Resources

Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom which ruled in favour of two gay men from Iran and Cameroon applying for asylum in the UK. The question for the Court was whether the men could be expected to conceal their sexual orientation in order to avoid the risk of persecution. The Supreme Court held that no one should be expected to conceal their sexual orientation in order to avoid persecution.

In this statement the Bishops of the Anglican Church in Southern Africa called upon the South African Government to seek the release of Stephen Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, who were sentenced in Malawi to 14 years imprisonment with hard labour, under the country's laws against homosexuality.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Philippines finding that the Commission of Elections contravened the Constitution by refusing to register the LGBT political party Ang Ladlad.

This opinion of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association on the Uganda Anti Homosexuality Bill 2009 demonstrates how the Bill contravenes international human rights law and relevant case law.

The 2009 judgment of the High Court of Delhi finding that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalising same-sex activity is unconstitutional. The case was brought by the Naz Foundation, an NGO working with people living with HIV/AIDS. The Naz Foundation argued that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which had effectively been interpreted as criminalising consensual sexual acts between persons of the same sex, was unconstitutional and the High Court of Delhi agreed emphasising the importance of the right to equality.

The Supreme Court of Nepal issued a writ of mandamus stating that non-discrimination provisions on the grounds of sexual orientation must be introduced into the Constitution of Nepal. The court stated that all LGBT persons are ‘natural persons’ and that their sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression are all part of natural growing processes. Equal rights, identity and expression must therefore be ensured.