Article 135 criminalizes voyeurism, defined as observing or recording a nude person or someone engaged in sexual activity without consent. The penalty is 3 to 5 years in prison. Article 136 penalizes the non-consensual distribution of intimate images or recordings, even where the person consented to the act itself, with the same penalty.
Article 134 of the Belgian Penal Code criminalizes sexual assault, defined as non-consensual sexual acts or forcing someone to witness such acts. The penalty is 3 to 5 years in prison. Rape is separately criminalized under Article 138, punishable by 5 to 10 years. Articles 139–150 provide aggravated penalties where severe circumstances occur (serious violence, torture, confinement, weapons, death, or vulnerable/minor victims).
The new Belgian Penal Code (2024, effective 2026) establishes "discriminatory motive" as an aggravating circumstance for all offenses. Discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or ethnicity is explicitly included. Sexism is criminalized under Article 257 and may be punished with imprisonment, probation, or community service.
The amendment to the Swedish Act on Certain International Legal Relations Concerning Marriage and Guardianship, effective July 1, 2021, tightened the rules for recognizing foreign marriages in Sweden. Under the revised law, a marriage entered into abroad will not be recognized in Sweden if:
The Amendment to the Parental Code (2021:783) on the presumption of parenthood, effective January 1, 2022, expands the presumption of parenthood to include married female couples as well as married couples in which one or both spouses have undergone a legal gender transition. This aligns the law with the presumption already applied to heterosexual married couples. Under Chapter 1, Section 9 of the Parental Code, a woman who is married to or in a registered partnership with the birth mother is automatically presumed to be the child’s other legal parent.
The Göta Court of Appeal case, B 302-22, concerned whether M.A. and R.B. had committed conspiracy to forced marriage by planning to compel their daughter, H.M., to travel to Pakistan to marry against her will. The Göta Court of Appeal found M.A. guilty, holding that he intended to exploit his daughter’s vulnerable situation to force her into a marriage or marriage-like union. His actions, including restricting her contact with the outside world, clearly demonstrated an attempt to control her life choices.
NJA 2017 p. 168 was about the enforceability of a mahr agreement (Islamic bridal gift) entered into in Iran at the time of marriage. Under the agreement, the husband undertook to pay a significant sum to the wife upon her request. After the couple established residence in Sweden, the issue arose whether the agreement was valid under Swedish law. The District Court initially recognized the mahr as enforceable. However, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, holding that Swedish law governing matrimonial property relations did not recognize the mahr agreement.
NJA 2020 p. 426 concerned a request for the extradition of P.M., an Iranian national, to Iran. P.M. faced the risk of persecution due to her gender and sexual orientation. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether such a risk constituted an obstacle to extradition under Section 7 of the Extradition for Criminal Offenses Act (1957:668).
In Case No. 187-2023, the Supreme Court of Chile ruled in a landmark gender justice case concerning the murder of a transgender woman. On May 16, 2023, the Oral Criminal Court of Iquique convicted the defendant of femicide. However, on October 4, 2023, the Iquique Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, holding that the victim did not legally qualify as a woman under the femicide statute because official records still listed her as male. After remand, the trial court once again convicted the defendant of femicide.
In Case No. 44,823-2021 the plaintiffs, representing themselves and their minor children, filed a lawsuit against Hospital San José for inadequate medical care that led to the death of a woman on February 10, 2012, following an untreated incomplete abortion. The Second Civil Court of Santiago awarded 50,000,000 Chilean pesos in moral damages to each plaintiff. The Santiago Court of Appeals overturned the ruling and dismissed the claim.
