This approach has begun to find favour in the domestic courts of the Asia Pacific region, with the judiciary a pro-active force in ensuring that universal human rights apply to persons of diverse sexual orientation and gender identity. Key decisions by the Superior Courts in Australia 48, Philippines 49, Korea 50, Nepal 51, Fiji 52 and India 53 are illustrative of greater domestic and regional recognition of the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. The most recent decision from India, which dealt with the constitutional validity of criminal laws penalising same sex sexual conduct between consenting adults, provides a good example of this trend. In referring to the right of all persons to dignity, equality and privacy, the Delhi High Court found that the criminalisation of private same sex sexual conduct between consenting adults constituted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and was therefore unconstitutional. The court further stated: “We hold that sexual orientation is a ground analogous to sex and that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not permitted by Article 15 . . . [The criminalisation of same sex sexual conduct between consenting adults] denies a person's dignity and criminalises his or her core identity solely on account of his or her sexuality and thus violates [the right to privacy] in Article 21 of the Constitution . . .[and] denies a gay person a right to full personhood which is implicit in notion of life under Article 21 of the Constitution”. 54 48 Decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal of Australia: 1000927 [2010] RRTA 444 (18 May 2010), and 071263822 [2007] RRTA 115 (13 June 2007). 49 Republic of the Philippines v. Jennifer B. Cagandahan, G.R. No.166676 (September 12, 2008). 50 National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) looking at activities in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity available at www.asiapacificforum.net/issues/sexual_orientation accessed on 20 May 2010. 51 Sunil Babu Pant and others v. Nepal Government and others, op. cit. 52 Dhirendra Nadan and another v. State, HAA 85 & 86 of 2005. 53 Naz Foundation v. NCT Delhi (2009) 160 DLT 277. 54 Naz Foundation v. NCT Delhi (2009) 160 DLT 277, para 41, 104. ACJ Report: Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity 18