REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – Feb/March 2020

March 31, 2020

SUBSCRIBE TO REPROHEALTHLAW: To receive these updates bi-monthly by email, enter your address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

DEVELOPMENTS

[CEDAW] S.F.M. v. Spain. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women urges reparations to a woman who suffered lasting physical and mental trauma during childbirth, and recommends public policies to combat obstetric violence (verbal or physical abuse or mistreatment during childbirth). CEDAW/C/75/D/138/2018, Decision of 28 Feb 2020. Press release. Decision in Spanish.

[Colombia] Constitutional Court declines to consider anti-choice petition, allowing three exceptions to criminal law against abortion to continue. March 2, 2020. Expediente D-13225, Boletín No. 25:     Decision in Spanish.  News article in EnglishSafe Abortion article in English.

[England]: Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has approved “Temporary approval for home use for both stages of early medical abortion” (up to 10 weeks), due to COVID-19 pandemic. Government announcement, March 30, 2020. RCOG Guidance for Health Professionals, version 1, March 21, 2020.

European Court of Human Rights dismisses complaint of conscientious objector who could not secure job as a midwife in Sweden. Case of Grimmark v. Sweden,   App. No. 43726/17, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2020)  Decision online Backup copy. Overview by Prof. Bernard M. Dickens.

New Zealand decriminalizes abortion, reclassifying it as a medical procedure, available on request within first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Abortion Legislation Act 2020 (2020/6) received royal assent March 23, 2020. New legislation. News report.

Northern Ireland – will allow abortion on request within 12 weeks, March 31, 2020. “A new legal framework for abortion services in Northern Ireland: Implementation of the legal duty under section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. UK government document. BBC news report.

[Thailand] Constitutional Court ruled that Criminal Code section 301 concerning penalties for abortion violates the 2017 Constitution sections 27, 28, which endorse equal rights between men and women, as well as the right and liberty of everyone in his/her life and person. Decision of February 19, 2020, summarized in: News report.

SCHOLARSHIP

[Abortion, Australia (NSW)] “Abortion Decriminalisation in New South Wales: An Analysis of the Abortion Law Reform Act 2019 (NSW), by Anna Walsh and Tiana Legge, Journal of Law and Medicine, 30 Nov 2019, 27(2):325-337 Article online.

[abortion, Australia (SA)] “Abortion: A Review of South Australian Law and Practice,” by the Southern Australian Law Reform Institute(SALRI), Report 13 (October 2019), submitted to Attorney General Dec. 5, 2019, recommendations for planned decriminalization. 506-page report. News report.

[abortion, Belgium] “Late Termination of Pregnancy in Belgium: Exploring Its Legality and Scope,” byFien De Meyer – European Journal of Health Law 27.1 (2020): 9-34 Abstract and Article.

[abortion law, Canada] “When there are no abortion laws: A case study of Canada,” by Dorothy Shaw, Wendy V. Norman, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 62 (Jan. 2020): 49-62. Abstract and related resources. Article online.

“Abortion in Ireland,” Feminist Review 124.1 (March 2020), Special issue includes:
— Introduction to the Themed Issue,” by Sydney Calkin, Fiona de Londras, Gina Heathcote.
—[Ireland] ‘A Hope Raised and then Defeated’? the Continuing Harms of Irish Abortion Law, by Fiona de Londras
—[El Salvador] ‘Repeal the 8th’ in a Transnational Context: The Potential of SRHRs for Advancing Abortion Access in El Salvador, by Rebecca Smyth
—-[Italy] The Ambivalence of Law: Some Observations on the Denial of Access to Abortion Services in Italy, by Elena Caruso

Abortion Law Decisions webpage, with links to court decisions, updated March 2020, is online here in Englishy en Espanol.

[abortion, Mexico] “Abortion Rights and Human Rights in Mexico, by Jennifer Nelson, chapter in Reproductive Justice and Sexual Rights: Transnational Perspectives, ed. Tanya Saroj Bakhru (New York: Routledge, 2019; 264 pp. About the book.

[abortion, U.K.] “Decriminalising Abortion in the UK- What Would It Mean?” ed. Sally Sheldon and Kaye Wellings. (Bristol: Policy Press, March 23, 2020) 112 pages, Open Access book.

Women’s Health and the Limits of the Law: Domestic and International Perspectives, ed. Irehobhude O. Iyioha (Routledge, 2020), Book information. Chapters include:
—“Abortion law in China: disempowering women under the liberal regulatory model,” by Wei Wei Cao
—“Tilted interpretations,: reproductive health law and practice in the Philippines,” by Amparita Sta. Maria
—“On the margins of law: examining the limits of legislative initiatives on maternal mortality in South Africa and Nigeria,” by Arooj Shah, Simisola O. Akintola and Irehobhude O. Iyioha

US-focused news, resources, and legal developments are available  on Repro Rights Prof Blog. View or subscribe.

WEBINAR:
“COVID-19: What implications for SRHR globally?” by Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, held March 27, 2020. 100-minute video.

JOBS

Links to employers in the field of Reproductive and Sexual Health Law are online here.
______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our PublicationsInformation resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries SeriesTO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.


UToronto Law seeks Director, International Human Rights Program

April 27, 2020

Apply before June 17, 2020 at 11:59 p.m. EST.
Director, International Human Rights Program (Job # 2001027)
Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, Canada
Details and application information here — SCROLL DOWN.

About IHRP:

The International Human Rights Program enhances the legal protection of existing and emerging international human rights obligations through advocacy, knowledge-exchange, and capacity-building initiatives that provide experiential learning opportunities for students and legal expertise to civil society.

In consultation with, and working under the direction of, the Assistant Dean JD Program, the incumbent has responsibilities in the areas of Planning and Policy Development, Advocacy, External Relations and Communications, Development, Administration, Project Management, and Human Resource Management.

The Director, International Human Rights Program (IHRP) provides clinical, educational, and administrative leadership and support to the IHRP. The incumbent is the primary contact and responsible for all matters related to the IHRP. Working closely with the Faculty, including the Assistant Dean, the Director develops priorities, strategies, and objectives for the IHRP. The Director oversees all of the IHRP’s advocacy initiatives, including the clinic, working groups, speaker series, Rights Review magazine, internships, and mentorship program. The incumbent works with the Faculty to select advocacy opportunities for the IHRP, supervises students working on advocacy, and develops and delivers clinical legal education programs at the Faculty. The Director organizes and runs seminars, programs, workshops and conferences; drafts position papers, reports, and pleadings; represents the IHRP to various stakeholder groups, including the legal profession, judiciary, policy makers, public interest advocates, private organizations, government, funders and law schools across Canada and internationally; and oversees all operations, including internal and external communications, finances, fundraising, public relations, and publications.

The Faculty of Law is one of the oldest professional faculties at the University of Toronto. Today, it is one of the world’s great law schools. The Faculty’s rich academic programs are complemented by its many legal clinics and public interest programs [including the International Human Rights Program]. The Faculty of Law is housed in the elegant, state-of-the-art Jackman Law Building, alongside two historic buildings, Flavelle House and Falconer Hall, on the St. George Campus in downtown Toronto.

Qualifications required:

EDUCATION
LL.B. (J.D.) degree required or an equivalent combination of education and experience.  LL.M or other graduate degree is an asset.

EXPERIENCE

  • Minimum of five years’ related experience in a law firm, public organization, or government office, including experience relevant to international human rights advocacy and litigation. 
  • Extensive variety of experience in dealing with members of the legal profession and international human rights advocates both within and outside Canada. 
  • Strong familiarity with legal education, public interest advocacy, and international human rights law. 
  • Related experience in senior positions within administration and management in a publicly funded or public interest organization is an asset. 
  • Wide range of career experience including dealings with the media, funders, students, and the general public is an asset. 
  • Comprehensive and global understanding of the University of Toronto, as well as general knowledge of the post-secondary education system, is an asset. 
  • Licensed to practice in Ontario;  applicants licensed to practice in other jurisdictions with strong Human Rights experience will be considered.

SKILLS

  • Proficient with MS Office (i.e. Word, Excel, Powerpoint), and internet searching.
  • Demonstrated superior oral and written communication and advocacy skills. 
  • Excellent research and analytical skills. 
  • Strong project management skills.
  • Effective problem solver; well-developed judgment and decision-making skills. 
  • Strong fundraising skills, including experience in grant development.
  • Strong leadership skills. 
  • Superior drive and enterprise. 
  • Ability to manage conflicting priorities and deadlines. 
  • Ability to handle matters of a sensitive and confidential nature.
  • Diplomacy, discretion, tact, pleasant manner, ability to work well independently as well as with a wide variety of people.

Pay Scale and Position Notes

One-year term from date of hire, possibility of renewal.
Full-time Pay Scale Group and Hiring Rate: 
PM 4 — Hiring Zone: $91,506 – $106,758 —
Broadband Salary Range: $91,506 -$152,510  
Group: Professional / Managerial 
Appointment Type: Grant – Continuing
Travel: None 

Apply before: June 17, 2020, 11:59 p.m. EST

Details and application information here {SCROLL DOWN}.


Canada: “When there are no abortion laws” article by Shaw and Norman

March 31, 2020

Congratulations and thanks to Dorothy Shaw and Wendy V. Norman, professors of medicine from the University of British Columbia, whose article on “Abortion: Global Perspectives and Country Experiences,” was recently published in a special issue of Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology edited by Iqbal Shah. We are pleased to circulate their abstract and highlights of their article:

“When there are no abortion laws: A case study of Canada,”
Dorothy Shaw, Wendy V. Norman, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 62 (Jan. 2020): 49-62.
Article online.

Abstract: 30 years ago, Canada decriminalized abortion, uniquely in the world. We present the timeline of relevant Canadian legal, political, and policy events before and since decriminalization. We assess implications for clinical care, health service and systems decisions, health policy, and the epidemiology of abortion in the absence of criminal legislation. As the criminal abortion law was struck down, dozens of similar private member’s bills, and one government bill, have been proposed, but none were passed. Although some Canadian provinces initially attempted to provide restrictive regulations and legislation, all of these have been revoked and largely replaced with supportive policies that improve equitable, accessible, state-provided abortion service.

Regulating abortion as a healthcare service has not led to higher abortion rates. Abortion rates have been stable over 30 years since decriminalization, and a falling proportion of abortions occur late in the second trimester. As access to services increases, the average gestational age at abortion is decreasing. The Canadian experience demonstrates that abortion care can safely and effectively be regulated as a normal component of usual medical care. Canada’s 30-year experience may guide other countries considering decriminalizing abortion.

The entire article can be read online.

Related Resources about abortion law in Canada:
Government of Canada. Report of the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law, (Ottawa: Ministry of Supplies and Services, 1977) (Chair: Robin Badgley) “Badgley Report” online.

This “Badgley Report” showed, among other things, that the criminal abortion law operated inequitably across Canada. It provided a factual basis which was instrumental in the Supreme Court’s finding of a violation of the right to the security of the person in the Morgentaler Decision. of 1988, which removed abortion laws in the Canadian Criminal Code.

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30, 44 D.L.R. (4th) 385 (Supreme Court of Canada),  Decision online Backup of print edition.

For more recent Canadian decisions, see: Abortion Law Decisions online.
______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our PublicationsInformation resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries SeriesTO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.


European Court dismisses Swedish midwife’s complaint

March 31, 2020

Many thanks to Bernard M. Dickens, Professor Emeritus of Health Law and Policy at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law, for abstracting the main issue decided by the European Court of Human Rights.

Grimmark v. Sweden,   App. No. 43726/17, European Court of Human Rights. (2020)  Decision of March 12, 2020 Backup copy.

This decision on conscientious objection addressed a complaint against Sweden by Elinor Grimmark, a woman who had qualified as a midwife, but was denied employment as such. Because of her religious convictions, she refused to perform medical (i.e. non-surgical) abortions, but was willing to care for women requesting the procedure. In seeking employment, she disclosed her objection, which she claimed had resulted in positions being withheld or withdrawn from her, in violation of her right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under Article 9(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 9(2) of this Convention sets limits on manifestation of religion or belief when necessary for the protection, among other interests, of the rights and freedoms of others.

Employment laws may require employers’ reasonable accommodation of employees’ conscientious objection, but Swedish law allows employers to require employees to perform all tasks naturally falling within the scope of their employment. This includes requiring midwives to perform medical abortions. Exemption for one midwife would unfairly burden another. The Court noted that Sweden provides nationwide accessible abortion services.

The Court’s task was to determine whether measures taken in Sweden, by its Discrimination Ombudsman and its Labour Court, both of which had found no violation of the complainant’s Article 9 rights, were proportionate to the interests at stake. The Court echoed its previous language on abortion services, in R.R. v. Poland (2011), that a state is obliged “to organize its health system in a way as to ensure that the effective exercise of freedom of conscience by health professionals in the professional context does not prevent the provision of such services” (para.26). The Court accordingly found that any infringement of the complainant’s freedom of religion did not violate Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
______
The European Court’s 9-page decision is online here:
Decision of March 12, 2020.   Backup copy.

Related Resources:
“The Right to Conscience,” by Bernard M. Dickens, in: Abortion Law in Transnational Perspective: Cases and Controversies, ed. Rebecca J. Cook, Joanna N. Erdman, and Bernard M. Dickens (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) pp. 210-238, 425-429n. Abstract online. About the book in English y en español.

Conscientious Objection / The Right to Conscience – annotated bibliography, updated March 17, 2020.
______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our PublicationsInformation resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries SeriesTO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.


Ob-Gyn duties to Refugees and migrants

March 31, 2020

Congratulations to Prof. Margit Endler and colleagues on the Committee for Human Rights, Refugees and Violence Against Women of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), who recently published an article in the “Ethical and Legal Issues in Reproductive Health” section of the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

“Sexual and reproductive health and rights of refugee and migrant women: gynecologists’ and obstetricians’ responsibilities,” by Margit Endler, Taghreed Al Haidari, Sameena Chowdhury, Jan Christilaw, Faysal El Kak, Diana Galimberti, Miguel Gutierrez, Atziri Ramirez‐Negrin, Hemantha Senanayake, Rubina Sohail, Marleen Temmerman, and Kristina Gemzell Danielsson, for the FIGO Committee for Human Rights, Refugees and Violence Against Women, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 149.1 (April 2020): 113–119. PDF at Wiley Online.   Abstract and Submitted Text.

Abstract:
Ensuring universal access to sexual and reproductive healthcare services is Target 3.7 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Refugee and migrant women and children are at particular risk of being forgotten in the global momentum to achieve this target. In this article, we discuss the violations of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) of particular relevance to the refugee and migrant reality. We give context‐specific examples of denial of health services to vulnerable groups; lack of dignity as a barrier to care; the vulnerability of adolescents; child marriage; weaponized rape; gender‐based violence; and sexual trafficking. We discuss rights frameworks and models that are being used in response to these situations, as well as what remains to be done. Specifically, we call for obstetricians and gynecologists to act as individual providers and through their FIGO member societies to protect women’s health and rights in these exposed settings.

The full text of this article can be freely downloaded by anyone for one year: PDF at Wiley Online
After that year, researchers who lack institutional access can download:
Submitted Text through SSRN.

Related Resources
Ethical and Legal Issues in Reproductive Health: 90+ concise articles online. _____________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our PublicationsInformation resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries SeriesTO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.


REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – January 2020

February 3, 2020

SUBSCRIBE TO REPROHEALTHLAW: To receive these updates monthly by email, enter your address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

DEVELOPMENTS
Colombian Constitutional Court grants “victim” status to member of armed rebel group suffering from forced and unsafe abortion, Sentencia SU-599/19, Communicado No. 50, December 11, 2019 (Constitutional Court of Colombia) “The decision is one of very few in the world to specifically recognise reproductive violence as a form of harm committed against women and girls in times of conflict” (Case comment by Dieneke de Vos).  Decision in Spanish.

Nigerian High Court upheld failure to register an organization to protect lesbian women: Pamela Adie v. Corporate Affairs Commission, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/827/2018.  Decision of November 16, 2018   (Federal High Court of Nigeria at Abuja)  Decision online.  Case comment by Obiagbaoso Maryanne Nkechi.

SCHOLARSHIP:
“Abortion: Global Perspectives and Country Experiences,” edited by Iqbal H. Shah, Special Issue of Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, includes:

— “Abortion: Professional responsibility beyond safe healthcare,”
by Mahmoud F. Fathalla, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 62 (Jan. 2020): 1-2) Editorial

— “Decriminalization of abortion – A human rights imperative,” by
Joanna N. Erdman and Rebecca J. Cook, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 62 (Jan. 2020): 11-24) Abstract and article

—“When there are no abortion laws: A case study of Canada,”
by Dorothy Shaw and Wendy V. Norman, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 62 (Jan. 2020): 49-62. Abstract and article.

Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters just published three issues for 2019:
— “The gender injustice of abortion laws,” by Joanna N. Erdman, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27:1 (Feb 2019): 4-8, Abstract and article.
— “Criminalisation under scrutiny: how constitutional courts are changing their narrative by using public health evidence in abortion cases,” by Verónica Undurraga, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27.1 (Feb 2019): 41-51. Abstract and article.
— “Politics, power and sexual and reproductive health, by Sarah Pugh, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27.2 (Oct. 2019): 1-5, Table of Contents. Editorial.
— “Eliminating stigma and discrimination in sexual and reproductive health care: a public health imperative,” by Julia Hussein and Laura Ferguson, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27.3 (Dec 2019): 1-5 Table of Contents. Editorial.

“Abortion Law Reform” Special section of: Health and Human Rights Journal vol. 21.2 (December 2019), online here, includes:
— “Progress towards decriminalization of abortion and universal access to safe abortions: National Trends and Strategies,” editorial by Marge Berer and Lesley Hoggart
— “Abortion in Chile: The Long Road to Legalization and its Slow Implementation,” by Gloria Maira, Lidia Casas, and Lieta Vivaldi. Abstract and article.
—“Denial of Safe Abortion to Survivors of Rape in India,” by Padma Bhate-Deosthali and Sangeeta Rege. Abstract and article.

“Abortion in the Middle East and North Africa” another special section of: Health and Human Rights Journal 21.2 (December 2019), online here, introduced by:
— “The Limits of the Law: Abortion in the Middle East and North Africa,” by Irene Maffi and Liv Tønnessen, Introduction by guest editors.

Abortion Law Decisions webpage, with links to court decisions, updated January 2020, is online here.

[Inter-American] “Women’s Reproductive Rights: Repairing Gender-Based harm in the Inter-American System of Human Rights,by Ciara O’Connell, PhD diss., University of Sussex, U.K., School of Law, Politics and Sociology, March 2017. Doctoral thesis online. Abstract and overview of case studies.

US-focused news, resources, and legal developments are available  on Repro Rights Prof Blog. View or subscribe.

JOBS

Links to employers in the field of Reproductive and Sexual Health Law are online here.
______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our PublicationsInformation resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries SeriesTO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.


Nigerian Court denies lesbian group registration

February 3, 2020

Many thanks to Obiagbaoso Maryanne Nkechi, an LL.M student in Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Africa, at the Center for Human Rights of the University of Pretoria’s Faculty of Law. We thank her for summarizing and commenting on this 2018 High Court decision for our online updates to the three-volume series: Legal Grounds: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in Sub-Saharan African Courts, available here.

We are pleased to circulate excerpts from her overview and some of her comments on the decision.

Pamela Adie v. Corporate Affairs Commission, Suit No. FHCI ABJICSI82712018, Decision of November 16, 2018 Federal High Court of Nigeria (Abuja Judicial Division)  Decision online6-page overview and comments by Obiagbaoso Maryanne Nkechi.

COURT HOLDING                          
The Court dismissed the case of the Applicant on the ground that the existing and operative Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act of 2013 (SSMPA) does not support such association and for as long as the Act has not been repealed, the case of the Applicant failed.

Summary of Facts
In October 2017, the Applicant [Pamela Adie] founded an association with the name ‘Lesbian Equality and Empowerment Initiatives’ with the main objective of advocating for the rights of sexual minority women in Nigeria. She had sought to register the name of the association with the Corporate Affairs Commission, but was refused registration on the ground that the proposed name violated section 30 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) for being misleading, offensive and contrary to public policy. Additionally, registration was refused on the basis that the association violated the SSMPA, which prohibits same sex marriages and associations in Nigeria. The Applicant undertook her right of appeal as provided in section 36(2) of CAMA by petitioning the Registrar General of the Corporate Affairs Commission to overrule the decision. The Registrar General declined to do so, making the rejection final.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Corporate Affairs Commission, Pamela Adie applied to the Federal High Court of Nigeria, seeking redress. She alleged that the refusal to register her association violated her fundamental rights to freedom of expression and association as contained in section 39 and section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) (CFRN) and Articles 9(2) and 10(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (ACHPRA) of 1986 respectively.

“The case of the Applicant failed because Section 45(1)(a) [of the Nigerian Constitution] provides for the limitation of a right where the right is in conflict with public safety, public order and public morality . . . [and] the exercise of fundamental rights is not absolute — these rights can be curtailed by relevant laws. The Court . . . [noted] section 4 of the SSMPA is an example of the laws that prohibit the registration of same-sex associations in Nigeria. . . . “

Significance (excerpts):
The Court chose to remain within the confines of its own Constitutional jurisprudence . . . that allows for the overriding of rights in certain circumstances as an acceptable limit on the human rights of Nigerians. . . . It missed an opportunity to look more broadly into the realm of international law . . . [and] also did take cognizance of the ACHPRA that was brought to its attention by the Applicant’s counsel. . . .

The Court did not align with international human rights standards that protect the rights of all persons, irrespective of gender identity or sexual orientation [although] Nigeria had ratified African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights in 1986 and its Maputo Protocol in 2004, as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1993. Nigeria is therefore bound by CESCR’s General Comment 20 and ICCPR Article 17, which, according to the Human Rights Committee’s decision in Toonen v. Australia (1994), is violated by laws criminalizing homosexual activity between consenting adults, and more recently, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Resolution 275, which notes that acts of violence against an individual as a result of gender identity or sexual orientation violates a person’s right to dignity and right to be free from discrimination.

The full text of this commentary is online here: Case comment by Obiagbaoso Maryanne Nkechi.
———————
RELATED RESOURCES:
“Nigeria avoided constitutional scrutiny of anti-gay laws,” Teriah Joseph Ebah v. Federal Government of Nigeria, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/197/2014.  Decision of October 22, 2014 (Federal High Court of Nigeria at Abuja) Overview on Reprohealthlaw Blog.   Case comment by Ovye Affi.

Successful LGBT registration cases from other African courts:

For overviews of African jurisprudence. see Legal Grounds: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in Sub-Saharan African Courts, freely available and updated here.
______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our PublicationsInformation resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries SeriesTO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.