Dominican Republic: Court Ends Security Forces Gay Sex Ban — Historic Ruling Affirms Dignity, Equality, and Privacy

Landmark legal U‑turn after the Constitutional Court struck down rules that punished same‑sex relations among police and military personnel, in a decision hailed as a major victory for LGBTQ rights.

The court’s Judgment TC/1225/25 found that article 210 of the National Police Code of Justice and article 260 of the Armed Forces Code of Justice breached constitutional guarantees of non‑discrimination, privacy, free development of personality and the right to work. The provisions had allowed up to two years’ imprisonment for same‑sex «sodomy” by officers, with no matching penalty for heterosexual acts.

«For decades, these rules forced LGBTQ officers to live in fear», said Cristian González Cabrera of Human Rights Watch, calling the ruling a «resounding affirmation» that the Dominican Republic must move towards inclusion. The court concluded the bans served no legitimate constitutional aim and could not be justified as necessary for institutional efficiency.

Lawyers who brought the challenge described the outcome as a historic precedent that should force public and private bodies to revise discriminatory rules. Anderson Javiel Dirocie De León said the judgment advances equality and dignity for LGBTQI people, while co‑counsel Patricia M. Santana Nina urged institutions to adapt practices to ensure no one is sanctioned for their sexual orientation.

Human Rights Watch noted the country still lags behind many neighbours on broader LGBTQ protections — there is no comprehensive civil anti‑discrimination law, no same‑sex marriage or civil unions, and limited recognition of gender identity for transgender people. Campaigners hope the court’s decision will spur President Luis Abinader and Congress to push through overdue reforms to tackle discrimination and violence.

The ruling follows a regional trend of dismantling discriminatory rules in security forces, and campaigners say it sends a clear message: state institutions cannot criminalise private, consensual relationships without trampling fundamental rights.