Global Initiative for Sexuality and Human Rights

Caribbean Mapping Report

Introduction
The Caribbean Mapping project had been initiated to aid in the development of an advocacy strategy for
the passing of the INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, AND
RELATED FORMS OF INTOLERANCE and the INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST ALL FORMS OF
DISCRIMINATION AND INTOLERANCE (collectively referenced as the Conventions), two new treaties
designed to address discrimination and intolerance within the Organization of American States Member
States. Due to 12 years of negotiations and specific contention over the inclusion of protections on the
basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI), advocates were expecting and preparing for
another year of lobbying and advocacy in order for the Conventions to be adopted by the General
Assembly of the OAS. Due to significant objections to the inclusion of SOGI by Caribbean States
(CARICOM), and the power they yield when voting as a block, activists anticipated the need to identify
CARICOM States that could be influenced to vote independent from the block on these Conventions.
To the surprise of many, the Conventions were passed by the OAS General Assembly in June 2013. As
such, the original purpose of this mapping was no longer relevant, but Heartland Alliances Global
Initiative for Sexuality and Human Rights (GISHR) team believe a mapping of the Caribbean is of value for
LGBTTTI activists, particularly those engaged in or with CARICOM States. The mapping focused on two
primary categories; 1) States stance on SOGI issues and 2) the States relationship with the OAS. At this
time, the mapping was completed only with data available through the official OAS website. Therefore
this author can only offer suggestions on possible interpretations of the data. Next stages of mapping
requires engagement with stakeholders within the CARICOM States and communities.
CARICOM States included in this synopsis are: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize,
Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines,
Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago.1

State Stance on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

The following documents from January 2005 November 2013 were reviewed to assess actual and de
facto domestic policies on SOGI:
Footnotes on SOGI related Resolutions
IACHR Press Releases
IACHR Country Reports
CSO reports submitted to the IACHR, including information provided at Thematic Hearings
SOGI related State Legislation on record at the OAS

1
Montserrat is not included due to its status as a British Overseas Territory, and hence is not a member of the
OAS.
What the data suggests
States SOGI-related Policies

Guyana St. Kitts & Nevis Haiti Antigua & Barbuda

Belize Jamaica Bahamas
Surinam Trinidad & Tobago Dominica
Barbados Grenada
St. Lucia
St. Vincent & the Grenadines
In June 2013 the General Assembly adopted AG RES 2807 - Derechos Humanos Orientacin Sexual e
Identidad y Expresin de Gnero, which provides the most up to date record of the majority of CARICOM
States official stance on SOGI issues via footnotes. Nine States provided footnotes, four did not (names
in bold above), and one made a formal statement regarding the intent to include a footnote, but did in
fact not (name italicized above). Based on the notes included, and/or other available evidence; States
listed in green represent the countries that appear most likely to repeal laws that criminalize same sex
intimacy and/or implement laws that extend protections to the LGBTI community. Those listed in yellow
reflect States demonstrating more ambivalence, either due to the extreme volume of violence against
the LGBTI community, as in the cases of Haiti and Jamaica, or inconstant public statements within a
short timeframe. The States listed in red appear unlikely to consider policy change due to their
consistent record of opposition to LGBTI protections. St. Kitts and Nevis is an anomaly. Until a November
2013 press release, in which the IACHR commended the State for a statement made by the Prime
Minister, they had consistently and unequivocally opposed inclusion of protections for the LGBTI
community. This author did conduct a brief internet search for additional context due to the ambiguity
of the IACHR statement.

Green
Belize and Guyana both withheld consent to the resolution on the grounds that SOGI issues are under
current debate domestically. Suriname and Barbados commit to protect all citizens from human rights
violations, but would not go so far as to make a specific protection of LGBTI. Belize has steadily been
demonstrating a shift in political will. In 2010 they formally supported Antigua and Barbudas proposal
to divide the original single Convention into two, with race as the primary and all other forms of
discrimination as a secondary Convention or Optional Protocol; in June 2013 the foot notes indicate
there is domestic review of official policy; and in the November 2013 press release noted above IACHR
acknowledges continued progress towards recognition of State responsibility to protect all citizens.
Although Suriname also formally supported Antigua and Barbudas proposal to divide the Convention,
Suriname and Haiti are the only CARICOM states that do not criminalize same sex intimacy (though
Surinames age of consent is higher for homosexual than heterosexual intimacy), so they may have
fewer cultural and political hurdles to successfully develop and implement protections for the LGBTI
community. Finally, in a February 2013 press release with concluding remarks on its working visit, the
IACHR recognized Surinames willingness to discuss means to better protect the LGBT community,
including training of the Police Force. A willingness further demonstrated in the AG/RES 2807 footnotes.
Barbados is included in this category due to a lack of any record of strong opposition to SOGI rights,
including a lack of participation in joint protests. Furthermore, despite the IACHR attention to human
rights abuses in CARICOM states which criminalize same sex intimacy, Barbados has never been singled
out for violation of LGBTI persons rights.
 Yellow
Haiti, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago are less clear on willingness to improve protections for LGBTI
persons, and though dissimilar, each have demonstrated in more than one occasion they may be
influenced. IACHR press releases collectively cite more violent attacks and/or violent deaths in Haiti than
any other CARICOM State. This author suggests that due to the human rights crisis in Haiti, further
research could demonstrated proportionally, the violence experience by the general public vs. LGBTI
populations may be of similar proportions to other CARICOM States. Haiti welcomes the OAS to observe
the human rights status of the country and invites input. In a June 2013 IACHR press release the
President and Prime Minister were commended for their joint denunciation of 47 cases of violence and
aggression against actual or perceived LGBTI community members in a one week period. Therefore,
absence of a footnote from Haiti on the AR/RES 2807 could imply a genuine consensus.

Jamaica had the strongest objection against AG/RES 2807 by not only citing gender expression and lack
of internationally accepted definitions as cause to dissent, but went further to say that it has the,
potential to impose one value system over another. The profound violence, discrimination, and lack of
access to justice summarized in the IACHR Country report, published in January 2013, also included
acknowledgement of the States responsiveness to precautionary measures to protect an LGBTI human
right defender under severe threat. In addition to providing protections to the individual of concern, the
State responded by developing a diversity policy which guides members of the security force in their
professional dealings with persons of minority groups such as lesbians, gays and transgender with the
cooperation between the security forces and a local LGBTI CSO. Therefore, minor shifts in public policy,
coupled with the Minister of Justices condemnation of the murder of a Trans teenager suggests that in
Jamaicas ongoing struggle to respect, protect, and promote human rights for the general population,
there are signs that there is recognition for the need to pay special attention to the most vulnerable
populations, including the LGBTI community.

Trinidad and Tobago proclaimed the intent to include footnotes in AG/RES 2807, but at time of
publication, did not do so. Due to historical objection to extending protections to the LGBTI community,
including their representation of the CARICOM States in a 2010 protest against the inclusion of
Yogyakarta Principals in the Special Rapporteur of the Rights of Education report, this author presumes
the intent was to also indicate their lack of consensus. In light of the December 2012 IACHR press
release commending the Prime Ministers public commitment to address discrimination and
stigmatization of the LGBTI community, this author suggests the absence of a footnote to be too
ambiguous to interpret one way or the other.

Red
Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, and Grenada; although they were three of the four States to not include
footnotes on AG/RES 2807, this author proposes silence does not indicate consensus. As previously
noted, Antigua and Barbuda lead a proposal to divide the single draft Convention into two in order to
end an impasse in treaty negotiations by segregating SOGI protections from what they consider the
primary objective of strengthening protections for race and related discrimination and intolerance. The
successful passing of AG/RES 2804 and AG/RES 2805, and the fact that Antigua and Barbuda only signed
AG/RES 2805 in June 2013 implies a satisfaction with their successful leadership. The act of deliberately
not signing AG/RES 2804 strongly implies the States continued objections, particularly in light of the fact
that of the signatory States, it was the only State that signed only one and not both Conventions.
Bahamas formally supported Antigua and Barbudas proposal to divide the Convention. In the case of
the Bahamas, there are no additional records. Due to the IACHRs record to comment favorable actions
to strengthen LGBTI protections, this author believes the lack of information implies no change in
political will. Granada was not party to the Antigua and Barbuda proposal, but similar to the Bahamas,
there are no records, and again due to the lack of favorable comments from the IACHR, this author
believes the lack of information implies no change in political will.

Dominica, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines all withheld their consent in a joint footnote
citing gender expression at the primary cause for their dissent. Despite growing international
recognition of definitions set in the Yogyakarta Principles, they further stated that terms used in the
AG/RES 2807 were not international recognized and still under debate at the UN, and OAS discourse
should be limited to what has been approved at the UN. Therefore this objection appears to be
deliberately obtuse, in that there is growing recognition of a common definition of Sexual Orientation
and Gender Identity and Expression due to the Yogyakarta Principles (YP). In 2010 CARICOM states, led
by Trinidad and Tobago, protested the application of YP by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to
Education. Furthermore, there is sufficient precedence that regional bodies provide global leadership. In
the case of the Americas, of particular note is the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man,
which predated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

St. Kitts & Nevis

St. Kitts and Nevis was the fourth state to take part in the joint footnote on AG/RES 2807 with Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines et al, and is similarly consistent in their stance against LGBTI protections.
What distinguishes them from those other three States is that in the November 2013 IACHR press
release (noted early in reference to Belize and Jamaica) commending the Prime Ministers favorable
comments regarding increase respect for LGBTI rights. Unlike the mounting evidence that Belize and
Jamaica are willing to engage in discussions on SOGI issues, the PMs statement seemed unprecedented.
This author conducted a brief internet search for context, absent from the press release. The Guardian
and Sugar City 90.3, British international news and St. Kitts radio station respectively, suggest the
motivation in drastic change of tone from the Prime Minister is due to interest in benefiting from
international funds for HIV prevention serving the MSM population. In addition, Sugar City suggests that
the PMs youngest son is gay and the PM is infamous for changing laws to benefit friends and family.
Therefore, this shift seems more tenuous as it does not appear to be based in a national discussion, but
the whim of the PM.

States Relationship with the Organization of American States

The following data points from January 2005 November 2013 were used to assess a States
engagement with the OAS:
Establishment of a Permanent Mission and Representative to the OAS
Ratification of the American Convention
Ratification other multi-lateral Treaties
Responsiveness to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights regarding investigations,
Friendly Statements, Precautionary Measures, etc.
Participation in Thematic Hearings
Engagement in Country Visits, and
CSO registration and CSO engagement within the OAS2 human rights system

2
GISHR proposes CSOs are more likely to be engaged, and/or registered with the OAS if civil society perceives the
OAS to have an influence in State behavior.
What the data suggests
Organization of American States records available through their website suggest significant diversity in
levels of engagement with CARICOM States. Level of engagement does not correlate with level of
willingness to review domestic policies impacting the LGBTI community. Therefore, this author suggests
this section could be useful for CSOs decision on prioritizing strategies for engaging their governments
in improved protections.
Haiti, Jamaica, and Suriname are the three most active countries within the OAS. Each have been subject
of Country reports at the invitation of the State, and have active civil society organization who bring
forth Cases and propose Thematic Hearings. While in the cases of Haiti and Jamaica where reports of
extreme violence has resulted in the escalation of concern by the OAS, the IACHR press releases and
country reports suggest cooperation from the State indicating a reciprocal relationship. Jamaica had the
lowest State representation at Thematic Hearings3 with 75% participation, and at the end of a multi-year
evaluation of the state of human rights IACHR reports seemed to suggest a decline in full cooperation
from the State. Despite a low rate of participation, the quantity of points of engagement warrant
Jamaica to be rated as highly engaged.4 This author recommends further assessment to determine if the
declining cooperation is due to limited resources to maintain the heightened levels of engagement, or
emblematic of a shifting commitment to the OAS. Haiti had the lowest rate of compliance with the
IACHR request for information regarding Cases. It seems important to note5 that of the many Cases
under investigation by the Committee, those to which the State did not respond, were predominately
related to concerns of impunity regarding abuses that took place during previous regimes. When the
volume of investigations before the IACHR regarding Haiti is taken into consideration, this author
suggests limited resources is an impediment rather than lack of will to partner with OAS.
Conversely, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Vincent and the Grenadines appear disengaged from the OAS.
They not only have not ratified the American Convention, but rank the lowest of the 14 countries to sign
any treaties (8 and 7 respectively, 13 is the median number of ratified treaties by CARICOM States, St
Vincent ratified the fewest with 7, Haiti the most with 18). Furthermore, there is no civil society
engagement evidenced by the lack of CSO registration, as well as no record of civil society proposal of
Thematic Hearings or Cases brought before the IACHR.
The remaining nine countries, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada,
Guyana, St. Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago, are moderately engaged. Civil Society Organizations are
either registered or otherwise engaged with the OAS, States have been responsive to investigations into
cases brought before the IACHR some of which were found inadmissible because a domestic resolution
was found, and/or have engaged in treaty negotiations as evidenced by footnotes at the time of General
Assembly resolutions. Trinidad and Tobago and Antigua and Barbados appear more ambivalent in their
engagement, Trinidad and Tobago denounced the American Convention in 1998, and as such is tied with
Antigua and Barbados (as well as Bahamas, Belize, Guyana, and St. Lucia) with having only one (Inter-
American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women
"Conv. of Belem do Para) of eight human rights treaties ratified. In addition, both countries led
initiatives to protest inclusion of protections for LGBTI populations (see more in previous section).

3
A&B is the exception, they had one thematic hearing and no State representation.
4
Quantitatively even at a lower rate, they are still engaged on more occasions. Also, due to the intensity of country
visits, the qualitative nature of the engagement also influenced this author to rank Jamaica as highly engaged.
5
Haiti acknowledge, per 141st Regular Session press release annex, the problems within their justice system and
has requested technical assistance from the OAS.