Celebrating 10 years of the Yogyakarta Principles: What have we learnt and where to now? There is a need for ore education and awareness about SOGIESC and LGBTI issues and support to end stigma and violence perpetrated against LGBTI communities. Special advocacy programmes must be directed towards addressing issues of homophobia, transphobia, violence, stigma, honour crimes and honour killings targeted at LGBT communities and the secrecy about the specific human rights violations against intersex people. Highlighting that, many CSOs say that they have seldom used the Yogyakarta Principles and that the Principles to be made more legible and practical for advocates working in different cultural contexts. From this perspective, there is a need to come up with a simplified and locally understandable languages for the Yogyakarta Principles, which is essential to get the message across. Giving full consideration to the challenges and potentialities in revising or updating the Principles, there were voices to strengthen advocacy to promote acceptance of the Principles and LGBTI rights, and infuse more energy and inspiration to move the agenda forward were identified as essential. The programme of action aspect of the Yogyakarta Principles, which are directed towards States, could be effectively further targeted to lawyers, political parties, religious organisations in order to bring them onboard. There is an increasing need to step up the discourse on SOGIESC issues, including the exploration of avenues to incorporate these rights in other areas of human rights advocacy such as business and human rights. Creating more research output on the application of the Yogyakarta Principles within the broad international human rights system, particularly in specific areas such as the economic and business impact of LGBTI rights, could be used more strategically. Likewise, linking the guiding principles of the SDGs to the protection of the vulnerable and marginalised and putting emphasis on the importance of concerted effort by activists, advocates and allies in bringing SOGIESC issues to the forefront of international debates were highlighted. Better use of the mandate of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (IE-SOGI) in bringing the issue of SOGI and sex characteristics, and building stronger partnerships amongst the LGBTI community were emphasised. Increasing attention could be given to building community partnerships and developing innovative engagements. 7.3. AREAS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE YOGYAKARTA PRINCIPLES Areas for future development of the Yogyakarta Principles and supplementary materials were discussed throughout the conference, in particular, during the group discussions on Day 2. Some of the key positions and ideas that emerged from these discussions are outlined here. The points included here only highlight the key discussions, and the specific details are covered in relevant sections of this report. Introducing additional supplements to the Principles would help further clarify and address the multiple dimensions of the Principles and how they link to each other. The need to bring in more clarity and new terminology to better understand the nuances of lived experiences of diverse LGBTI communities should be the basis of such revisions and updates. However, it is also important to note that some participants expressed the view that something akin to the general comment/recommendations of treaty bodies can be more effective in bringing the required updates to the Yogyakarta Principles. The term sex characteristics does not appear in the Principles and the word ‘intersex’ appears only once (in the preamble). Although some principles may be applied to encompass some of the human rights issues that intersex people, such concepts require further clarification. More clarity should be provided on concepts such as ‘age of consent’ or maturity in relation to intersex people, while sex characteristics and bodily diversity and areas with regard to protected attributes must be addressed. Clarity is also needed on the issue of non-consensual medical interventions, especially involving children with intersex variations. Clarity on the use of medical ‘evidence’, and definition on ‘sex characteristics’ as well as the relationship between gender identity and intersex are required. There are strong concerns from intersex people regarding Principle18 especially in relation to contentions with the language of the CRC – with a call for the need to uncouple (decouple) the Principles’ definitions from those of CRC. 48