Killings Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity ‘Scandalous’, Expert Tells Third Committee, Demanding Probes, Justice for Victims
Rights Issues Relating to Terrorism, Sanctions, Foreign Debt Also Debated
Continued killings based on sexual orientation or gender identity are “inadmissible” and require urgent action from Member States, a human rights expert told the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) today, as it heard from other experts on issues ranging from counter-terrorism, unilateral coercive measures and foreign debt.
“These deaths simply should not occur anywhere,” declared Morris Tidball-Binz, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, presenting his report (document A/79/172), which contains recommendations — including States’ immediate repeal of all criminal penalties for consensual same-sex conduct as well as justice and security system agencies’ better understanding of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual (LGBTQIA+) persons and the drivers of violence against them.
He underscored that “there is no effective protection of the right to life without a capacity to investigate any suspicious death in a trustworthy manner”, voicing a commitment to pursue a victim-centred approach to investigate and document illicit deaths to achieve truth, justice and reparation. The report issues “an urgent appeal to put an end and prevent once and for all the deaths of individuals for reasons of their sexual orientation or gender identity” due to “prejudices, discrimination and hate”, he said.
This is a “global tragedy” that is “unacceptable and scandalous” with “no acceptable excuse” today, he stressed, demanding the urgent attention of all States. “Most of these deaths could be avoided by adopting simple and non-onerous measures,” he said, calling on States to implement his recommendations in the report. “The duty of States to respect and protect the right to life is not an option — it is an obligation under international law,” he urged.
In the ensuing discussion, speakers voiced concern over the rise of hate speech against LGBTQIA+ persons and shared best practices to combat violence against the community, while others dismissed the report as an attempt to legitimize non-consensual concepts.
The representatives of the United States and Belgium voiced concern over a rise in hate speech against LGBTQIA+ people — even in their own countries — with the latter noting that polarization on social media exacerbates the scourge. Calling for stronger protections for the community, he spotlighted his country’s efforts, including banning conversion therapy and bolstering its anti-discrimination laws.
Canada’s speaker welcomed global progress in legislation affecting LGBTQIA+ people, from decriminalizing and recognizing same-sex relations to facilitating official documents reflecting the gender identity of transgender persons. He voiced concern over legislative rollbacks targeting the LGBTQIA+ community with detention and executions in some places, however, while also highlighting the link between the legality of “harmful” conversion therapies and extrajudicial killings.
The representative of Kenya reaffirmed support for the rights of all people regardless of their sexual orientation. Spotlighting ongoing efforts to create a bill protecting the rights of intersex people, he said that the law would facilitate informed consent in healthcare decisions and implement awareness-raising about the group.
“It is the sovereign right of States to decide on their criminal laws based on their national and international obligations,” Iran’s delegate stressed, as she joined her counterpart from Iraq to reject the focus of the report. They both noted that it attempts to legitimize concepts that are not consensually agreed upon within the UN and ignores the cultural and historical background of many Member States. Similarly, the speaker from the Russian Federation called on the Special Rapporteur to avoid “neoliberal interpretations of gender issues” and to focus on extrajudicial killings broadly — such as the “catastrophic” killings by Ukrainian armed groups and neo-Nazis carried out “not only against Russian soldiers but also civilians”.
To counter, Finland’s delegate, speaking on behalf of a group of Nordic and Baltic States, welcomed the focus of the report, noting that killings of LGBTQIA+ people hugely impact both communities and loved ones.
Meanwhile, India’s delegate, noting its positive track record on including LGBTQIA+ people in the business sector, rejected the Special Rapporteur’s “contradictory picture” of her country from “dated” information in his report regarding intersex babies. Sex determination during pregnancy is illegal in India, she stressed.
The representative of Brazil highlighted its national plan for the protection of LGBTQIA+ people, noting that its Secretariat for the community is housed within the Ministry of Rights and Citizenship — which demonstrates her country’s commitment to combat violence and discrimination.
Among other experts briefing the Committee was Ben Saul, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, who presented his report on regional organizations' efforts in counter-terrorism (document A/79/324). While the threat of terrorism “remains as real as ever” globally, “overbroad terrorism laws continue to be weaponized [by States] to intimidate and arbitrarily imprison political activists”.
Against this backdrop, he observed the positive role that regional organizations can play in providing regional solutions to regional problems, including terrorism. They should amend their overly broad definitions of terrorism and improve their oversight mechanisms. Accountability can be improved with more regular and detailed public reporting on an organization’s counter-terrorism activities. “Counter-terrorism measures must never impede life-saving relief for acutely vulnerable civilians,” he stressed, urging States to indefinitely renew the humanitarian relief exemption in Security Council resolution 2664 (2022).
Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, underscored the need “to reclaim the promise of an independent and impartial justice system and take specific, concrete steps to defend it”. She voiced concern over the climate of mistrust generated around court appointment processes amid allegations of corruption, influence peddling and a lack of space for effective civil society participation. Having examined the efforts by powerful economic actors to exert improper influence over justice systems, she emphasized that “judges and justice systems must be impartial, providing equal treatment to all”.
“If justice systems are seen to operate for the few, rather than for all, damage to the public trust will occur, which — over time — may become irrevocable,” she warned, expressing support for the initiative brought by judges themselves to declare 11 January the Day of Judicial Independence. Also, she highlighted the recently finalized binding instrument — a European Convention on the protection of the profession of lawyer — that aims to ensure lawyers can practice without fear, prejudice and restraint.
Alena Douhan, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, warned of the “rapid expansion” of unilateral sanctions regimes and the active use of various penalties against those allegedly circumventing or assisting in circumventing such measures. These practices lead to the extensive violation of different categories of human rights, not only for the designated individuals but for others, including the general population, in the sanctioned countries, creating a protection gap.
Stressing that access to justice and meaningful remedies is extremely limited in sanctions’ environments, she called on sanctioning States and regional organizations to ensure that all unilateral means of pressure do not violate their international obligations and stay within the limits of countermeasures, in accordance with the law of international responsibility. Further, she added, all measures not directly authorized by the Security Council constitute unilateral coercive measures and shall be lifted.
Attiya Waris, Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, noted that the realization of all human rights is hinged to the provision of goods and services. However, many countries have struggled to uphold the fiscal social contract and maintain fiscal legitimacy due to a “broken” international financial system. This is evident in their unsustainable and irresponsible borrowing, odious and illegitimate debts and conditional and harmful tax regime reforms.
Stressing that transnational corporations, financial institutions and UN agencies play crucial roles in the human rights realization, she introduced the concept of a human rights economy, an approach that must place people at the heart of economic policies and address structural barriers to equality, justice and sustainability. To achieve this, she called for reform of the global financial architecture, including the establishment of a global fiscal authority, an international tax cooperation framework and a progressive tax system to enhance fiscal revenues and resources for States.
George Katrougalos, Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, outlined major obstacles to democracy and equity, including the “crisis of multilateralism and widening of the North-South divide”. This tandem, he said, coupled with the perceived ineffectiveness of global governance institutions, puts the United Nations’ system of rules under serious stress. He therefore called for a “minimum of consistency” in the implementation of human rights for both the efficiency and the legitimacy of the United Nations.
“Globalization and the growing power of non-State actors” is another obstacle, he said, warning that multinational corporations, in synergy with international economic governance institutions, shape global economic law and governance to reinforce their power. “It is clear that we need a new model of globalization,” he stressed.
NEW – Follow real-time meetings coverage on our LIVE blog.