Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand” (which is similar to an ‘Explanatory Memoranda’ or ‘Traveaux Preparatoires’) provides that the guarantee of equality is applicable to persons of diverse sexual orientation and gender identity. Thai courts have subsequently interpreted the Constitution in this manner. 62 Constitutional protection may also be afforded in South Korea, where the government has expressed the view that its Constitutional provisions ‘implicitly’ cover sexual orientation, and that legislation establishing the NHRI permits individuals or organisations to file complaints about discrimination on that basis. 63 Courts have also made favourable determinations based on the principle of nondiscrimination and equality. In a recent case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court upheld the right of an LGBT political party to stand for election based on the principle of nondiscrimination. 64 In Hong Kong, the High Court applied the equality provisions in the Basic Law to strike down anti-sodomy legislation, finding that the unequal age of consent violated the right to equality. 65 In a small number of countries, anti-discrimination legislation exists. New Zealand for example has anti-discrimination legislation specifically covering grounds of sexual orientation at the national level. 66 In Australia, there is limited protection at the federal level, though provincial anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination on relevant grounds, variously referring to ‘sexual orientation’, ‘sexuality’, ‘transexuality’, ‘homosexuality’, ‘gender identity’, and ‘transgender’. 67 – Limitation in coverage of anti-discrimination legislation Fifteen APF member institutions operate in jurisdictions that have no anti-discrimination legislation that clearly and unambiguously protects persons of diverse sexual orientation and gender identity. In the absence of either legislative or constitutional rights protections, and the limited consideration by the courts of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the ACJ is of the view that fundamental to any improvement in the human rights situation of persons of diverse sexual orientation and gender identity is the implementation of strong antidiscrimination and anti-vilification legislation which, in order to remove any doubt, should include specific reference to non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. The ACJ notes also that the identity of each individual is made up of a multitude of components. In addition to sexual orientation and gender identity, other factors include 62 Douglas Sanders, “The Rainbow Lobby: The Sexual Diversity Network and the Military-Installed Regime in Thailand”. An audio recording of the paper presented by Professor Sanders at the Third ILGA Conference in Changmai in 2008 is available at http://isiswomen.org/downloads/ILGA3/Douglas%20Sanders.mp3, (accessed on June 18, 2010). 63 National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) activities in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity available at www.asiapacificforum.net/issues/sexual_orientation accessed on 20 May 2010. 64 Ang Ladlad LGBT Party Vs. Commission On Elections. G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010. Available at: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/190582.htm accessed on 30 May 2010. 65 Leung T C William Roy v. Secretary for Justice, CACV 317/2005. 66 Human Rights Act 1993, s21(1)(m). 67 See for example: Australian Capital Territory Discrimination Act 1991; New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW); Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Act 1996; Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991; South Australia Equal Opportunity Act 1984; Tasmania Anti-Discrimination Act 1998; Victoria Equal Opportunity Act 1995; Western Australia Equal Opportunity Act 1984. ACJ Report: Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity 22