A/HRC/44/53 (c) Provider-based restrictions. In Madrid, “religious interventions” are explicitly included in the definition of “conversion therapies”.147 In contrast, the regulation in Brazil only applies to licensed psychologists.148 Some jurisdictions regulate nonprofessionals when they are in a position of trust or authority towards a young person (Nova Scotia, Canada)149 or perform practices commercially (Connecticut and Illinois, United States).150 (d) Practice-based restrictions. In Malta and Madrid, the law prohibits professionals not only from offering and performing, but also from making a referral to any other person to perform, practices of “conversion” on any person.151 In Brazil, psychologists are also required to refrain from participating in pronouncements that legitimize or reinforce prejudice towards transgender and travesti people.152 In Illinois, advertisement is regulated, with the prohibition of any deception of material fact in advertising “conversion” services, such representing homosexuality as a mental disease.153 Some jurisdictions in the Latin America and the Pacific region do not directly regulate practices of “conversion therapy” but prohibit any diagnosis on the base of sexual orientation and gender identity, as is the case in Argentina154 and Uruguay, or sexual orientation, as is the case in Fiji, Nauru and Samoa.155 The provisions do not apply to providers working outside the mental health field, including faith-based organization-based counsellors.156 77. Some jurisdictions do not have specific legislation targeting practices of “conversion therapy” and rely on other existing criminal provisions, such as if violence or threat of violence is carried out as a part of the practices,157 or civil liabilities, such as if the practice infringes the patients’ will.158 In other countries, anti-discrimination law can be utilized. In Chile, persons claiming discrimination connected to those practices may file complaints with the health information and complaints offices and the Superintendence of Health.159 B. Judiciary 78. In some cases, the courts create accountability for practices of “conversion therapy”. In New Jersey in 2015, a jury unanimously found that a defendant fraudulently claimed to provide “services that could significantly reduce or eliminate same-sex attraction”. 160 In California in 2012, the relationship between free speech and parental rights was considered when two groups of plaintiffs challenged the first law in the United States prohibiting statelicensed health providers from engaging in such practices with patients under 18 years of age.161 The plaintiffs’ arguments were ultimately dismissed, and the law went into effect in June 2014. 79. In China, there are at least two cases where courts supported victims who underwent aversive treatment using electric shock and medical injections. The court ordered the 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 Law 3/2016 of 22 July on comprehensive protection against LGTBI-phobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and identity in the Community of Madrid, article 3 (o). Submission by Brazil. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protection Act (2018), sections 6–7. See ilga.org/Conversion-therapy-global-research-ILGA-World. Malta, Affirmation of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression Act, article 3 (b). Submission by G37 Despacho Internacional. See ilga.org/Conversion-therapy-global-research-ILGA-World. Ibid. Submission by INDH Argentina. See ilga.org/Conversion-therapy-global-research-ILGA-World. Ibid. Submission by Denmark. Submission by Lithuania, New Zealand, Sweden, SungWon Yoon-Lee and others. Submission by Chile. Ferguson et al v. JONAH et al. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Pickup et al. v. Brown et al and Welch et al. v. Brown et al. 19