breach of international human rights law. 57 Two years later, the Delhi High Court held that provisions of the criminal code penalising same sex sexual conduct between consenting adults were unconstitutional, stating “In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by popular misconceptions of who the [lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender persons] are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is [the] antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual . . .homosexuals and third gender people . . . cannot be discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation”. 58 – Inconsistency with International human rights law Notwithstanding these advances, within the Asia Pacific region there are approximately 20 States and territories that continue to criminalise same sex sexual conduct between consenting adults. There are APF member institutions in seven such States. For the reasons advanced above, the ACJ is of the view that laws criminalising same sex sexual conduct between consenting adults are in breach of international human rights law. In particular, laws that criminalise sodomy are considered directly discriminatory when applied solely to same sex sexual activity between consenting adults, and indirectly discriminatory when equally applicable to homosexual and heterosexual sexual activity between consenting adults. Furthermore, the ACJ endorses the view of the UN HRC that even where such laws are not regularly enforced, their very existence continues to affect adversely the enjoyment of rights by people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. As the Delhi High Court stated: “The criminalisation of homosexuality condemns in perpetuity a sizable section of society and forces them to live their lives in the shadow of harassment, exploitation, humiliation, cruel and degrading treatment at the hand of the law enforcement machinery . . . Even without actual enforcement, [such] laws serve to stigmatise an entire section of society, thereby violating their dignity as citizens” 59 Some States have also legislated differential ages of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sexual conduct. The ACJ considers such laws to be discriminatory but notes advances in some States to provide uniform ages of consent. In addition to laws directly criminalising same sex sexual conduct between consenting adults, a range of other laws containing criminal sanctions have been used to target people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. These include laws relating to: vagrancy, public nuisance, national security, public morality, obscenity, indecency and public order. The existence of some such laws, or their discriminatory application, breach rights to equality and non-discrimination. Criminal or similar sanctions may also be imposed on the basis of certain religious or other beliefs. While some religions and beliefs are respectful of people of diverse sexual orientations or gender identities, and emphasise the acceptance of human diversity, some 57 Sunil Babu Pant and others v. Nepal Government and others, www.gaylawnet.com/laws/cases/PantvNepal.pdf accessed on 26 April 2010. 58 Naz Foundation v. NCT Delhi (2009) 160 DLT 277, para 131. 59 Naz Foundation v. NCT Delhi (2009) 160 DLT 277, para 52. ACJ Report: Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity 20