A/73/227 51. The Special Rapporteur is saddened to see that anti-rights actors today regularly use the expression “culture” as a trope for cultural relativism in human rights debates. The resurgence of cultural relativism represents a particular threat to human rights, including the rights of women and of members of minorities — and its proponents sometimes attempt to use a cultural rights justification for their arguments. “Arguments that are based on ‘relativism’ or ‘cultural specificity’ also seek to place individuals and groups from marginalized communities outside the protection of international and national human rights protection mechanisms.” 41 52. As the Special Rapporteur has noted previously, the fact that the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is the human rights convention subject to the most reservations, many of which are based on unacceptable cultural relativist excuses for not implementing women’s equality, is a matter of grave concern (A/72/155, para. 6). International law allows States to make reservations if they do not undermine the object and purpose of a treaty. However, reserving the right to discriminate on the basis of claimed religious and cultural arguments when ratifying a treaty whose main goal is to prohibit discrimination is a clear violation of universality, as well as a nonsensical endeavour that should be without legal effect. The same concern applies to endless and boundless uses of derogation clauses whose application is clearly limited by international law. 53. It is reprehensible that relativist arguments find their way into the text of United Nations resolutions. In each country, there is an obligation to realize all human rights for all persons without discrimination, whatever the state of domestic debates “on matters associated with historical, cultural, social and religious sensitivities ”, as referenced in Human Rights Council resolution 32/2. Sensitivities do not overrule the international human rights obligations of States. No historical, social, cultural or religious sensitivities can justify the criminalization of one ’s sexual orientation or gender identity, or any other discriminatory or violent actions based on these grounds. 42 54. The concept of the “protection of the family”, introduced in resolution 26/11, has similarly “been used to undermine women’s rights by challenging universal human rights to equality and non-discrimination” (A/HRC/38/46, para. 13), as has the attempt to use undefined “traditional values” to limit human rights, in particular through Human Rights Council resolution 12/21. The Special Rapporteur concurs with the Advisory Committee, which noted that “tradition is often invoked to justify maintaining the status quo … Those who benefit most from the status quo are more likely to appeal to tradition to maintain power and privilege, and also to speak on behalf of tradition, while those most marginalized and disenfranchised have the most to lose from a traditional values approach to human rights ” (A/HRC/22/71, para. 40). It is worth recalling that at certain times and in certain places, slavery, alien domination and even systematic racial discrimination were all justified by recourse to “traditional values”, things which are considered entirely repugnant today. 55. It is also problematic that efforts to encourage the fulfilment of universal human rights obligations for all are sometimes portrayed as “external pressure and coercive measures … with the aim of influencing the relevant domestic debates and decision making processes at the national level” (Human Rights Council resolution 32/2). It is positive when these obligations are recalled as conditions to assistance programmes in an effort to strengthen the realization of universal human rights. The alignment of __________________ 41 42 16/26 Abeysekera, “The High Commissioner’s promotion of universality”, p. 122. Victor Madrigal-Borloz, Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, address to the Ide ntity Conference, Toronto, 24 May 2018. See also A/HRC/19/41. 18-12312