International Human Rights Tribunal

The International Human Rights Tribunal (IHRT) took place in Vienna (Austria) in June 1995. It was chaired by environmental and human rights activist Freda Meissner-Blau and Gerhard Oberschlick, editor of FORVM, and was dedicated to the persecution of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender persons in Austria from 1945 to 1995.

The International Committee

As the organizers feared repressions by the Republic of Austria, they asked prominent figures from the international human rights community to join the International Committee and thus protect the endeavour. Although Queen Margrethe II of Denmark decided not to accept the offer to chair this committee, there was ample support worldwide. Amongst the members were Jacques Gaillot, bishop of Partenia, politicians Mel Read (UK), Svend Robinson (Canada), Claudia Roth (Germany) and Terezija Stoisits (Austria), writers Kuno Knöbl, Christine Nöstlinger and Gerhard Roth, developmentalist Robert Chambers (Frankfurt), sociologist Bernd Marin and human rights lawyer Manfred Nowak (both Vienna), political scientist Anton Pelinka (Innsbruck), as well as other academic scholars like Igor S. Kon (Moskow), Asa G. Rachmanova (Saint Petersburg), Douglas Sanders (Vancouver), Theo Sandfort (Utrecht) and Christopher Williams (Preston, UK), as well as human rights activists, publicists und LGBT activists from Belgium, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Norway and Peru.

Senate

Chaired by Meissner-Blau and Oberschlick, the jury of the tribunal consisted of prominent personalities from Austria's civil society, amongst them theologian Kurt Lüthi, philosophers Rudolf Burger and Oliver Marchart, writers Josef Haslinger, Doron Rabinovici and Katharina Riese, politicians Friedrun Huemer (The Greens) and Volker Kier (Liberal Forum), actress Mercedes Echerer, psychotherapists Rotraud Perner, Alfred Pritz and Jutta Zinnecker, judge Norbert Gerstberger, lawyers Nadja Lorenz and Alfred Noll, cultural scientist and activist Dieter Schrage, four journalists, an editor, two unionists, two medical doctors as well as several human rights activists. The composition of the jury changed in each of the seven parts of the tribunal - according to the specific expertise of the jurors. For example, the jury for VII. Discrimination in the general public consisted of four journalists, an editor, a sociologist, writer Haslinger, theologian Lüthi, actress Echerer and psychotherapist Perner.

Prosecution

Human rights activist Christian Michelides served as attorney-general. He headed a team of prominent representatives from the Austrian LGBT movement, amongst them HOSI Wien activists Gudrun Hauer, Kurt Krickler and Waltraud Riegler and Transgender representative Elisabeth Piesch.

The prosecution brought forward charges in seven different fields:

  • Penal Code and constitution
  • Civil registry, family, marriage, domestic partnership
  • Reparations for [...] repression
  • AIDS and the social consequences
  • Prison, psychiatry, armed services, police, right of asylum
  • Discrimination in the working environment
  • Discrimination in the general public

Testimonies were brought up to document the charges. They reported about police persecution, imprisonment, psychiatric treatment and electroshock therapies, loss of jobs and public humiliation.

In each case the Republic of Austria was charged with neglecting its human rights obligations and therefore broken its own commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris in 1948.

Defence

In six of the seven parts of the tribunal the defence bench remained empty. The Republic of Austria refused to defend itself. Most of the political representatives had either ignored the invitation or passed it on to some department of their own ministry which never replied. Only one lengthy letter from Roland Miklau, departmental head in the Ministry of Justice, explained why he preferred not to participate.

On the first day of the tribunal, MP Johannes Jarolim, member of the ruling Social Democratic Party, took place on the defence bench - as amicus curiae, not defending the republic, but rather stating that he agreed with all the changes in the penal code demanded. He referred to the refusal of coalition partner Austrian People's Party which was effectively blocking every move in this field.

Seven verdicts

The Republic of Austria was found guilty in all seven fields. However, the jury not always agreed completely with the demands of the prosecution team. For example, in part I. Penal Code and constitution the attorney-general requested the abolition of the [...] law. The jury did not agree on this demand.

Effects of the tribunal

Although mostly ignored by the press, nearly all verdicts and requests of the tribunal have since been implemented in Austrian law:

  • 1996: §§ 220 and 221 of the Austrian Penal Code abolished
  • 1998: Penal Code modified, same-[...] partners no longer obliged to testify against their partners
  • 2002: The age of consent equalisied for all [...] orientations
  • 2003: Removal of all records and data of those sentenced under § 209 from police data banks
  • 2004: [...] orientation included in the Anti-discrimination law
  • 2005: Homosexuals recognized as victim-group of [...] oppression
  • 2009: [...]-change in documents no longer dependent on completion of [...]-change operations
  • 2009: Annulment of [...] verdicts against homosexuals made possible
  • 2010: Domestic partnerships for lesbian and gay couples recognized by the law

In hindsight the refusal of Austrian politicians to defend themselves at the tribunal can be seen as their silent acknowledgment - already in 1995 - that Austria's human rights practice in this field did not fulfill the internationally requested standards. Nevertheless it has not been clarified till today, why it took still 15 years to abolish legal persecution and discrimination.

The tribunal was intended to be the first in a series. In 1998 the 2nd International Human Rights Tribunal was supposed to accuse racism and xenophobia in Austria, but the attempt failed - due to lack of financial means. There are still plans to dedicate the next tribunal to the death penalty.