Showing posts with label International Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International Court. Show all posts

January 23, 2018

Results So far of Inter American Court H.R. Deciding in Favor of Gay Marriage

British Made Cookie Adam and Steve (image by Fortnum and Mason)

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights decided in favor of marriage equality while ruling over a petition from two years ago.

Cosa Rican President Luis Guillermo Solis told one source:

“The Western Hemisphere is rejoicing over the ruling in a marriage equality case out of Costa Rica. Not only is the ruling binding for the Central American country, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruling also sets precedent for 19 other countries who have agreed to abide by the court’s decisions.

The ruling is legally binding in Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname and Uruguay.”

That said, the compliance of those other countries isn’t necessarily guaranteed. Luckily, however, Panama has announced their decision to work with the ruling.

Vice President Isabel de Saint-Malo announced on Tuesday to all sections of the government that they would be following the ruling.

“We are sure that with it we will be able to advance an agenda of equity and nondiscrimination even further,” added Saint-Malo, according to TVN, a Panamanian television station.”

“She is complying with the opinion itself that calls upon member states to adjust national law and practices to implement the full human rights protections for LGBTI people,” Iván Chanis Barahona, president of Fundación Iguales, a Panamanian advocacy group, told the Washington Blade on Wednesday from Panama City. “This decision of the Panamanian government is consistent with a long tradition of international support and respect of the inter-American human rights system, and Panama’s recognition of the binding, ipso facto jurisdiction of the court on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of the American Convention on Human Rights.”

January 11, 2018

The Inter-American Human Rights Court Rules for Same Sex Marriage

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled that same-sex marriages should be recognised.
The court's rulings apply to countries which have signed the American Convention on Human Rights.
Some of the signatories already recognise same-sex marriages while others recognise same-sex civil unions.
But others, such as Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Paraguay and Peru do not recognise either and will be expected to change their laws.
The court was established by the regional body, the Organization of American States (OAS), and signatories to the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights are bound by its rulings. 

Western hemisphere countries where same-sex marriage is legal:

People celebrate after the Inter-American Court of Human Rights called on Costa Rica and Latin America to recognize equal marriage, in San Jose, Costa Rica, January 9, 2018.                                                                                                               Reuters 
  • Argentina
  • Brazil
  • Canada
  • Colombia
  • Mexico (certain states only)
  • US
  • Uruguay

The ruling comes as a number of Latin American countries have changed or are debating changing their laws to allow same-sex couples to marry. 
Other western hemisphere countries, such as Ecuador, have introduced same-sex civil unions.

'Without discrimination'

The judges said that governments "must recognise and guarantee all the rights that are derived from a family bond between people of the same sex".
They also said that it was inadmissible and discriminatory for a separate legal provision to be established just for same-sex marriages.
The judges demanded that governments "guarantee access to all existing forms of domestic legal systems, including the right to marriage, in order to ensure the protection of all the rights of families formed by same-sex couples without discrimination".
Recognising the difficulty in passing such laws in countries where there is strong opposition to same-sex marriage, they recommended that governments pass temporary decrees until new legislation was brought in.
The judges issued the ruling in response to a motion brought by Costa Rica. 
The Central American government asked the court to give its opinion on whether it had an obligation to extend property rights to same-sex couples. The court ruled that it did. 
The Costa Rican government also wanted to know whether it should allow transgender people to change their name on their identity documents. Again, the court ruled that it should.
Costa Rica's Vice-President Ana Helena Chacón welcomed the court's ruling, saying it would be adopted "in its totality".

June 20, 2017

Russia is Blasted by the European Court on Its Anti-Gay Propaganda Law

 Russian Gay demonstrator is arrested by police in 2013

 Russia's "gay propaganda" law is discriminatory and encourages homophobia, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
The Strasbourg judges said Russia had discriminated against three gay rights activists who opposed the law. It was adopted in 2013, banning the promotion of homosexuality among people under 18.
The law "reinforced stigma and prejudice and encouraged homophobia", the ruling said.
Gay rights groups condemned the law.
Under the law, private individuals deemed to be promoting "homosexual behavior among minors" face fines of up to 5,000 roubles (£67; $85), while officials risk paying 10 times that amount. Businesses and schools can be fined up to 500,000 roubles.
Homosexuality was decriminalized in Russia in 1993, but anti-gay prejudice is rife.
Critics see the propaganda law as part of a state campaign to marginalize LGBT activists, whose work includes dissemination of sexual health advice. 
The Strasbourg court said the fines imposed on three Russian gay rights activists violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
According to the court, the legislation aimed at curbing the promotion of homosexuality was "not clearly defined" and was implemented in an arbitrary way. It "served no legitimate public interest", the court said. 

'Protecting morality'

Russia's justice ministry says it will appeal, arguing that the law is aimed "exclusively at protecting the morals and health of children". 

Arrest of Nikolai Alexeyev in Moscow, 25 Sept 2013Image copyrightAFP
Image captionOne of the gay litigants, Nikolai Alexeyev, has been arrested repeatedly

MP Vitaly Milonov, of the ruling United Russia party, who introduced the original bill into the St Petersburg parliament and which formed the basis of the federal law, told BBC Russian that the court's decision was "anti-national".
"It is absolutely harmful, and those who set up this decision are enemies of Europe," he said.
The three activists had been found guilty for protesting against the law in 2009-2012 - outside a secondary school in Ryazan, a children's library in Archangel and an administrative building in St Petersburg. The court rejected the Russian government's claim that such a law was needed to protect morality. 
It found that the government had "failed to demonstrate how freedom of expression on LGBT issues would devalue or otherwise adversely affect actual and existing 'traditional families' or would compromise their future". 
Such laws, the judges said, "embodied a predisposed bias on the part of a heterosexual majority against a homosexual minority".
They ordered Russia to pay each of the activists' damages of between €8,000 (£7,000; $8,900) and €20,000.
One of the three, Nikolai Alexeyev, hailed the ruling as a "total victory", the BBC's Sarah Rainsford reports from Moscow.
He had picketed a children's library, holding a sign declaring that gay people could also be great - and listing the Russian composer Pyotr Tchaikovsky and filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein as examples.

November 17, 2016

Putin *Thin Skin*Pulls Out Russia of Int Court


Russia is withdrawing its support for the International Criminal Court after the court released a report accusing Russia of war crimes when it seized Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.

The move follows last month's announcements by three African nations — Burundi, Gambia and South Africa — that they intend to withdraw from The Hague-based court, alleging it is biased.

A statement on the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs' website announced "the intention not to become a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court." Unlike the three African countries, Russia signed the treaty establishing the court but never formally ratified the accord, so the withdrawal of its signature is largely symbolic.

The ICC report alleges that the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula "amounts to an international armed conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation."
"This international armed conflict began at the latest on 26 February [2014] when the Russian Federation deployed members of its armed forces to gain control over parts of the Ukrainian territory without the consent of the Ukrainian Government," the report continues.

According to Amnesty International, more than 9,000 people have died in eastern Ukraine since early 2014.

Among the events listed in the ICC investigation is the shooting down of a commercial jetliner in July 2014. The Malaysia Airlines plane carrying 298 people over eastern Ukraine was shot down by a Russian missile that had been transferred into rebel-held eastern Ukraine, and the launcher for which was returned to Russia after the shooting, a Dutch-led team of international investigators concluded earlier this year.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Interfax-Ukraine that he disagrees with the ICC's characterization of what happened in Crimea as an armed conflict.

"Certainly, this wording absolutely contradicts the reality, it contradicts our position, and, what counts most, it contradicts the position expressed in a referendum by the citizens of Crimea, when they decided to become part of the Russian Federation," he told the news agency.

Peskov was referring to a 2014 referendum in which the Kremlin said the majority of Crimeans voted to join Russia. As The Two-Way has reported, the U.N. General Assembly rejected the results of the referendum, saying it had "no validity."

The U.S. and Europe have responded to Russia's annexation of Crimea with economic sanctions making it more difficult for Western banks and companies to do business with Russia.

The same ICC report at issue in Russia's decision to withdraw also notes the court's investigation into alleged abuses by both the U.S. and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The report alleges that "members of US armed forces appear to have subjected at least 61 detained persons to torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity" between 2003 and 2014, and that "members of the CIA appear to have subjected at least 27 detained persons to torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity and/or rape," between 2002 and 2008.

State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau said the U.S. doesn't believe an ICC investigation is "warranted or appropriate," according to The Associated Press.

The U.S. is not a member of the ICC.

Featured Posts

The Food Delivery/Ride Companies Wont Allow Drivers to be Employees But California is Changing That

                               Hamilton Nolan Senior Writer. After a monumental...