This is a blog is related to my academic work in the International Academic Forum on SOGIESC Law but meant to serve anyone who wants to contribute to improve the protection of human rights worldwide. It is intended to keep interested readers informed about legal developments relating to sexual orientation, gender expression and identity and sex characteristics (SOGIESC). Hopefully, it will make it easier to find correct legal information about the developments in all regions of the world and, in particular, with regard to international law.
ECtHR : Judgment Bazhenov and Others v. Russia (nos. 8825/22 and 19130/22) (failure of the national authorities to respond adequately to homophobia-driven incidents)
The applicants, Yevgeniy Bazhenov, Aleksandr Semkin and Artem Lapov, are three Russian nationals who were born in 1985, 1984 and 1988 respectively. They are homosexuals and are in same-sex marriages registered outside Russia. The first two applicants are a couple and live in Moscow. The third applicant and his husband left Russia in 2022, and are currently residing in a European country as refugees. The case concerns disclosure of the applicants’ personal data, including information about their sexual orientation, on social networks, and the alleged failure of the national authorities to respond adequately to those homophobia-driven incidents. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, the applicants complain that the national authorities failed to do their duty to ensure effective respect for their private lives and protect them from discrimination. They also complain under Article 13 that they had no effective domestic remedy at their disposal for their Convention complaints.
Violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 7,000
We also take this opportunity to express our deep appreciation to Prof. Kees Waaldijk, who founded the hashtag#SOGILawSummerSchool and led it for six successful editions, bringing together over 200 participants from all continents, and speakers from many countries. Despite stepping down from the coordinator position, he remains an integral part of the program as co-author of the Leiden Overview on SOGIESC in International Law and an honored speaker for hashtag#SOGILaw2025, all while fulfilling his role as professor of comparative sexual orientation law at the hashtag#GrotiusCentre.
Curious about what this year’s edition has to offer?
USA: Trump administration rescinds sweeping federal funding freeze after court challenge (Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing)
The Administration of US President Donald Trump on Wednesday rescinded a directive to freeze funding across federal agencies just one day after announcing the sweeping measure, which had left agencies and beneficiaries scrambling to determine its impact.
Tuesday’s directive mandated a temporary pause on all federal financial assistance disbursements and obligations, including grants and loans, while agencies reviewed their programs for alignment with new Trump administration priorities. During this pause, agencies were required to halt new funding programs, stop disbursements under existing programs, and pause activities related to open funding opportunities, though certain legally mandated actions could continue with OMB approval.
The order was issued by way of a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an executive-branch office responsible for managing the presidential budget and oversight of agency spending. In the memo, OMB Acting Director Matthew Vaeth criticized federal spending under the previous Democratic administration of Joe Biden as the “use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies” and as a “waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve.”
But the directive lacked specificity that would help agencies and beneficiaries understand which programs might be eligible for exceptions, fueling anxiety about the breadth and scope of the order, including fears that programs critical for providing food and resources to the nation’s most vulnerable populations would suffer as a consequence of the order.
The order was supposed to take effect on Tuesday evening, Eastern US time, but a federal district judge granted an administrative stay, pausing the freeze for several days. The stay was granted in response to a lawsuit filed by the National Council of Nonprofits, which said in a statement: “This reckless action by the administration would be catastrophic for nonprofit organizations and the people and communities they serve. … From pausing research on cures for childhood cancer to halting housing and food assistance, shuttering domestic violence and homeless shelters, and closing suicide hotlines, the impact of even a short pause in funding could be devastating and cost lives. This order must be halted immediately before such avoidable harm is done.” The judge said the administrative stay would block the OMB from enforcing the directive pending arguments to take place next week.
Confusion continued to mount in the meantime, with questions about the freeze dominating a White House press briefing on Wednesday. During the briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said repeatedly that the order would not affect direct beneficiaries of federal programs, but was less clear on indirect individual beneficiaries, such as seniors benefiting from federally funded nutrition programs organized by third-parties. She maintained more information was coming.
Shortly thereafter, reports emerged that the OMB had released a brief memo rescinding its directive from Tuesday. Leavitt took to X (formerly Twitter) to confirm that the OMB memo had been rescinded because of the court order. She added the caveat, however, that Trump’s various executive orders on federal funding “remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.” The executive orders named in the OMB memo included the following:
Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), which revoked several Biden-era immigration policies while directing federal agencies to prioritize deportations, establish nationwide Homeland Security Task Forces, expand detention facilities, encourage state-local immigration enforcement partnerships, and review funding to NGOs that assist undocumented immigrants;
Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid (Jan. 20, 2025), which imposed a 90-day pause on US foreign development assistance disbursements while agencies review all foreign aid programs for alignment with the Trump administration’s foreign policy objectives, with the Secretary of State empowered to grant waivers and approve resumption of funding for programs that pass review;
Unleashing American Energy (Jan. 20, 2025), which mandated a comprehensive review and rollback of climate-related policies, including revoking multiple Biden-era executive orders, pausing Inflation Reduction Act funding disbursements, disbanding the interagency working group on carbon costs, expediting energy permits, restarting LNG export reviews, and directing agencies to prioritize domestic energy production and mineral development while removing restrictions on consumer choice in vehicles and appliances;
Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (Jan. 20, 2025), which mandated the termination of all federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Environmental Justice programs and positions, required agencies to document all such programs and contractors since January 2021, and established monthly meetings to monitor the elimination of these initiatives across the federal government;
Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government (Jan. 20, 2025), which defined sex as binary and biological, mandated federal agencies to use only these definitions, required identification documents to reflect biological sex rather than gender identity, prohibited federal funding related to “gender ideology,” directed changes to prison housing policies based on biological sex, and rescinded multiple Biden-era policies and guidance documents related to gender identity protections; and
Enforcing the Hyde Amendment (Jan. 24, 2025). which revoked two Biden-era orders related to abortion access and directed the OMB to issue guidance ensuring federal funding complies with the Hyde Amendment’s restrictions on using federal funds for elective abortions.
USA: Trump bans DEI initiatives in federal government
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday issued an order prohibiting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across federal agencies and directing the government to combat such practices in the private sector.
The sweeping order revokes several executive orders (EO) passed by the Democratic administrations in recent decades, including that of Lyndon B. Johnson, who served from 1963 to 1969, during a critical juncture of America’s civil rights movement. In the 1960s, Black Americans faced systemic discrimination that traced back to slavery and its aftermath. Though slavery had ended in 1865, Southern states had in its wake established racial-segregation laws and economic practices that deliberately kept Black Americans from accessing good jobs, education, and wealth-building opportunities. This persistent inequality sparked mass protests and civil rights marches across America, often met with violence, which ultimately pressured the federal government to enact reforms. Washington responded to the unrest with various policies aimed at dismantling such repressive practices, including the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, and EO 11246, a 1965 order requiring government contractors to take concrete action to increase the representation of minorities and women in their workforce.
Trump’s new order revokes EO 11246, along with — among other such policies — a 1994 EO passed by Bill Clinton (1993-2001) requiring the federal government to address environmental disparities impacting minority and low-income populations, and a 2011 order passed by Barack Obama (2009-2017) pushing for diversity within the federal workforce, among other directives.
In addition, the new policy requires federal agencies to identify “the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners” across key sectors and develop enforcement plans targeting corporations, universities, and other institutions with potentially discriminatory practices.
“Hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American Dream should not be stigmatized, demeaned, or shut out of opportunities because of their race or sex,” the order states.
Under the directive, the Justice Department and Education Department must issue guidance within 120 days to educational institutions receiving federal funding on compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that struck down race-conscious college admissions.
The order maintains exemptions for veterans’ preferences and does not restrict academic freedom to discuss DEI practices in higher education settings.
The policy delivers on Trump’s campaign promises to dismantle DEI initiatives, which grew to new prominence in 2020 following the killing by police of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, in Minnesota. Floyd’s death provoked outrage over enduring elements of systemic racism, including police killings, and sparked a national conversation about righting historical wrongs. Many companies and organizations enacted DEI initiatives in the aftermath of Floyd’s killing as a means of counteracting repressive policies.
Advocates have celebrated DEI policies as necessary for addressing historical inequities, while critics have slammed them, claiming they prioritize identity politics over merit. In a fact sheet accompanying Wednesday’s order, the Trump administration pointed to the latter sentiment, stating: “Many corporations and universities use DEI as an excuse for biased and unlawful employment practices and illegal admissions preferences.” This divide emerged as a significant point of contention between often pro-DEI Democratic candidates and their increasingly anti-DEI Republican counterparts during the 2024 campaign season.
Japan court urges government to recognize legality of same-sex marriage
The Fukuoka High Court ruled that Japan’s current policy against same-sex marriage is discriminatory and unconstitutional on Friday. This marks the third time a High Court in the country has declared the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, and this ruling specifically calls on the government to undertake necessary legal reforms.
In this case, three couples living in Fukuoka and Kumamoto whose same-sex marriage registrations were rejected, sought compensation from the government. The six appellants claimed that the Civil Code of Japan and the Family Registration Act, which ban same-sex marriage, violates the Japanese constitution. This appeal followed the Fukuoka District Court’s ruling that the government was not required to take immediate legislative action, despite being in a “state of unconstitutionality.”
Presiding Judge Okada Takeshi highlighted the importance of legal recognition for same-sex couples, in light of the constitutional principles of individual dignity and gender equality. The court referenced Article 13 of the Constitution for the first time, stating that the absence of a legal framework for same-sex marriage denies individuals in same-sex relationships a means to pursue happiness.
He emphasized that sexual orientation is determined before birth or early in life and is not a choice that can be changed by will or psychiatric methods. Thus, the desire to pursue happiness through the establishment of a family is the same for both heterosexual and same-sex couples.
The government argued on definition of marriage under Article 24 of the Constitution, citing the terms “both sexes” and “husband and wife.” In response, the court clarified that the legislative intention of Article 24 was not to prohibit same-sex marriage but to eliminate the historical subordination of wives in the family system. “There is no longer any reason to not legally recognize marriage between same-sex couples,” Judge Okeshi concluded.
After the ruling, four plaintiffs hailed the decision outside the court. They held a sign , questioning why Japan’s parliament has not yet legalized same-sex marriage.
This ruling aligns with two prior High Court decision in Sapporo and Tokyo, which similarly deemed the government’s stance on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
Ugandan court awards $40K to men tortured after arrest for alleged homosexuality
A Ugandan court on Nov. 22 awarded more than $40,000 (Shs 150 million) to 20 men who police tortured after their 2020 arrest for alleged homosexuality.
The High Court of Uganda’s Civil Division ruling notes “police and other state authorities” arrested the men in Nkokonjeru, a town in central Uganda, on March 29, 2020, and “allegedly tortured.”
“They assert that on the morning of the said date their residence was invaded by a mob, among which were the respondents, that subjected them to all manner of torture because they were practicing homosexuality,” reads the ruling. “The alleged actions of torture include beating, hitting, burning using a hot piece of firewood, undressing, tying, biding, conducting an anal examination, and inflicting other forms of physical, mental, and psychological violence based on the suspicion that they are homosexuals, an allegation they deny.”
UN expert urges Poland to address discrimination and violence against LGBT community
A group of UN experts urged Poland to address entrenched discrimination and violence against the LGBT community through swift legislative and social reforms on Friday. The expert’s statement follows a comprehensive country visit, between November 18 and 29, that revealed both promising progress and persistent challenges.
The UN expert’s report highlights the enduring effects of discriminatory practices, such as the symbolic but impactful “LGBT-ideology free zones” established by over 100 local councils between 2015 and 2023. Although these resolutions lacked legal status, their existence underscored systemic prejudice and exacerbated the mental health challenges faced by the LGBT community. Activism and international pressure eventually led to the abandonment of these zones, but residual effects linger.
Significant gaps remain in areas such as education, employment, and healthcare. Schools lack adequate anti-discrimination training, leaving teachers ill-equipped to combat homophobia and transphobia. In workplaces, fear of discrimination prompts many LGBT individuals to hide their identities, while transgender people face additional barriers in accessing housing and healthcare. Recent legislative proposals aim to address these issues, but implementation remains uneven.
The report also draws attention to the challenges faced by same-sex couples, whose unions are neither recognised nor protected in Poland. Two recent European Court of Human Rights rulings, Przybyszewska and others v. Poland and Formela and others v. Poland, have found a breach of the right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, underscoring the need for legal recognition of same-sex unions, further pressuring the Polish government to act.
The UN Human Rights Council has mandated the UN Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity to offer advice to States on how to remedy violence and discrimination since 2016. The visit was prompted by Poland’s recent steps to address human rights abuses, including a groundbreaking apology from the Ministry of Justice in December 2023 for the past harm caused to LGBT individuals by state actors and media. The apology marked a turning point, fostering improved access to government officials for civil society groups and signaling the possibility of legislative reform.
Encouragingly, a draft civil union bill and expanded hate crime protections are under consideration, signaling a shift toward a more inclusive legal framework. Municipal initiatives, such as Krakow’s growing Equality March, reflect changing societal attitudes, though officials acknowledge that political action has lagged behind public sentiment.
Despite these positive developments, Poland continues to rank last among European Union countries in LGBT legal protections, as highlighted in ILGA-Europe’s annual report. While amendments to the Polish Criminal Code now include sexual orientation in hate crime and speech provisions, gender identity remains excluded. Various cases of hate crime and speech, discrimination and isolation remain pertinent in Poland against the LGBT community.
As Poland grapples with its evolving role within the European Union, the UN expert emphasised the need for sustained commitment to human rights. “This moment represents an opportunity shaped by political circumstance,” the expert remarked, urging Poland to align its policies with EU standards and secure a more equitable future for all citizens.
Hong Kong top court affirms same-sex couple rights in housing policies and inheritance law
The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal ruled on Tuesday that the exclusion of homosexual couples in the current public housing policies and inheritance laws amounts to unlawful discrimination and is unconstitutional.
Regarding the right to apply for public housing as a family unit, the court held that the exclusive spousal eligibility for application for Public Rental Housing and transfer of ownership in the Home Ownership Scheme amounts to discrimination. The court rejected the government’s claim that Article 36 of the Basic Law grants exclusive rights to heterosexual couples under the contested public housing policies, based on the premise that such rights existed prior to the enactment of the Basic Law in 1997.
The court also reasoned that the government failed to adduce any evidence on how the housing policies can promote the formation of traditional families nor why prioritizing heterosexual couples’ applications while accepting those from homosexual couples, as a less intrusive means, is unable to achieve the same legitimate aim of promoting traditional family founded in opposite-sex marriages.
Accordingly, the court upheld the lower court’s ruling, concluding that the government failed to strike a balance between homosexual couples’ right to social welfare and the societal aim. The decision affirmed the right of homosexual couples to apply for PRH as an ordinary family. Homosexual couples will now benefit from the government’s exclusive commitment to allocate housing units to ordinary family applicants in three years.
Regarding the inheritance laws, the court found that the differential treatment between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex foreign marriages serves no legitimate aim. The government attempted to justify the differential treatment by asserting that the differential treatment is necessary to maintain a coherent definition of marriages across legislation. The court was not persuaded by this argument, stating that recognizing the status of a surviving same-sex spouse reflects the legislative purpose to “lay down a scheme for the distribution of the deceased’s residuary estate,” different from other matrimonial laws.
The court also upheld the lower court’s reasoning, which maintained that the “marital maintenance duties” imposed on opposite-sex spouses by the local law are irrelevant. It further clarified that inheritance is not based on any legal obligations to provide for maintenance as other classes of beneficiaries under the provisions, such as parents and siblings, do not owe any maintenance duties to the deceased.
Even though same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in Hong Kong, the decision affirmed that the surviving same-sex spouse of the deceased, whose marriage is celebrated in a foreign country, enjoys the right of inheritance under the Intestates’ Estates Ordinance and the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Ordinance, both require a “valid marriage” for the surviving spouse to assert their inheritance rights.
In September 2023, the court already affirmed the government’s duty to recognize same-sex marriage but allowed the government to distinguish between core and substantial marital rights. The government lodged its appeals in December 2023 and has yet to propose any framework.
Russia approves laws that ban transgender adoption and restrict LGBTQ+ visibility
Russia’s upper house of parliament approved two laws on Wednesday that will prohibit the visibility of LGBTQ+ people in media and ban citizens of countries that allow gender transitioning from adopting Russian children.
The first law amends Article 6.21 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation to prohibit “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations and (or) preferences or gender reassignment.” While Article 29(1) of the Constitution of Russia guarantees freedom of speech and press, the law will amend Articles 10.6 and 15.1 of Federal Law No. 149, to prohibit the promotion of not having children on the internet, in media and advertising.
The law will impose fines of up to 400,000 rubles for individuals, fines of up to 800,000 rubles for officials and up to 5M rubles for legal entities on violators. Foreigners will face similar sanctions as Russian citizens but can be deported from Russia or arrested for up to 15 days.
The law on the adoption of Russian children will effectively restrict the adoption of Russian children to the roughly dozen countries that ban gender transitioning.
The approval of these laws marks continuing suppression of LGBTQ+ rights. Previously, the Russian Supreme Court ruled the LGBTQ+ movement was “extremist”. Russia also banned gender affirming surgery in 2023.
After its official publication, the laws will take effect in ten days.
Russia faces a low birth rate, aging population and a decline in population has been heightened by the invasion of Ukraine. The measures are intended to increase the country’s birth rate and restrict the cultural influence of the West.
“Italy Criminalises Surrogacy from Abroad, a Blow to Gay and Infertile Couples.” This was the headline on the New York Times website following the approval of a law in Italy criminalising reproductive tourism. Giorgia Meloni had already introduced the bill, Act no. 824, in the last Parliament, and the current right-wing majority has now passed it. The news has gone around the world. Let us try to understand why.
Surrogacy and its regulation
Gestation for others, commonly known as “surrogacy”, is a method of assisted reproduction in which a woman carries a pregnancy on behalf of others, who then become the parents of the child. The ovum from which the child is conceived comes from a donor or from the intended mother, ensuring that the pregnant woman has no blood ties to the unborn child. The male gametes can be those of the future father (or of one of the future fathers in the case of same-sex couples), or of a donor. For a so-called “altruistic surrogacy”, the pregnant woman receives no payment (except for her expenses). “Commercial surrogacy”, on the other hand, involves payment to the woman who carries the pregnancy. In some countries, both European and non-European, surrogacy is allowed only in the altruistic form (e.g. United Kingdom, Netherlands, Portugal, Canada), in others – the minority – in both altruistic and commercial forms (United States, Greece, Georgia, Ukraine).
In Italy, however, surrogacy has been a criminal offence since 2004. Law no. 40/2004 art. 12, para. 6 punishes with imprisonment from three months to two years or a fine from 600,000 to 1 million euros “anyone who, in any form, carries out, organises or advertises the commercialisation of gametes or embryos or surrogacy”.
The reform
Crucially, the new Italian law does not create a new offence, nor does it increase the penalties. Instead, it extends the law’s reach by allowing prosecution of Italian citizens engaging in surrogacy abroad. Previously, prosecution of such conduct abroad was only possible at the request of the Italian Minister of Justice, as per art. 9 of the Italian Criminal Code. Moreover, even in the absence of an expressed legislative provision, Italian law required, according to some courts and scholars, “double incrimination” for ordinary offences committed abroad, meaning that the act had to be considered a criminal offence both in Italy and in the foreign State where it was committed.
The application of double incrimination has rarely been addressed by Italian courts, and the few decisions on this topic send mixed messages. However, one significant decision of the Corte di Cassazione (the highest Italian civil and criminal court) took a stance on this issue in the context of surrogacy. In 2016, the Court heard the case of an Italian heterosexual couple who had resorted to this assisted procreation technique in Ukraine, where such a practice is legal (see Cass. pen., sez. V, 10 marzo 2016, n. 13525). The Court acquitted the two defendants, stating that the aforementioned uncertainty in the interpretation of art. 9 Criminal Code – and thus of the double incrimination requirement – had led to an unavoidable error on the part of the accused: the couple was not in a position to know whether or not the conduct they had committed in Ukraine was punishable under Italian law, and thus acquitted.
The new bill was finally approved by the Senate on 16 October. It remedies this legal uncertainty by inserting the following sentence at the end of paragraph 6 of article 12 of Law no. 40/2004: “If the facts referred to in the preceding sentence, with reference to surrogacy, are committed abroad, the Italian citizen shall be punished according to Italian law.” This way, surrogacy carried out by Italian citizens abroad can now be prosecuted, even without the request of the Minister of Justice and without double incrimination. In the public debate, this innovation has been called a “universal offence”. However, this is a misnomer: The legislation does not make surrogacy a “universal offense” in the true sense, that is a conduct universally criminalized – such as war crimes, torture, or genocide. Instead, it is more accurately a form of extended jurisdiction that Italy claims over Italian citizens who engage in surrogacy abroad, even where it is legally permissible.
Some reflections on state power
The new law provides an opportunity to reflect on the limits of state power in criminalisation, especially in modern liberal democracies. Some argue that the criminalisation of surrogacy abroad is concerning as it reflects “an idea of a State guardian of the morality of its citizens, wherever they go”, which is contrary to “the principles of political liberalism” (see D. Pulitanò, Surrogazione di maternità all’estero. Problemi penalistici, in Cassazione penale, 2017, p. 1372). The reform has broad implications for other legal areas as well, especially international judicial cooperation and private law.
A particularly pressing issue arises with the legal status of children born through surrogacy abroad. In civil cases, the Court of Cassation has constantly held (lately with the confirmation by the Sezioni Unite, the Court of Cassation sitting in full court) that Italy does not automatically recognize foreign court orders, and consequently also related original birth certificates, designating intended parents as legal parents, even if one is the biological parent. This reflects a negative view of surrogacy in Italian civil jurisprudence, which, according to the Cassazione, “regardless of the manner in which it is practiced and the aims it pursues, is intolerably offensive to the dignity of women and deeply undermines human relationships.”
What remains to be done
Subsequently, the Constitutional Court in 2021 (Decision No. 33/2021) examined whether the view expressed in the civil decisions of the Cassation was compatible with the rights of the child enshrined in constitutional and supranational law. While recognizing a child’s right to legal acknowledgment of their parental relationships, the Court also affirmed the state’s interest in discouraging surrogacy which can be weighed against the right of the child, within the limits of proportionality. Referring to European Court of Human Rights case law, particularly C. v. France and E. v. France, the Court noted that while states may choose not to register foreign documents acknowledging intended parenthood, they must ensure alternative means for recognizing the child-parent relationship if it has effectively materialized. It is then left to the discretion of each State to choose such measures. Those measures may include adoption of the child, provided that a genuine ‘filiation’ bond between the adopter and the adoptee can be established, and “provided that the detailed rules laid down by domestic law ensure the effectiveness and rapidity of its implementation, in accordance with the best interests of the child.” However, Italy’s current provisions under Law No. 184/1983, which allow for “adoption in special cases”, have been deemed insufficient by the Constitutional Court to fully protect children’s rights. The Constitutional Court had no choice but to call upon the legislator, but the recent Act no. 824 only extends criminal penalties, failing to address the issues related to the civil status of the child born through surrogacy, as pointed out by the Constitutional Court, and which have become widespread in practice.
This gap leaves many families in a precarious situation upon returning to Italy, risking self-incrimination by seeking legal recognition for the child’s status – a problem that engages the principle nemo tenetur se detegere (the right against self-incrimination), whose constitutional relevance was reaffirmed by the Constitutional Court in Decision No. 111 of 2023.
There are many more complexities to the regulation of surrogacy that other critical elements in this matter which, leaving aside the various ethical opinions on surrogacy, call for a deeper reflection on the path that the Italian Parliament is following – or intentionally not following – in such a delicate area. But the law demands that any regulation protects the fundamental rights of the person, in particular those of the children.
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 