| Click here for a summary of Germany’s review at the first cycle and/or the third cycle. |
16th UPR session
Date of review: 25 April 2013
Date of report adoption: 19 September 2013
Working Group report: A/HRC/24/9
|
SUMMARY SOGIESC issues during Germany’s 2nd UPR review |
I. Key issues/recommendations identified by NGOs
- Take measures to fully respect and legally recognise each person’s self-defined gender identity;
- Ensure that procedures exist whereby all State-issued identity papers which indicate a person’s gender/sex reflect the person’s profound self-defined gender identity;
- Ensure that such procedures are efficient, fair and non-discriminatory, and respect the dignity and privacy of the person concerned;
- Take measures to ensure that no child’s body is irreversibly altered by medical procedures in an attempt to impose a gender identity without the full, free and informed consent of the child in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
II. Excerpts from input reports
National report
IV. Developments since the first review of Germany – The implementation of recommendations accepted by Germany
– Discrimination based on sexual orientation
35. Germany has, in line with the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, amended the Transsexuals Law of 27 May 2008 by Article 1 of the Transsexual Amendment Law of 17 July 2009, with the effect that married transsexuals are no longer compelled to divorce before a sex change (Recommendation 22).
36. In the battle against hate crime based on sexual orientation (Recommendation 22) Germany is aiming at rigorous criminal prosecution and prevention. In 2011 there were 148 relevant hate offences recorded by the police due to sexual orientation, of which 38 were violent acts.
Compilation of UN information
I. Background and framework
C. Institutional and human rights infrastructure and policy measures
12. CEDAW requested Germany to enter into dialogue with non-governmental organizations of intersex and transsexual people in order to better understand their claims and to take effective action to protect their human rights.
III. Implementation of international human rights obligations, taking into account applicable international humanitarian law
A. Equality and non-discrimination
24. CESCR urged Germany to step up measures on the identity and the health of transsexual and intersex persons, with a view to ensuring that they are no longer discriminated against and that their personal integrity and sexual and reproductive health rights are respected.
I. Right to health
67. CAT noted that the Ethical Council had undertaken to review the reported practices of routine surgical alterations in children born with sexual organs that were not readily categorized as male or female, referred to as intersex persons. It recommended that Germany apply legal and medical standards following the best practices of granting informed consent to medical and surgical treatment of intersex people; and to investigate incidents of treatment without effective consent and provide redress to the victims of such treatment.
Summary of stakeholders’ information
A. Background and framework
3. Institutional and human rights infrastructure and policy measures
33. Joint Submission 8 (JS 8) stated that Germany should support the spirit and aims of the Yogyakarta Principles by including LGBTI issues in its foreign policy, as well as in its international cooperation and development policies.
B. Implementation of international human rights obligations
1. Equality and non-discrimination
48. JS 8 stated that persons in a same-sex registered partnership living with children were disadvantaged when compared to traditionally married parents. They paid more taxes and were not granted all the rights of a traditional family. Also, there was limited access to family reproduction services.
49. JS 8 referred to the recommendations in paragraph 81. 22 of the Working Group Report, which Germany accepted and called on Germany to follow-up on its commitments by launching a national action plan to combat homophobia and “transphobia”.
50. Joint Submission 5 (JS 5) stated that the rights of intersex children were violated by the assignment of gender and the performance of gender reassignment surgeries during their early childhood without their consent. It stated that the German Association of Paediatrics advised parents to postpone surgery until the child was old enough to make the decision as regard his or her gender.
51. Joint Submission 2 (JS 2) recommended abolishing the expert assessments and court procedures to change a child’s gender identity, as they were unreasonable and provoked discrimination. It stated that a gender identity deviating from the one assigned at birth was not diagnosable from physical appearance, and that it was impossible to give an expert assessment using psychiatric methods concerning the permanence of the sense of one’s gender identification.
4. Right to privacy, marriage and family life
68. JS 4 stated that the legal requirements that needed to be satisfied for transgendered persons to change their names were in violation of their privacy. It urged Germany to implement European Union guidelines and international human rights standards in this regard.
69. Aktion Transsexualitat und Menschenrecht stated that transsexual persons were not accepted as “sexual variations” but were identified as those who changed their originally assigned gender. It also stated that the procedure for changing a transsexual person’s personal status, which required a psychiatric evaluation, constituted “harassment”.
III. References to SOGI during the Working Group review
25. Norway emphasized the plan to implement CRPD, strengthened rights for victims of sexual abuse and ratification of an optional protocol to CRC. The amendment allowing transsexuals to remain married while undergoing a sex change was welcomed. Norway made recommendations.
66. Viet Nam commended achievements in socio-economic development, and highlighted progress in the fields of sexual orientation, freedom of religion, combating discrimination and coordinating work with civil society. Nonetheless, further action could certainly be taken. It made one recommendation.
IV. Conclusions and/or recommendations
The following recommendations enjoyed the support of Germany:
123.121. Continue its efforts and continue to take initiatives against hate crimes based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Such advances can be achieved by implementing anti-discrimination laws and strengthening financial resources of investigation authorities and the autonomy of the Federal Agency against discrimination (Netherlands);
123.122. Continue its important efforts to combat hate crime based on sexual orientation (Norway).
V. Adoption of the Report
The report of the working group was adopted at the 24th regular session of the Human Rights Council in September 2013. In accepting the recommendations, Germany noted that “an attack on human dignity through insult, malicious denigration or slander of a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, section of the population or individual due to their belonging to such a group or section of the population, as well as incitement to hatred, calls for violence or arbitrary action against them, is already subject to criminal prosecution as a hate crime. This also applies to the dissemination of such remarks on the Internet.”
VI. Further information
UPR Documentation: