| Click here for a summary of Israel’s review at the second cycle and/or the third cycle. |
Date of review: 4 December 2008
Date of report adoption: 8 January 2009
Document number: A/HRC/10/76
|
SUMMARY SOGIESC issues during Israel’s 1st UPR review |
I. SOGIESC issues/recommendations identified by NGOs
No references.
II. Excerpts on SOGIESC issues from the national report
II. THE NORMATIVE AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
E. National Commissions and Ombudsmen
2. The Commission for Equal Employment Opportunities
19. On 11 November 2007 the Government adopted Resolution No. 2578, concerning the appointment of an Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. This position is the first of its kind in Israel. The Commissioner is responsible for collecting information and hearing complaints from workers concerning instances of sexual harassment, and/or discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, parenthood, religion and race. Where necessary, the Commissioner is also responsible for initiating legal action on behalf of any adversely affected workers. The Commissioner also has the authority to intervene in court proceedings and request that Courts issue special orders prohibiting sexual harassment in places of work. Violation of these orders will be considered a criminal offence.
IV. IDENTIFICATION OF ACHIEVEMENTS, BEST PRACTICES, CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS: ACHIEVEMENTS AND BEST PRACTICES
C. Sexual orientation
65. On 21 November 2006, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision concerning the rights of same sex couples. It held that a wedding certificate from a foreign country in which same-sex marriages are recognized, could allow the couple to be registered as married by the Ministry of the Interior. The Supreme Court based its decision on a previous ruling in which a distinction was made between the duty to register marriages, and the question of recognition of their status. The Supreme Court determined that the Ministry of the Interior must not discriminate against same-sex couples who hold a wedding certificate from a foreign country that permits same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, it noted that by doing so, it did not grant a new status to same-sex marriages, and reiterated that it is the role of the Knesset to endow as much.
66. On 19 April 2007, The Haifa Labor District Court accepted a claim against a pension fund, and determined that a surviving partner of a lesbian relationship was eligible to the legal rights of an “insured widow,” and not of an “insured widower” (D.L.C 1758/06 Moyal-Lefler v. Mivtachim). The Court stated that “the distinction between men and women in the rules of the respondent and the Social Security Law derives from a similar rationale- a reflection of the economic situation in which we live, where women’s incomes are lower than men’s, and their promotion in the labor market is more difficult. Therefore there is a justification for the preference of female widows as it narrows the existing gap between men and women.” The Court held that the plaintiff should be classified as a female widow, and not as a male widower. She was therefore eligible for the rights of an “insured widow,” and the pension as stated in the rules of the pension fund.
67. In a decision dated 23 January 2005, the Attorney General established a new precedent in which the State is willing to grant legal status to same-sex adoptions of the birth-child or adopted child of the other spouse. Furthermore, it states that the State is willing to allow the adoption of a non-biological child by same-sex couples, while considering the best interest of the child. In a significant decision dated January 2005, (C.A. 10280/01 Yaros-Hakak v. The Attorney General) the Supreme Court accepted the appeal of two women, a same-sex couple, to adopt each other’s children. The Court emphasized that the decision solely concerns this couple and is not a principled one, thus leaving the question of same-sex relationships for a later date, recommending that the Knesset amend the Law to provide a solution to a real problem.
V. CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS
C. Racism, hate crimes and incitement
87. Hate crimes – Racial motivation is recognized as an aggravating circumstance in the Israeli Penal Law. Accordingly, racist and xenophobic motivation, as well as hostility based on religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability or on being a foreign worker, are to be taken into account as an aggravating factor by the courts. 94. In 1986, the Knesset enacted the Denial of Holocaust (Prohibition) Law, which prohibits denial of the Holocaust and the publication of expressions sympathizing with Nazi crimes. On September 2007, Israeli Police announced that it exposed a group of eight young men aged 16 to 21, suspected of Neo-Nazi activity, following an extensive under-cover investigation. The young Israeli men are suspected of abusing foreign workers and religious Jews, the burning and desecrating of synagogues, and also planning to harm groups of punks, homosexuals and drug addicts.
96. The Israeli Police has introduced educational programs for police officers in order to raise awareness. The activities accord knowledge and understanding of the characteristics of minority groups in Israel, including Arabs, immigrants, the homosexual community and persons with disabilities, and provide tools for professional, sensitive police work among these groups. The concept of “equal and suitable service in a multi-cultural society” was set as the annual education target for 2007.
III. Excerpts on SOGIESC issues by UN agencies
No references.
IV. References to SOGIESC issues during the Working Group review
21. The following delegations made reference to developments in the legal framework: […] the Holy See, Latvia, Burkina Faso, Japan and Guatemala, the promoting of gender equality; the United Kingdom and Brazil, the promotion of the rights of same-sex couples.
V. Conclusions and/or recommendations
Israel did not receive any recommendations on SOGIESC issues.
VI. Further information
You will find all documents relating to Israel’s first review at UPR-Info and OHCHR’s websites.