![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the regional human rights conventions do not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, or provide the right to marry and have a family for same-sex couples, thus leaving an open margin of interpretation to their judicial and quasi-judicial enforcement bodies. However, regional courts and the Human Rights Committee (HRC) jurisprudence seems to have followed a path of convergence rather than fragmentation. This article will analyse the case-law of the regional judicial bodies and of the HRC on the matter through the lens of the prohibition of discrimination, assessing how such convergence has been reached and evaluating its nature. The analysis will reveal that beneath a seeming trend of convergence in the case outcomes, there are signs of a strong point of divergence and many threats of future fragmentation. In particular, there is a deep contrast between the European and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in terms of prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. Moreover, the convergence reached among regional human rights bodies and the HRC hides vague and highly debated concepts and definitions on sensitive topics like marriage and adoption.
Notes
1 Ignacio Saiz, ‘Bracketing Sexuality: Human Rights and Sexual Orientation: A Decade of Development and Denial at the UN’ (2004) 7 Health and Human Rights 48; Holning Lau, ‘Sexual Orientation : Testing the Universality of International Human Rights Law’ (2004) 71 The University of Chicago Law Review 1689; Amy Adamczyk and Cassady Pitt, ‘Shaping Attitudes about Homosexuality: The Role of Religion and Cultural Context’ (2009) 38 Social Science Research 338; Darren E Sherkat and others, ‘Religion, Politics, and Support for Same-Sex Marriage in the United States, 1988–2008’ (2011) 40 Social Science Research 167.
2 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (New York, 16 December 1966) 999 UNTS 171 and 1057 UNTS 407
3 Jack Donnelly, ‘Non-Discrimination and Sexual Orientation: Making a Place for Sexual Minorities in the Global Human Rights Regime’ in Peter Baehr, Cees Flinterman and Mignon Senders (eds), Innovation and Inspiration: Fifty Years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 1999); Michael O’Flaherty and John Fisher, ‘Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International Human Rights Law: Contextualising the Yogyakarta Principles’ (2008) 8 Human Rights Law Review 207; Lau (n 1).
4 Philippa Webb, International Judicial Integration and Fragmentation (OUP 2013).
5 Marjan Ajevski, Fragmentation in International Human Rights Law: Beyond Conflict of Law (Routledge 2015); Carla Buckley, Alice Donald and Philip Leach (eds), Toward Convergence in International Human Rights Law: Approaches of Regional and International Systems (Brill/Nijhoff 2016).
6 Pierre-Marie Dupuy, ‘The Danger of Fragmentation or Unification of the International Legal System and the International Court of Justice’ (1999) 31 NYU Journal of International Law and Politics 791; Webb (n 4); Ajevski (n 5); Georges Abi-Saab, ‘Fragmentation or Unification: Some Concluding Remarks’ (1999) 31 International Law and Politics 919.
7 Anne-Charlotte Martineau, ‘The Rhetoric of Fragmentation: Fear and Faith in International Law’ (2009) 22 Leiden Journal of International Law 1; Yuval Shani, ‘International Human Rights Bodies and the Little-Realized Threat of Fragmentation’ (2016) Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Studies Research Paper Series No 16-06.
8 O’Flaherty and Fisher (n 3); Donnelly (n 3); Saiz (n 1); Lau (n 1); James D Wilets, ‘International Human Rights Law and Sexual Orientation’ (1994) 18 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 731; John M Finnis, ‘Law, Morality and “Sexual Orientation”’ (1994) 69 Notre Dame Law Review 1049; Douglas Sanders, ‘Human Rights and Sexual Orientation in International Law’ (2002) 25 International Journal of Public Administration 13; Emma Mittelstaedt, ‘Safeguarding the Rights of Sexual Minorities: The Incremental and Legal Approaches to Enforcing International Human Rights Obligations’ (2008) 9 Chicago Journal of International Law 353.
9 Frans Viljoen, ‘Minority Sexual Orientation as a Challenge to the Harmonised Interpretation of International Human Rights Law’ in Carla M Buckley, Alice Donald and Philip Leach (eds), Toward Convergence in International Human Rights Law (Brill/Nijhoff 2016).
10 Sandra Fredman, Discrimination Law (OUP 2011) 86–93.
11 Kiyutin v Russia, Application No 2700/10 (ECtHR, 10 March 2011) 59.
12 Fredman, Discrimination Law (n 10).
13 Yogyakarta Principles: Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, March 2007, Preamble <http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/> accessed 11 June 2017 (hereinafter Yogyakarta Principles).
14 ibid.
15 O’Flaherty and Fisher (n 3). The acronym LGBT stands for ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender’ but will be used in this article with a particular reference to lesbians, gays and bisexuals who are the most discriminated individuals for their sexual orientation.
16 Michael O’Flaherty, ‘The Yogyakarta Principles at Ten’ (2015) 33 Nordic Journal of Human Rights 280.
17 UN HRC Resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, HRC/RES/17/19, 17 June 2011
18 Discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, A/HRC/19/41, 14 July 2011.
19 Recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly on Discrimination against homosexuals No 924, Doc 4755, 1 October 1981.
20 Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to combat discrimination on ground of sexual orientation or gender identity, CM/Rec(2010)5, 31 March 2010.
21 Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, OAS AG/RES 2435(XXXVIII-O/080, 3 June 2008; OAS AG/RES 2504(XXXXIX-O/09), 4 June 2009, OAS AG/RES 2600(XL-O/10), 8 June 2010; OAS AG/RES 2653(XLI-O/11), 7 June 2011; OAS AG/RES 2721(XLII-O/12), 4 June 2012.
22 ICCPR, art 2.
23 ibid art 26.
24 Toonen v Australia, Communication No 488/1992 (HRC, 31 March 1994).
25 Hertzberg and Others v Finland, Comm No 61/1979, (HRC, 2 April 1982). While tackling the issue of sexual orientation, the complaint focused on the violation of freedom of expression.
26 Toonen (n 24) 8.7.
27 O’Flaherty and Fisher (n 3).
28 Joslin et al v New Zealand, Comm No 902/1999 (HRC, 17 July 2002).
29 Donnelly (n 3) 21.
30 Andrew Koppelmann, ‘Why Discrimination against Lesbians and Gay Men Is Sex Discrimination’ (1994) 69 New York University Law Review 197; Sylvia Law, ‘Homosexuality and the Social Meaning of Gender’ [1998] Wisconsin Law Review 187.
31 Donnelly (n 3) 21.
32 Young v Australia, Comm No 941/2000 (HRC, 6 August 2003).
33 X v Colombia, Comm No 1361/2005 (HRC, 30 March 2007).
34 ibid 7.2; Young (n 32) 10.4.
35 X v Colombia (n 33), dissenting opinion.
36 Joslin (n 28).
37 ICCPR, art 23.
38 Joslin (n 28).
39 ibid 8.2.
40 UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General Comment No 19: Article 23, 27 July 1990, 2–4; UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General Comment No 28: Article 3, 29 March 2000, 23–27; Saiz (n 1).
41 Joslin (n 28), Individual opinion of Committee members Mr Rajsoomer Lallah and Mr Martin Scheinin.
42 Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) 1950, art 14.
43 Sutherland v United Kingdom, App no 25186/94 (ECtHR, 1 July 1997).
44 Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v Portugal, App no 33290/96 (ECtHR, 21 December 1999), 36.
45 L and V v Austria, App nos 39392/98 and 39829/98 (ECtHR, 9 January 2003).
46 ibid 37. The Austrian legislation provided that for heterosexual relations the age of consent was 14 while for homosexual relationships was 18.
47 Christine Goodwin v the United Kingdom, App no 28957/95 (ECtHR, 11 July 2002).
48 Schalk and Kopf v Austria, App no 30141/04 (ECtHR, 22 November 2010).
49 ibid 93–95; David J Harris and others, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (OUP 2014) 804.
50 Schalk and Kopf (n 48) 57–60.
51 Chapin and Charpentier v France, App no 40183/07 (ECtHR, 9 June 2016).
52 Orlandi and Others v Italy, App nos 26431/12, 26742/12, 44057/12 and 60088/12.
53 Data available on the website of ILGA Europe <http://old.ilga-europe.org/home/guide_europe/country_by_country> accessed 22 February 2017.
54 Oliari and Others v Italy, App nos 18766/11 and 36030/11(ECtHR, 21 July 2015)
55 ibid 164.
56 ibid 185.
57 ibid 189–94.
58 Eduardo Savarese, ‘In margine al caso Oliari: ovvero di come il limbo italiano delle coppie omosessuali abbia violato gli obblighi positive dell’art. 8 CEDU’ (2015) 3 Diritti Umani e Diritto Internazionale; Sabrina Ragone and Valentina Volpe, ‘An Emerging Right to a “Gay” Family Life? The Case Oliari v Italy in a Comparative Perspective’ (2016) 17 German Law Journal 451.
59 Salgueiro da Silva Mouta (n 44).
60 ibid 34.
61 ibid 35–36.
62 EB v France, App no 43546/02 (ECtHR, 22 January 2008).
63 ibid 93.
64 Gas and Dubois v France, App no 25951/07 (ECtHR, 15 June 2012).
65 ibid 68–69.
66 ibid 66–68, 71, 73.
67 X and Others v Austria, App no 19010/07 (ECtHR, 19 February 2013).
68 ibid 105–10.
69 ibid 153.
70 Mata Estevez v Spain, App no 56501/00 (ECtHR, 10 May 2001).
71 ibid (admissibility decision).
72 Aldeguer Tomas v Spain, App no 35214/09 (ECtHR, 14 June 2016).
73 ibid 91.
74 ibid 90.
75 Karner v Austria, App no 40016/98 (ECtHR, 24 October 2003); Kozak v Poland, App no 13102/02 (ECtHR, 2 June 2010).
76 PB and JS v Austria, App no 18984/02 (ECtHR, 22 July 2010).
77 Organisation of African Unity (OAU), African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (‘Banjul Charter’), 27 June 1981, CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 ILM 58 (1982), art 2.
78 William A Courson v Zimbabwe, Comm No 136/94 (ACommHPR, withdrawn 22 March 1995).
79 EA Ankumah, The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Practice and Procedures (Nijhoff 1996) 174, as quoted in F Viljoen, International Human Rights Law in Africa (OUP 2012) 265.
80 Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, Comm No 245/02 (ACommHPR, 15 May 2006).
81 ibid 169.
82 African Commission on Human and People's Rights, Resolution 275 On Protection against Violence and other Human Rights Violations against Persons on the Basis of their Real or Imputed Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, 55th Ordinary Session 28 April–12 May 2014.
83 Frans Viljoen, ‘The Relevance Of The Inter-American Human Rights System For Africa’ (1999) 11 African Journal of International and Comparative Law 659; Annika Rudman, ‘The Protection against Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation under the African Human Rights System’ (2015) 15 African Human Rights Law Journal 1.
84 Organisation of American States (OAS), American Convention on Human Rights, ‘Pact of San Jose’, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969, art 1.
85 Atala Riffo and Daughters v Chile (IACtHR, 24 February 2012).
86 Angel Alberto Duque v Colombia (IACtHR, 26 February 2016).
87 Atala Riffo (n 85) 84.
88 ibid 87–89.
89 ibid 91.
90 ibid 94.
91 EB (n 62).
92 ibid 88–89 (emphasis added).
93 ibid.
94 Atala Riffo (n 85) 94.
95 ibid 93.
96 Alvaro Paúl, ‘Examining Atala-Riffo and Daughters v Chile, the First Inter-American Case on Sexual Orientation, and Some of Its Implications’ (2014) 7 Inter-American and European Human Rights Journal 54.
97 Atala Riffo (n 85) 96–110.
98 ibid 169–72
99 Duque (n 86) 99, 124.
100 ibid 160.
101 ibid 123.
102 Webb (n 4); Martti Koskenniemi and Päivi Leino, ‘Fragmentation of International Law? Postmodern Anxieties’ (2002) 15 Leiden Journal of International Law 553.
103 EB (n 62) 93.
104 DH and Others v Czech Republic, App no 57325/00 (ECtHR, 13 November 2007); Hoogendijk v the Netherlands, App no 58641/00 (ECtHR, 6 January 2015).
105 Schalk and Kopf (n 48); Chapin and Charpentier (n 51); Gas and Dubois (n 64).
106 Joslin (n 28).
107 X v Colombia (n 33).
108 X and Others (n 67).
109 Aldeguer Tomas (n 72) and Schalk Kopf (n 48).
110 Duque (n 86).
111 Viljoen, ‘Minority Sexual Orientation’ (n 9).
112 Dean Spielmann, ‘Allowing the Right Margin: The European Court of Human Rights and the National Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Waiver or Subsidiarity of European Review? (2011–12) 14 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 381; Andrew Legg, The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law: Deference and Proportionality (OUP 2012).
113 Kozak (n 75) 92; Karner (n 75) 41.
114 EB (n 62) 93–96; Salgueiro da Silva Mouta (n 44) 36.
115 Paúl (n 96); GL Neuman, ‘Import, Export, and Regional Consent in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (2008) 19 European Journal of International Law 101.
116 Toonen v Australia (n 24) 8.6.
117 Magnus Killander, ‘Interpreting Regional Human Rights Treaties’ (2010) 7 SUR: International Journal on Human Rights 144.
118 Constitutional Rights Project and Another v Nigeria, Comm no 102/93 (ACommHPR, 31 October 1998), 26.
119 Prince v South Africa, Comm no 255/2002 (ACommHPR, 7 December 2004).
120 ECHR art 39, ACHR art 48(f), ICCPR art 41(e) and Information Sheet No 3 of the African Commission on Human and People's Rights <www.achpr.org/files/pages/communications/procedure/achpr_communication_procedure_eng.pdf> accessed 3 September 2016.
121 Courson (n 78).