Resources

The appellant had been charged under Botswana’s Penal Code with s. 164(c) ‘unnatural offences and s.167 ‘indecent practices between males’. The appellant argued that these sections were incompatible with the Botswana Constitution and that the Penal Code discriminates against men on the basis of their gender and offends their right of freedom of conscience, expression, privacy, assembly and association entrenched in the Constitution. The Court held that discriminatory legislation on the basis of gender violated the Constitution and that section 167 of the Penal Code was therefore unconstitutional. However section 164(c) was not deemed to be unconstitutional. 

This amicus curiae brief was submitted in the case of Lawrence v Texas in which the US Supreme Court struck down laws criminalising homosexuality in the state of Texas as unconstitutional. The brief emphasises that research and clinical experience demonstrates that homosexuality is a normal form of human sexuality. In the opinion of the Association sexual intimacy is a core aspect of human experience, and criminalising laws reinforce prejudice, discrimination, and violence against gay men and lesbians.

In this case, the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe had to decide whether the common law crime of sodomy was in conformity with s.23 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe which guaranteed protection against discrimination on the ground of gender. The Court held, by a majority of 3 to 2, that the term “gender” could not be construed to include sexual orientation, and, on that basis, the crime of sodomy could not be held to be unconstitutional. The majority opinion relied heavily on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bowers v Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986) which has now been overruled.

The case concerned the unlawful deportation of prominent political figures from Zambia. However, in its decision the African Commission on Human & Peoples' Rights discussed the legitimate use of limitations provisions in the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights. The Commission stated that it was its role ‘to caution against a too easy resort to the limitation clauses in the African Charter. The onus is on the state to prove that it is justified to resort to the limitation clause.’

The case concerned a lesbian inmate in a Colombian prison who was denied the right to conjugal visits. Colombia argued that same-sex conjugal visits would disrupt the prison, noting that ‘Latin American culture has little tolerance towards homosexual practices in general.’ The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights stated that the rights of LGBT persons cannot be limited on the grounds of preventing public disorder/protecting public morality. The Commission found that the state’s action could constitute a violation of Article 11 (right to privacy) of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned age discrimination in the provision of certain welfare benefits to widows and widowers. However, the case was is notable as it contains significant discussions regarding the validity of equality right claims. In particular the Court made strong pronouncements that the principle of non-discrimination towards marginalised groups and individuals is integral to human dignity.