the equal protection of the law without any such discrimination whether or not the enjoyment of another human right is also affected. The law shall prohibit any such discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against any such discrimination. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity includes any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on sexual orientation or gender identity which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing equality before the law or the equal protection of the law, or the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity may be, and commonly is, compounded by discrimination on other grounds including gender, race, age, religion, disability, health and economic status.” Although a relatively short period of time has elapsed since the launch of the Principles in 2006, they are increasingly cited in UN fora, including the Human Rights Council and its Special Procedures and the human rights treaty monitoring bodies. They have also been referenced in 42 43 44 45 domestic courts and tribunals in Australia , Nepal , India and the Philippines . Summary The interpretations by UN Treaty Bodies, Special Procedures and regional human rights mechanisms evince a clear acknowledgment that sexual orientation and gender identity are among the grounds of discrimination proscribed by international human rights law. The authoritative pronouncements of the HRC demonstrate how anti-sodomy laws violate Article 17 of the ICCPR, are a violation of the prohibition against discrimination in Article 2 and are in violation of the equality requirements in Article 26. 46 Conversely, their pronouncements clearly reject the assertion that sexual orientation or gender identity cannot be protected simply because sexual orientation and gender identity are not ‘expressly’ mentioned in the grounds of discrimination enumerated in international human rights treaties. 47 Statements and resolutions made within the UN political bodies also indicate growing support for such recognition, though it must be noted that support, while extending across all regions, is not universal. 42 Decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal of Australia: 1000927 [2010] RRTA 444 (18 May 2010), and 071263822 [2007] RRTA 115 (13 June 2007). 43 Sunil Babu Pant and others v. Nepal Government and others, www.gaylawnet.com/laws/cases/PantvNepal.pdf accessed on 26 April 2010. 44 Naz Foundation v. NCT Delhi (2009) 160 DLT 277, at paras 43 and 44. See also Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International Human Rights Law: Contextualising theYogyakarta Principles by Michael O Flaherty and John Fisher. Human Rights Law Review. Oxford University Press. (pages 207 – 248). 45 Ang Ladad LGBT Party vs. Commission On Elections G.R. No. 190582 (8 April 2010). In this case, the Philippines Supreme Court sought to clarify the status of the Principles, stating that the: "Yogyakarta Principles, consisting of a declaration formulated by various international law professors, are - at best - de lege ferenda - and do not constitute binding obligations on the Philippines”. For a more detailed commentary on the use of the Yogyakarta Principles, refer to David Brown "Making Room for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in International Human Rights Law: An Introduction to the Yogyakarta Principles" (2010) 31 Michigan Journal of International Law 821. 46 See Toonen v. Australia, Communication No.488/1992, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (1994). http://hrlibrary.ngo.ru/undocs/html/vws488.htm accessed on 26 April 2010. X v. Columbia, Op. Cit. and Young vs Australia, Op. cit. 47 Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International Human Rights Law: Practitioners Guide No. 4. International Commission of Jurists, 2009. pp 29 – 32. ACJ Report: Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity 17