GBV and Widows and Female Heads of Households Sri Lanka’s legal system does not prohibit widow remarriage, and remarriage is common in the country, except in the Northern Province, where social custom and practice discourages remarriage. However the laws on inheritance and matrimonial property applicable to women governed by the personal laws such as Kandyan Law, Muslim Law, and Tesawalamai have discriminatory provisions. Similarly there are legal provisions that discriminate against women and children in non-marital families. These create a legal environment that can encourage GBV and sexual violence in particular against women and girls of non-marital families. Special policies and legal reforms have not been introduced to address the realities. (See Annex). (v) Homosexuality The Penal Code incorporates legal values of the early English Common law, criminalizing homosexuality. When Penal Code amendments were introduced in 1995, efforts to decriminalize adult homosexuality after a century failed. In fact an amendment to S. 365 A of 1995 modified the earlier law by substituting the word “persons” for “males” in the definition, criminalising for the first time, sex between females. (S. 365 as amended 1995). (See Annex). Homosexuality is described in nineteenth century language as “an act of gross indecency in public or private.” The punishment for homosexual conduct indicates that it is considered a minor offence, unless it is considered a grave offence because it involves an adult over 18 years and a child under the age of sexual consent (16 years). (S. 365). This strict approach has been challenged by many human rights and other groups as a violation of the right to individual sexual orientation, but there has been no initiative to reform the law on adult homosexuality. It seems that the Police do not prosecute for the offence. However they use another nineteenth century colonial statute, the Vagrants Ordinance (1841) to harass, arrest and prosecute such conduct which occurs in a public place. A recent case indicates that a prosecution is always possible at the discretion of the law enforcement authorities. Galabada Wimalasiri v OIC Maradana (30.11.2016 (S.C)) related to an appeal by an accused convicted in the Magistrate Court for this offence under S. 365 A of the Penal Code. Aluvihare J. with whom the other two judges of the Supreme Court agreed, referred to the changing laws on adult consensual same sex in other jurisdictions, including in England, which had decriminalized this conduct. However he said the law on homosexuality in Sri Lanka remained intact after the Penal Code Amendment (1995). The Supreme Court substituted a suspended sentence for the custodial sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Magistrate. The approach of the court supports a review of the policy of criminalizing adult consensual same conduct sex. The selective administration of criminal justice is an infringement of rights on sexual health and wellbeing, bodily integrity and the right to equality and freedom from discrimination. The latter rights as observed are not only international treaty standards but also guaranteed in the Constitution. (Art 12 on equality and non-discrimination.) These provisions in the Penal Code cannot be challenged in the Supreme Court for violation of fundamental rights because our Constitution does not permit judicial review of past laws (Art. 80 (3) and Art. 16). The 1995 amendment could have been challenged when it altered the original language of the Penal Code, at the stage when the Bill to amend the Penal Code (1995) was before Parliament. Advocates for changing the law were disappointed at the failure to introduce reforms to the colonial law on homosexuality. However by an oversight this provision was not challenged for violation of fundamental rights – a missed opportunity for judicial review of the law in the context of constitutionally guaranteed human rights. COMPENDIUM ON LAW, GENDER BASED VIOLENCE AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS 23