| For a summary of Dominica’s review at the second cycle please click here. |
6th UPR session
Date of review: 7 December 2009
Date of report adoption: 4 January 2010
Document number: A/HRC/13/12
|
SUMMARY SOGIESC issues during Dominica’s 1st UPR review |
I. SOGIESC issues/recommendations identified by NGOs
Equality and non discrimination
4. SRI [Sexual Rights Initiative] noted that, in spite of Dominica’s obligations by virtue of the ratification of international treaties, the Government continues to deny legal recognition and protection to persons with same-sex sexual preferences/orientations and persons living with HIV/AIDS, among others. It recommended that the Government promulgate legislation protecting Dominicans against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and HIV status at all levels, and take all necessary measures to enforce it, including through sensitization campaigns and programs aimed at the general population and at key government sectors like education, health and justice. It also recommended the creation of mechanisms for redress when the rights of these populations are violated.
Right to privacy
10. SRI indicated that the 1998 Sexual Offences Act (Art. 15, 16) penalizes a person engaged in same sex activity with ten years imprisonment. It recommended the repeal of Articles 15 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act, as they contradict international standards to which Dominica is a party, specifically Articles 2 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
11. A Joint submission presented by four organisations (JS1) [ILGA, ILGA-Europe, ILGA LAC, IGLHRC, and ARC International] stressed that Dominica maintains criminal sanctions against sexual activity between consenting adults and in particular in regard to sodomy. It recommended that Dominica bring its legislation into conformity with its international human rights obligations by repealing all provisions which criminalise sodomy and can be used to penalise sexual activity between consenting adults.
12. JS1 referred in particular to Section 16 of the Sexual Offences Act, which states that a person who commits buggery is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for up to 25 years and, if the Court thinks it fit, the Court may order that the convicted person be admitted to a psychiatric hospital for treatment. Section 16 defines buggery as “sexual intercourse per anum by a male person with a male person or by a male person with a female person”.
13. JS1 and SRI also referred to Section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act, which states that any person who commits an act of gross indecency with another person is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for five years. JS1 added that according to Section 14, this does not apply to an act of gross indecency committed in private between an adult male person and an adult female person. Section 14 defines gross indecency as “an act other than sexual intercourse (whether natural or unnatural) by a person involving the use of genital organs for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire”.
14. SRI noted that young people attending Catholic schools face specific violations that affect their right to uncensored sexual health information. Furthermore, those younger than 16 lack access to HIV/AIDS Voluntary Counselling and Testing Services without parental consent in violation of the right to privacy and in the end the right to health. This is particularly the case for young people in same-sex relationships and young women having pre-marital sex, who might choose not to access the services in order to avoid being punished by their parents if they reveal their sexual behaviour. SRI recommended that the Government promulgate legislation that respects a young person’s right to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information, and carry out educational campaigns targeted to those who might be left out of other State efforts for different reasons, including their religious schooling. It also recommended removing the requirement of parental consent for access to counselling and testing services by individuals younger than 16 to ensure that young Dominicans will be able to fully enjoy their right to privacy and to health.
Right to social security and to an adequate standard of living
15. SRI indicated that there is no legal framework that protects the rights of people living with HIV/AIDS although there is widespread institutional awareness of the problems faced by such persons.
16. SRI explained that a community-based group called Chaps Dominica is trying to make an effort in delivering HIV prevention to men who have sex with men (MSM). However, there is no structured health programme for this population despite the disproportionate impact of HIV/AIDS on men. SRI stressed that there is no explicit inclusion of MSM in the National Strategic Plan for HIV/AIDS and recommended reviewing the plan to include in it prevention, treatment and care initiatives addressed to the population of men who have sex with men.
II. Excerpts on SOGIESC issues from the national report
No references.
III. Excerpts on SOGIESC issues by UN agencies
No references.
IV. References to SOGIESC issues during the Working Group review
20. In 2003, Government launched the five year National Strategic Plan for HIV/AIDS which is guided by the principle that the life of every individual is precious and valuable and therefore all attempts will be made to preserve the well being of the individual regardless of his/her health status, sexual persuasion or other personal characteristics. […]
33. Sweden asked Dominica about the Sexual Offences Act, which criminalizing consensual sexual activity of person with the same sex. The delegation noted that this is a challenging area and that the delegation recognized that it is discriminatory. However, the delegation noted that this is an issue that the cabinet has to deliberate on. The delegation admitted that there is a certain element of discrimination in the society towards same sex relationships.
50. Canada was finally concerned about violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
53. Sweden was grateful that Dominica addressed its question about the Dominican Sexual Offences Act. Sweden was however concerned about this act that criminalizes consensual sexual activity between persons of the same sex. Sweden recalled that these sexual acts are punishable by between 5 and 25 years of imprisonment, and for some of them, psychiatric hospital treatment is prescribed. Sweden was also concerned about reports indicating that social discrimination against homosexuals is a common occurrence.
V. Conclusions and/or recommendations
Dominica noted the following recommendations:
71.3. Promote and amend legislation to guarantee the protection of citizens who have been discriminated against based on their sexual orientation, gender identity or the fact that they are infected with HIV/AIDS (Mexico);
71.5. Include anti-discrimination legislation with regard to sexual orientation, gender identity and HIV/AIDS and to reform the law on sexual offences of 1998 (Spain);
71.6. Consider utilizing the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity as a guide to assist in policy development (Canada);
71.7. Implement public education and promote awareness programmes and sensitivity training on violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity to law enforcement, judicial and other authorities (Canada);
71.8. Undertake measures to promote tolerance and non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or identity in line with the Yogyakarta Principles (Sweden);
72.1. Repeal those legal provisions on sexual offences which criminalize sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex (France);
72.1b Decriminalize sexual activities between consenting adults of the same sex (Spain).
VI. Further information
You will find all documents relating to Dominica’s first review at UPR-Info and OHCHR’s websites.