Celebrating 10 years of the Yogyakarta Principles: What have we learnt and where to now? of LGBTI people to participate in cultural rights, but does not touch on the right to be protected from violence based on culture. Unique indigenous cultural belief and practices that value gender fluidity and diverse identities are also not currently covered in the Principles. The Yogyakarta Principles do not identify and define extremism and fails to recognise the impact of violence on the health and well-being of individuals. Draft operational/programmatic guidance on violations of human rights by state actors and secondly by non-state actors in all levels need to be elaborated. The Principles also do not include cybercrimes/attacks on LGBTI individuals, which should be included in any revision or update. LGBTI youth, intersex people and asylum seekers, the right to freedom of association (especially in the context of requirements on CSOs to register with the government and restrictions on receiving foreign funding), as well as freedom of expression are not adequately covered in the Principles. There was some discussion about the Principles providing negative legal protection – a suggestion was to include a positive freedom to engage in private, consensual adult sexual activity. Legal enforceability and recognition of the Yogyakarta Principles by courts, and other processes must be addressed. Similarly, there is inadequate coverage on accountability of stakeholders and compliance monitoring. Establishing a more explicit link to domestic law – identifying gaps in domestic law and follow through in areas where there is lack of consistency is required. There is a need to address the issue of States selectively complying with the Principles, while ignoring some crucial Principles. The lack of legal enforceability of the Principles requires additional provisions to develop a sophisticated means of monitoring states’ compliance with the Principles, and reporting and even indexing States’ relative success in complying with the Principles. In order to address the gaps in relation to legal oppression, the sphere of criminalisation of LGBT activities and oppression need to be addressed. With the increased expansion of restriction into the digital/online space, there should be more guidance on the human rights impact of such restrictions. In addition, expansion of exemptions (such as based on faith), oppressive tolerance (laws that promote stereotypes) and restrictions on sexual and reproductive health rights must be addressed better in future revisions. Other areas such as privacy, the human rights of sex workers, domestic violence, and enforced disappearance need to be addressed further. The Principles also need to further recognise the engagement with international human rights mechanism, such as the UPR process, special procedures, and treaty bodies. The role of the Human Rights Council and engagement of CSOs with the international human rights mechanisms and their capacity building can be further elaborated. Mapping of treaty bodies and their relevance and effectiveness in engaging with individual countries in relation to the Principles, as well as including a recognition of the important role of the Independent Expert is essential. There should also be more emphasis on the role of NHRIs in relation to the implementation of the Principles. There is no reference to the SDGs in the Yogyakarta Principles (the Principles pre-date the SDGs). Due to this, the SDGs are often overlooked in SOGIESC advocacy. It was suggested that the issue of application of SDGs to SOGIESC can be included in any supplementary materials on the Principles. Addressing data gaps – building on peer reviewed data as a tool for advocacy, but also ensuring that the Yogyakarta Principles are respected in data collection are suggested to further enhance the effectiveness of Principles application, especially in relation to SDGs. 7.4. AREAS FOR SUPPORT AND COORDINATION Exploring areas for enhancing support and cooperation between NHRIs, CSOs, UN agencies, advocates and scholars to protect and promote the rights of LGBTI people was identified as one of the key objectives of the Conference. To this effect, the need to create a better dialogue with all stakeholders in relation to multiple forms of violations, and work out better mechanisms for cooperation and inter-agency support were identified throughout the discussions. It was recognised that the role of NHRIs in working with 50