78.

⁸⁸Ettelbrick and Trabucco (n 29).

⁸⁹Ettelbrick and Trabucco (n 29) 30–34.

⁹⁰Ibid, 33, 58, 57, 58.

⁹¹ Ibid, 34.

⁹² Ibid, 57, 32.

⁹³‘Implementation of the Yogyakarta Principles: Key Factors for Implementation in Montenegro and Achievements in Implementation in Other Parts of the World’ Presentation at “Promotion and Importance of Yogyakarta Principles” Roundtable, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration (17 July 2014) http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/IntegratingYYPMontenegro.pdf (last accessed 26 November 2015).

⁹⁴Draft report submitted to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. On file with the author.

⁹⁵Michael O'Flaherty, ‘Gender recognition Bill is in Violation of International Human Rights Law’, Irish Times (10 February 2015), available at http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/gender-recognition-bill-is-in-violation-of-international-human-rights-law-1.2097289 (accessed on 15 September 2015).

⁹⁶Seanad (Senate) debate on the Gender Recognition Bill 2014, Tuesday 17 February 2015: http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/seanad2015021700002?opendocument#CC00200 (accessed on 15 September 2015).

⁹⁷Ibid.

⁹⁸Gender Recognition Bill, Department of Social and Family Affairs (2014) available at https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Gender-Recognition-Bill-2014.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2015).

⁹⁹D Brown, ‘Making Room for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in International Human Rights Law: An Introduction to the Yogyakarta Principles' (2010) 31 Michigan J of Int L.

¹⁰⁰Ibid, 878.

¹⁰¹Ibid, 863–867.

¹⁰²Ibid, 862.

¹⁰³ Schalk and Kopf v Austria, Application No 30141/04, Judgement of 24 June 2010.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid, para 94. See also, P.B. and J.S. v. Austria (No. 1898/02), Judgment of 22 July 2010.

¹⁰⁵ Atala Riffo and Daughters v Chile (n 72).

¹⁰⁶J Swiebell, ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Human Rights: the Search for an International Strategy' (2009) 15 J of Cont Pol 29. See also A Gross, ‘Sex Love and Marriage: Questioning Gender and Sexuality Rights in International Law' (2008) 21 Leiden J of Int L 253.

¹⁰⁷P Gerber, ‘Marriage: A Human Rights for All?' (2014) 36 Sydney L Rev 643.

¹⁰⁸ James Obergefell v Hodges 576 U.S. __(2015), No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015 — Decided June 26, 2015.

¹⁰⁹ Ms Juliet Joslin et al v New Zealand, Communication No 902/1999, UN Doc A/57/40 at 214 (2002).

¹¹⁰ Schalk and Kopf (n 103) at para 63.

¹¹¹See Gross (n 104).

¹¹²T Dreyfus, ‘The ”Half Invention” of Gender Identity in International Human Rights Law: from CEDAW to the Yogyakarta Principles’ (2014) 37 Australian Feminist L J 45.

¹¹³Gross (n 104) p 250.

¹¹⁴M Waites, ‘Critique of “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” in Human Rights Discourse: Global Queer Politics Beyond the Yogyakarta Principles’ (2009) 15 J of Cont Pol 153.

¹¹⁵UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011).

¹¹⁶K Linos and T Pegram, Integrating Form and Function: Designing Effective National Human Rights Institutions, The Danish Institute for Human Rights (2015).

¹¹⁷Preamble to the Yogyakarta Principles.

¹¹⁸M O'Flaherty, ‘Freedom of Expression: Article 19 of the General Comment on Civil and Political Rights and the Human Rights Committee's General Comment No 34′ (2012) 12 Human Rights L Rev 627.

¹¹⁹Ibid.

¹²⁰Onufer Corrêa and Vitit Muntarbhorn (n 22).