Anal examinations as proof of same-sex conduct

Where in the source: Section 6, subsection on sexual orientation and gender identity, paragraphs on forensic anal examinations and the December 2023 prosecution

Reports rights groups’ accounts of Forensic Medical Authority examinations in “debauchery” cases and a December 2023 prosecution in which forensic examination sought traces of supposed “deviant activities.” The linked text is an archived copy of the U.S. Department of State report.

Where in the source: I. Background, Queen Boat prosecutions; Egypt section, prosecutor referrals to the Ministry of Justice’s Forensic Medicine Authority

Documents Egypt’s long-running practice, including prosecutor-ordered referrals to the Ministry of Justice’s Forensic Medicine Authority, the nineteenth-century roots of the claimed signs, and use of examination reports as evidence.

Where in the source: Paragraph 11, July 2019–June 2024 cases and referrals

Documents 93 habitual-debauchery cases involving 181 people between July 2019 and June 2024 and records that prosecutors referred 45 of those individuals to the Justice Ministry’s Forensic Medicine Authority for forced anal examinations.

Where in the source: Paragraph 11, prosecution referrals to the Ministry of Justice’s Forensic Medicine Authority

Where in the source: I. Background, Queen Boat convictions; Egypt section, Mohamed’s 2002 examination and prison sentence, and detainee testimony

Documents examinations used in prosecutions and convictions, including imprisonment, and detainees’ accounts of painful and humiliating forced examinations. These case accounts support consequences beyond the later referral count.

Where in the source: Preamble and Recommendations 1–2

Direct WMA policy states that forced anal examinations are medically invalid, unscientific and futile, and calls on physicians and medical associations not to participate in them. This medical rejection does not establish an Egyptian institutional correction.

Where in the source: July 28 police raid and examination orders; Cassation Public Prosecution consent directive

Documents Internal Security Forces arrests, prosecutor-ordered examinations, use of results in criminal charges, the Lebanese Order of Physicians’ prohibition, and the 2012 public-prosecutor directive that still allowed examinations under purported consent. The medical order appears as a correcting authority, not a carrier. This 2012 report dates the medical directive to 8 August; the 2016 Dignity Debased report gives 7 August. Both accounts place the prohibition in August 2012, but they differ on the precise day.

Where in the source: July 28 police raid, prosecutor-ordered examinations and use of results in criminal charges

Where in the source: Lebanon section, January 2014 detainee accounts and continued examinations or threats in 2014–2015

Documents that anal examinations or threats of them continued to be used in Lebanon during 2014 and 2015 despite the medical and human-rights campaign against the practice.

Where in the source: Bad science and false evidence; Scope of the problem and recent progress, Lebanon paragraph

Reviews the absence of scientific validity and describes Lebanon’s medical and legal efforts to end the practice.

Where in the source: Medical directive described in this report as issued on 8 August 2012; Cassation Public Prosecution consent directive

Where in the source: July 28 arrests, examination results used in criminal charges, and the medical directive described here as issued on 8 August 2012

Records forced examinations and use of their results in criminal charges; the medical circular describes the examinations as humiliating and a form of torture.

Where in the source: Lebanon section, August 11, 2012 ministerial request, Samir Hammoud’s response, and 2014–2015 follow-up

Records the justice minister’s request for a complete ban and the new public prosecutor’s forwarding of it without a binding directive. Continued examinations and threats show why the medical prohibition and ministerial intervention did not amount to a complete correction.

Where in the source: Case parties; paragraphs 3–6, 14 and 31–37

Primary appellate judgment reconstructing the magistrate, police and public-hospital examination chain and finding constitutional violations. Paragraph 14 records appellants’ counsel’s scientific objection; the court’s own reasons concern the unlawful order, rights violations and exclusion of the resulting evidence.

Where in the source: Paragraphs 3–6, February 2015 arrests, prosecution application, magistrate’s order and hospital examinations

Where in the source: Paragraphs 5–6, 27, 32–33 and 37, examinations, evidence use and constitutional violations

Where in the source: Paragraphs 31–33 and 37, legal reasoning, expungement of evidence and orders delivered on 22 March 2018

Where in the source: Preamble and Recommendations 1–2

Medical correction stating that forced anal examinations have no scientific basis for substantiating same-sex sexual activity and are medically invalid and futile. This supplies the medical assessment separately from the court’s constitutional ruling.

Where in the source: PDF pp. 2–3, methodology passport items 3 and 5; pp. 7–9, examination procedure and chronic signs

Official methodology approved by the Scientific Council of the Ministry of Justice’s Center for Forensic Medicine on 5 December 2016, protocol no. 2. It instructs experts to assess sphincter tone and anorectal appearance and calls specified chronic features characteristic of systematic receptive male-male intercourse.

Where in the source: PDF pp. 7–9, anorectal inspection, sphincter assessment and the list of supposed signs in systematic receptive partners

Where in the source: PDF pp. 7–9, prescribed examinations and claimed evidentiary meaning of chronic features

Documents invasive examination instructions and the anatomical inference built into the method. It does not document examinations or judicial outcomes in individual cases; the risk of misleading evidence is an assessment informed by the separate medical correction.

Where in the source: Printed pp. 193–194 (PDF pp. 194–195), section 3.23, examinations of sexual states and signs of sexual violence

The 2025 state forensic handbook for law-enforcement agencies and courts describes examinations of male and female sexual states and investigations of sexual violence. These passages do not establish continued use of the 2016 methodology’s disputed chronic-sign inference.

Where in the source: Preamble, paragraph citing the Independent Forensic Expert Group; Recommendations 1–2

Medical correction stating that anal examinations cannot reliably establish a history of consensual receptive anal intercourse and that forced use of such examinations is medically invalid and unethical. The relevant issue here is the supposed history of consensual intercourse, distinct from assessment of injuries or biological traces after assault.

Where in the source: Torture 26(2), 2016, pp. 86–87, Medical and Scientific Validity; p. 85, note on scope

The expert analysis explains why sphincter tone and anatomical variation cannot validate a history of consensual intercourse. Applied to the methodology’s claimed chronic signs, it supports a risk of misleading evidence, not a documented Kazakh case outcome or a rejection of sexual-assault forensics generally.

Where in the source: Summary, paragraph beginning “While Kazakhstan decriminalized consensual same-sex conduct in 1998”

Establishes the decriminalization of consensual same-sex conduct before the 2016 methodology. This provides legal context and does not document adoption or use of the forensic method.

Where in the source: Opening paragraphs on Internal Affairs officials’ orders; 2021 Tashkent verdict and 2017–2020 cases

Documents at least six forced anal examinations between 2017 and 2021 and a 2021 Tashkent prosecution in which a forensic report treating tears, smoothed radial folds and weakened sphincter tone as evidence of anal sex contributed to two men receiving two-year sentences of house arrest.

Where in the source: Internal Affairs officials’ orders; paragraphs describing the forensic report and its use in the 2021 Tashkent verdict

Where in the source: Section 6, subsection on sexual orientation and gender identity, Criminalization and Violence and Harassment

Reports that people detained under Article 120 were subjected to forced anal examinations by law-enforcement or judicial officials as evidence of same-sex conduct and records continued criminal enforcement of Article 120. The linked text is an archived copy of the U.S. Department of State report.

Where in the source: Police and Law Enforcement thematic extract, PDF p. 8, Uzbekistan, paragraph beginning “In February”; https://www.ilga-europe.org/files/uploads/2026/02/Annual-Review-2026-Police-and-Law-Enforcement.pdf

Covering January–December 2025, reports that two young men detained in Tashkent in February were subjected to non-consensual forensic anal examinations despite their objections.

Where in the source: 15 June 2026 statement, paragraphs on Article 120 enforcement and involuntary invasive examinations without free and informed consent

June 2026 statement documents intensified Article 120 enforcement and states that detainees are subjected to involuntary invasive examinations without free and informed consent; it calls for the practice to end.

Where in the source: Paragraphs on the 2021 Tashkent verdict and four additional cases from 2017–2020; opening description of the practice as cruel and degrading

Documents forced examinations, report use in convictions, two-year house-arrest sentences in the 2021 case and imprisonment in an earlier case. The report characterizes the practice as cruel and degrading treatment that may amount to torture.

Where in the source: Preamble and Recommendations 1–2

Medical correction stating that forced anal examinations have no scientific basis for substantiating same-sex sexual activity and are medically invalid and futile. This international medical rejection does not establish an Uzbek institutional correction.