Resources

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.

In 2006, a judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal found that Section 118F(1) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200) was unconstitutional on the grounds that it was discriminatory and infringed the constitutional right to equality.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously that the banning of an LGBTQ march and assemblies in Warsaw was a violation of Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (non-discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal held that disparate age-of-consent laws between same-sex and opposite-sex intercourse violated Hong Kong’s Basic Law and Bill of Rights.

Judgment of the High Court of Fiji finding that appellant's human rights were infringed upon, and that criminalisation of same-sex activity between consenting adults by the Fijian Penal Code was unconstitutional.