Orozco v Attorney General
Belize Supreme Court case decided in 2016

Orozco v Attorney General (2016) 90 WIR 161, abbreviated Orozco v AG, and known in lay terms as the Orozco or UNIBAM case, was a leading case before the Supreme Court of Belize, which held that a long-standing buggery statute breached constitutional rights to dignity, equality before the law, freedom of expression, privacy, and non-discrimination on grounds of sex, and which declared the Act null and void to the applicable extent. The decision decriminalised consensual same-sex intercourse for the first time in 127 years of Belizean history, and established that the constitutional right to non-discrimination on grounds of sex extended to sexual orientation.
Background
Buggery was first criminalised in British Honduras by the Criminal Code Act 1888, brought into force on 15 December 1888, and providing that: "Whoever is convicted of unnatural carnal knowledge of any person, with force or without the consent of such person, shall be liable to imprisonment with hard labour for life, and in the discretion of the Court to flogging". This first statute, nonetheless, classified consensual buggery as a public nuisance, rather than an indictable offence. However, Ordinance Number 4 of 1944 removed the distinction, making both consensual and non-consensual same-sex intercourse an offence. The ordinance's wording was substantially retained in section 53 of the Criminal Code Act 1981 (the Criminal Code), which provided that: "Every Person who has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any person or animal shall be liable to imprisonment for ten years".
Caleb Orozco, then-president of the United Belize Advocacy Movement (UNIBAM), first contemplated litigation before the Supreme Court (the High Court) during a conversation with two law professors of the UWI Rights Advocacy Project, while at a 2009 conference on HIV/AIDS in Jamaica. The professors hoped to lay "the groundwork for a test case [which], if successful, could encourage similar legal challenges in neighboring countries", and considered Belize an "ideal" jurisdiction, as its Constitution Act 1981 (the Constitution) "had stronger personal privacy and equality protections than [that of] other Caribbean countries".
Facts
Orozco "is a Belizean national who has faced violence, persecution and discrimination since he came out to his family when he was fifteen years of age". Orozco and UNIBAM jointly filed civil suit against the Attorney General on 24 September 2010.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Orozco v Attorney General” is belize Supreme Court case decided in 2016. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Orozco, Attorney and General, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “belize Supreme Court case decided in 2016” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 24, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q115826518. The first chronological checks are 2016, 1888, 1944 and 1981.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Orozco v Attorney General”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Orozco v Attorney General primary sources, Orozco v Attorney General archive and Orozco research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Orozco v Attorney General”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Orozco v Attorney General” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.