A/HRC/43/48 20. Consultation participants reported that discriminatory mores on gender and sexuality rooted in religious orthodoxy were often translated into national law as secular restrictions. The criminalization of homosexual acts, they noted, was frequently justified on grounds of “public morals” associated with the tenets of a hegemonic religious tradition. 13 Similarly, undefined morality laws are used to target transgender populations in public spaces (A/HRC/38/43/Add.1, paras. 55–63; and CCPR/C/KWT/CO/3, paras. 12–13). Participants from civil society noted that State-sanctioned laws and practices that promote gender-based discrimination created a permissive environment for non-State actors to commit violence against LGBT+ persons, and that the multi-layered negative impact of gender discriminatory laws on access to health, education and employment could be stark. 14 21. Participants in the consultations held in the Americas further noted that many countries in their region were leaders in the protection of rights for LGBT+ persons, including in advancing respect for the self-determination rights of transgender persons, in combating discrimination against LGBT+ persons in the health system (Argentina), and in adopting provisions for equal marriage rights (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay and parts of Mexico). They noted, however, that many Governments maintained legal provisions that discriminated against LGBT+ persons, including in health care, housing, social security, employment, marriage and parental rights, often on religious grounds. 22. Participants in the consultations focused on States in sub-Saharan Africa reported that, despite the decriminalization of homosexuality by several States, including Angola, Botswana and Mozambique, legal rights were reportedly diminishing for LGBT+ persons in the region. Thirty-two countries continue to criminalize and are increasing the penalties for same-sex relationships, and States have been reportedly shrinking the space for human rights advocates working to promote respect for the human rights of LGBT+ persons. In 2014, one country in the region introduced a 14-year jail sentence for same-sex cohabitation and any “public show of same-sex relationship”. 23. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the decision in 2018 by the Supreme Court of India that struck down the colonial-era criminal law against homosexuality, recognizing the importance of individual autonomy, non-discrimination and privacy for LGBT+ persons. However, elsewhere in South Asia, similar colonial-era laws prohibiting same-sex relations are found in the penal codes of Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Participants in the consultations noted that attempts to push for regulations that safeguard the existence of LGBT+ individuals in Afghanistan, Maldives and Pakistan struggled against tenets of Islamic law. 24. Participants also reported that laws criminalizing adultery were often rooted in patriarchal interpretations of religious doctrine and had a disparate impact on women. The Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice noted that, in countries where Islamic law governs personal laws, adultery was severely punished and might even result in a sentence of death by stoning (A/HRC/29/40, para. 49). The sanctions are generally imposed on the women rather than the men. Additionally, sexual assault and rape often go unreported because women fear they will be charged with adultery; and there may be impunity for marital rape. 4. Discrimination on the basis of gender and religious identity 25. Participants in the consultations focused on the South and South-East Asian region reported that women and girls from religious minority communities were often at particular risk of violence, including violence associated with forced conversions and forced marriage, and that “counter-extremism” measures adopted by States had targeted women from Muslim minority communities with rape, forced sterilization and forced abortion.15 13 14 15 6 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 22 (1993) on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, paras. 8–9. See www.hrw.org/report/2018/07/01/scared-public-and-now-no-privacy/human-rights-and-publichealth-impacts. See www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/178/178-20200123-PRE-01-00-EN.pdf.