Dr. Valérie V. Suhr

Dr. Valérie Suhr est docteure en droit et actuellement postdoctorante à l’Université de Hambourg, où elle travaille au sein du cours du Prof. Alexander Proelß. Elle a soutenu sa thèse de doctorat, publiée en 2022, dans laquelle elle analyse comment les crimes commis en raison de l’orientation sexuelle et de l’identité de genre peuvent être reconnus comme le crime de persécution fondée sur le genre au sein du Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale.

Dr. Suhr a mené sa présentation sur la persécution d’un groupe du fait de l’orientation sexuelle et de l’identité de genre au regard de l’article 7 du Statut de Rome.

English

 Is sexual orientation a recognised ground for persecution?

Thank you very much for the invitation. I’m really happy to be here for my presentation. I wanted to say that I was really touched by some of the testimony you gave earlier.

 I will, as you said, talk about the question: are sexual orientation and gender identities recognized grounds for persecution? And yes, you already said it, I am at the university of Hamburg and I have written my PhD thesis on exactly this topic and my book was published as “Rainbow jurisdiction at the International Criminal Court: Protection of sexual and gender minorities under the Rome Statute”. By sexual minorities, I mean lesbian, bisexual and gay people. With gender minorities, I refer to trans and inter-sex persons.

 The key question of research is: Are the worst human rights violations specifically targeting sexual and gender minorities punishable under the Rome Statute? There has been a big improvement for sexual and gender minorities (SGM) and SGM rights – at least in the global north – are sometimes seen as woke and trendy. We heard earlier today that SMG still face a lot of state and non-state violence in many parts of the world.

 I therefore analyse whether the worst human rights violations specifically directed at them are punishable under international criminal law. To answer this question in the affirmative means to recognize crimes against SGM as belonging to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.

 I will also focus on the crime against humanity of persecution as codified in the Rome Statute. As we have already heard, sexual orientation and gender identity are not explicitly listed as prohibited grounds of persecution in the Rome Statute, but gender is, and also other grounds, which are universally recognized as impermissible under international law.

 Drawing on general rules of interpretation on the development of SGM human rights, as well as on the social construction of gender, I will show that the persecution of SGM falls under both grounds. In my book, I analyse this question more comprehensively, but in this presentation, I focus on the issue of these two grounds for persecution.

Unfortunately, my research question is still very current and relevant. So far, there is no decision in international criminal law on this topic. But we heard earlier this year that the prosecutor of the ICC filed the first two requests for arrest warrants in the situation of Afghanistan, and the Prosecutor firmly alleges that they are responsible for the crime against humanity of persecution on gender grounds according to the Rome Statute.

 With this historic decision, the Prosecutor for the first time explicitly included alleged crimes against sexual and gender minorities. All crimes against humanity, we have heard in more detail now, must fulfil the contextual elements which means that they are to be committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population pursuing state or organizational policy.

 In my opinion, the contextual element is particularly fulfilled with regard to SGM through laws imposing imprisonment, corporal punishment or death penalty for consensual same-sex sexual activity if they are actually enforced. And in general, when the broad range of gender non-conforming individuals are attacked, with perceived SGM just being one of the targeted groups. 

 In my opinion, instances of violence and discrimination against SGM that can amount to persecutors include anti-SGM laws, extrajudicial arbitrary arrests, killings and violence by non-state and state actors.

 I will now turn to the issue of gender-based persecution, which is the most part of my presentation here. In my opinion, the persecution of only male or only female SGM is always gender-based irrespective of whether the Rome Statute covers persecution based on sexual orientation and gender identity, as these are intersectional subgroups of women and men.

 The Rome Statute defines the term gender in a specific way. Here, in article 7, paragraph 3, for the purposes of the Statute, it is understood that the term “gender refers to the two sexes, male and female genders within the context of society. The term gender does not indicate any meaning different from the above.”

So, we have this definition of gender. What shall we do with it? It’s about the formulation of both sexes within the context of society. We have this distinction between sex on the one hand and gender on the other. Sex refers to the biological distinction between men and women. The term “gender” is a broader concept that includes socially constructed roles played by women and men that are required to them, based on their sex.

 And the Rome Statute uses these two definitions – both sex and gender. The term gender was in fact deliberately chosen. This shows that the definition of the Rome Statute does not only include sex in a biological sense but also gender as a social construct.

 The Rome Statute’s gender definition takes biological sex as a starting point but goes beyond it by indicating that gender is created in the context of society. In my opinion, because of the Nullum crimen sine lege principle (Article 22 of the Rome Statute), saying that the “definition of a crime shall be strictly constructed and shall not be extended by analogy,” perpetrators must perceive victims as belonging to the two sexes, male and female.

 So, unfortunately, this definition remains in an outdated binary understanding. However, because of the inclusion of gender as a social construct, the perpetrators also persecute on a gender basis when they target their victims, as they perceive victims as violating gender expectations.

 In addition, the ICC’s OTP defines gender crimes as those committed against people because of their socially constructed gender roles. This is broad enough to include violence as a punishment for non-compliance with alleged or attributed gender social roles. The applications for arrest warrants show that the OTP is currently seeing crimes committed against SGM as gender-based persecution.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is directed against those who violate their social and cultural conception of gender. They are often targeted as punishment for not complying with the expected or prescribed gender rules of appropriate maleness or femaleness.

With regard to the sexual orientation here – I refer to homosexuals and bisexuals – they usually fit well into the binary part of the Rome Statute’s gender definition. Society expects women to have a male partner and men to have a female partner. If they have a partner of the same sex instead, they do not meet this expectation. And if they are discriminated against because of the person they love, that discrimination is gender-based.

With regard to transsexual persons, who are born belonging to one sex but identify as the other gender, they also fit in the binary definition of gender. They are discriminated against because they do not meet society’s expectations of gender. They challenge the the biological sex as prescribed at birth is the ultimate determinant of one’s sex.

When transsexuals are discriminated against because they are perceived as male or female, yet, not rightfully belonging to the chosen gender, this is gender discrimination. 

Regarding transgender and intersex people, they generally identify outside the binary gender system. Intersex could even from a medical point of view be seen as belonging to gender or even sex. However, they do not belong to the two sexes: male or female. The interpretation of international criminal law must not exceed the wording. Therefore, transgender and intersex people are unfortunately not included in the regular meaning of the definition. However, in international criminal law, the perpetrator’s perspective is the relevant perspective. And in fact, most people, – and particularly the perpetrators in this case I would say –, consider all people to be male, male or female, regardless of how they identify themselves.

When the perpetrator wrongfully perceives someone as belonging to the persecuted group, this is persecution, for example: a heterosexual woman with short hair who is persecuted as a lesbian. The same applies to international human rights law and international refugee law. Such an interpretation is therefore supported by the human rights interpretation, article 21 of the Rome Statute.

Therefore, the persecution of transgender and intersex persons can be based on gender when the perpetrator misperceives them as women or men behaving in a manner that violates gender assumptions.

To conclude, with respect to gender-based persecution, the wording of gender definition favours an interpretation that includes sexual orientation and, at least to some extent, also gender identity. This is supported by a human rights interpretation. Some international law institutions and courts have already interpreted gender, sexual orientation and gender identity from their respective gender or sex provisions. The United Nations usually sees gender as socially constructed. In my opinion, therefore, although heavily criticized, the Rome Statute’s gender definition can actually include most cases of persecution based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Most importantly, the OTP with its application for arrest warrants earlier this year has shown that the OTP is already prosecuting crimes against SGM as gender-based crimes. So, this was it regarding gender-based persecution. 

I would also like to talk briefly about the other ground that could apply here – “other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law”. With this ground, the Rome Statute allows to react to further developments in international human rights on the international criminal law level. There is not yet a consensus on how to interpret these grounds exactly. However, there is a consensus that universally recognized sets a high standard, but rather means widely recognized as opposed to being recognized as impermissible in every single state.

In my view, one this standard covers a human rights treaty law as interpreted by international human rights bodies. State practice plays only a minor role for the standard of the Rome Statute because it could constitute a violation of international human rights law and is generally considered to have less interpretative value in the field of international human rights law. And as I said, the Rome Statute explicitly refers in this norm to international human rights law.

So now, I want to say very briefly something about the most important developments in SGM rights at the international level to show that sexual orientation and gender identity are universally recognized as impermissible grounds for prosecution. 

On the universal level, we have several decisions from the United Nations, including by the Human Rights Committee on prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation. In addition, the Yogyakarta Principles state that binding international human rights law poses an absolute prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In 2008, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed the principle of non-discrimination which requires that human rights apply equally to every human being, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. In addition, there are several UN human rights council’s resolutions on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, and for some years we have already had an independent expert on the same subject here at the UN. 

At the regional level, for many decades now, we have had a settled jurisprudence, by the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice on the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

In 2014, the African Commission also adopted a resolution on SGM human rights. In addition, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights makes clear that violence and discrimination of SGM constitute a clear violation of human rights as recognized by international and inter-American instruments on human rights. For the emerging Arab and Asian human rights systems, there are no decisions on this topic yet.

I would therefore argue that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is in fact prohibited under international human rights law, particularly at the universal level as interpreted by the United Nations.

Therefore, in my view, sexual orientation and gender identity are other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, as required by the Rome Statute. First, international human rights law, as we have seen, clearly states that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected grounds. Second, on this basis, international refugee law clearly states that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected grounds.

The next logical step is that these developments also influence international criminal law. And this obvious development makes it difficult to argue that the accused could not have foreseen the possibility that the crime of persecution on other grounds covers grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The ICC has already qualified sexual orientation as a protected ground under its non-discrimination clause contained in Article 21 of the Rome Statute. 

Recognizing that persecution against SGM may constitute a crime against humanity of persecution does not mean that international criminal law requires states to adopt laws explicitly protecting SGM. It simply means that they must not engage in the most serious violations of their human rights, including criminalizing same-sex sexuality. 

So, to conclude here, crimes against SGM may amount to persecution under the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute’s definition of gender includes sex as a biological sense as well as gender as a social construct. Therefore, the persecution of homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender is a gender-based persecution in my opinion.

However, as we have seen, due to the unclear formulation of the definition, the definition stays in an outdated binary gender understanding. Therefore, the perpetrator must perceive the victim as a male or female, which I think would generally be the case. Intersex and transgender people are not included, unless, and I think it often is the case, the perpetrator mistakenly perceived them as either male or female and violating society’s gender expectations. Moreover, sexual orientation and gender identity are grounds universally recognized as impermissible under international law. 

So far, the ICC’s OTP has prosecuted crimes against SGM as gender-based persecution and I think that is a very good way to do it, because it doesn’t single out SGM but show that they are persecuted on the same grounds as other people, in this case, all of those not following the Taliban’s gender regime. 

Thank you very much for your attention.

Français

L’orientation sexuelle est-elle un motif reconnu de persécution?

Merci beaucoup pour l’invitation. Je suis vraiment heureuse d’être ici pour ma présentation. Je voulais dire que j’ai été très touchée par certains des témoignages que vous avez donnés plus tôt.

Comme vous l’avez indiqué, je vais parler de la question suivante : l’orientation sexuelle et les identités de genre sont-elles des motifs reconnus de persécution ? Oui, vous l’avez déjà mentionné, je suis à l’Université de Hambourg et j’ai rédigé ma thèse de doctorat précisément sur ce sujet. Mon livre a été publié sous le titre Rainbow Jurisdiction at the International Criminal Court: Protection of sexual and gender minorities under the Rome Statute.

Par minorités sexuelles, j’entends les personnes lesbiennes, bisexuelles et gays. Par minorités de genre, je fais référence aux personnes transgenres et intersexuées. La question clé de ma recherche est la suivante : les violations les plus graves des droits humains visant spécifiquement les minorités sexuelles et de genre sont-elles punissables en vertu du Statut de Rome ?

Il y a eu de grands progrès pour les minorités sexuelles et de genre (SGM), et leurs droits – du moins dans le Nord global – sont parfois considérés comme « à la mode » ou « progressistes ». Mais, comme nous l’avons entendu ce matin, les SGM continuent de subir de nombreuses violences étatiques et non étatiques dans de nombreuses parties du monde.

J’analyse donc si les violations les plus graves dirigées contre elles sont punissables en droit pénal international. Répondre positivement à cette question revient à reconnaître que les crimes contre les SGM appartiennent aux crimes les plus graves qui préoccupent la communauté internationale dans son ensemble.

Je vais aussi me concentrer sur le crime contre l’humanité de persécution tel qu’il est codifié dans le Statut de Rome. Comme nous l’avons déjà entendu, l’orientation sexuelle et l’identité de genre ne sont pas explicitement énumérées comme motifs de persécution interdits dans le Statut, mais le genre y figure, ainsi que d’autres motifs universellement reconnus comme interdits en droit international.

En m’appuyant sur les règles générales d’interprétation, sur l’évolution des droits humains des SGM, ainsi que sur la construction sociale du genre, je montrerai que la persécution des SGM relève de ces deux motifs. Dans mon livre, j’analyse cette question de manière exhaustive, mais dans cette présentation je me concentre sur ces deux bases de persécution.

Malheureusement, ma question de recherche est toujours d’actualité. Jusqu’à présent, il n’existe aucune décision en droit pénal international sur ce sujet. Mais, plus tôt cette année, nous avons appris que le Procureur de la CPI a déposé les deux premières demandes de mandats d’arrêt dans la situation en Afghanistan. Il allègue clairement que les personnes visées sont responsables du crime contre l’humanité de persécution pour des motifs liés au genre, conformément au Statut de Rome.

Avec cette décision historique, le Procureur a, pour la première fois, explicitement inclus des crimes allégués contre des minorités sexuelles et de genre. Comme nous l’avons entendu, tous les crimes contre l’humanité doivent remplir les éléments contextuels, c’est-à-dire être commis dans le cadre d’une attaque généralisée ou systématique dirigée contre une population civile en application d’une politique d’État ou d’organisation.

À mon avis, l’élément contextuel est particulièrement rempli en ce qui concerne les SGM lorsqu’il existe des lois imposant l’emprisonnement, les châtiments corporels ou la peine de mort pour des relations sexuelles consenties entre personnes de même sexe, si ces lois sont effectivement appliquées. De manière générale, lorsque les individus non conformes au genre sont attaqués, les SGM perçus en font partie.

À mon sens, les violences et discriminations qui peuvent constituer une persécution incluent : les lois anti-SGM, les arrestations arbitraires extrajudiciaires, les assassinats et la violence exercée par des acteurs étatiques et non étatiques.

Je vais maintenant aborder la question de la persécution fondée sur le genre, qui constitue la plus grande partie de mon exposé. Selon moi, la persécution visant uniquement des SGM hommes ou uniquement des SGM femmes est toujours une persécution fondée sur le genre, que le Statut de Rome couvre ou non explicitement l’orientation sexuelle et l’identité de genre, car ces personnes appartiennent à des sous-groupes intersectionnels de femmes et d’hommes.

Le Statut de Rome définit le terme « genre » de manière spécifique. À l’article 7, paragraphe 3, il est précisé que : « Aux fins du présent Statut, on entend par le terme “genre” les deux sexes, masculin et féminin, dans le contexte de la société. Le terme “genre” n’a pas de signification différente de ce qui précède. » Ainsi, le Statut distingue sexe et genre : le sexe renvoie à la distinction biologique entre hommes et femmes, tandis que le genre inclut les rôles sociaux qui leur sont attribués. Le choix du terme « genre » montre qu’il s’agit bien d’une notion plus large que le simple sexe biologique.La définition part du sexe biologique mais va plus loin en indiquant que le genre est créé dans un contexte sociétal.

En raison du principe Nullum crimen sine lege (article 22 du Statut), qui impose une interprétation stricte des incriminations, les auteurs doivent percevoir leurs victimes comme appartenant à l’un des deux sexes. Cela montre que la définition conserve une vision binaire dépassée. Mais, du fait de l’inclusion du genre comme construction sociale, les auteurs persécutent aussi lorsqu’ils considèrent que les victimes violent les attentes liées au genre.

Le Bureau du Procureur de la CPI définit d’ailleurs les crimes de genre comme ceux commis contre des personnes en raison de leurs rôles de genre socialement construits. C’est suffisamment large pour inclure les violences punitives contre celles et ceux qui ne se conforment pas aux rôles prescrits. Les récentes demandes de mandats d’arrêt montrent que le Bureau considère déjà certains crimes contre les SGM comme des persécutions fondées sur le genre. La discrimination fondée sur l’orientation sexuelle vise celles et ceux qui ne respectent pas la conception sociale et culturelle du genre. On attend des femmes qu’elles aient un partenaire masculin, et des hommes qu’ils aient une partenaire féminine. Ceux qui s’écartent de cette attente sont discriminés : c’est une discrimination fondée sur le genre.

Pour les personnes transsexuelles, nées d’un sexe mais s’identifiant à l’autre, la discrimination subie vient du fait qu’elles ne correspondent pas aux attentes sociales liées au genre. Pour les personnes transgenres et intersexes, qui s’identifient souvent en dehors du système binaire, les auteurs les perçoivent malgré tout comme des hommes ou des femmes violant les attentes. Dans ces cas, il s’agit bien d’une persécution fondée sur le genre.

En conclusion, la définition du genre dans le Statut favorise une interprétation qui inclut l’orientation sexuelle et, dans une certaine mesure, l’identité de genre. Cela est confirmé par l’interprétation fondée sur les droits humains. Plusieurs juridictions internationales ont déjà reconnu cette extension.

Enfin, le Statut de Rome mentionne « d’autres motifs universellement reconnus comme illicites en droit international ». Cette formule permet de prendre en compte l’évolution du droit international des droits humains au niveau pénal international.

Au niveau universel, nous avons plusieurs décisions des Nations Unies, y compris du Comité des droits de l’homme, interdisant la discrimination fondée sur l’orientation sexuelle. Les Principes de Yogyakarta précisent que le droit international des droits humains interdit absolument la discrimination fondée sur l’orientation sexuelle et l’identité de genre.

En 2008, l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies a réaffirmé le principe de non-discrimination, qui exige que les droits humains s’appliquent également à tous les êtres humains, quelle que soit leur orientation sexuelle ou identité de genre.

La Commission africaine a adopté une résolution en 2014 sur les droits des SGM. La Commission interaméricaine des droits de l’homme considère que la violence et la discrimination à leur encontre constituent une violation flagrante des droits humains.

Ainsi, je soutiens que l’orientation sexuelle et l’identité de genre constituent bien des motifs universellement reconnus comme illicites en droit international, tels qu’exigés par le Statut de Rome.

Reconnaître que la persécution des SGM peut constituer un crime contre l’humanité ne signifie pas que le droit pénal international oblige les États à adopter des lois protégeant explicitement les SGM. Cela signifie seulement qu’ils ne doivent pas commettre les violations les plus graves de leurs droits humains, y compris la criminalisation des relations sexuelles consenties entre personnes de même sexe.

En résumé, les crimes contre les SGM peuvent constituer une persécution au sens du Statut de Rome, la définition du genre inclut à la fois le sexe biologique et le genre socialement construit, l’orientation sexuelle et l’identité de genre sont des motifs universellement reconnus comme illicites en droit international.

Le Bureau du Procureur de la CPI a déjà poursuivi des crimes contre les SGM en tant que persécutions fondées sur le genre. C’est une avancée majeure car elle montre que ces crimes sont traités sur les mêmes bases que d’autres persécutions graves.

Merci beaucoup de votre attention.