A/HRC/8/26 Page 16 in India. The courts in India including the Supreme Court and the High Courts are easily accessible to the ordinary people and have acted even on the basis of information received on a post card from a person under detention. 83. India noted, in response to Egypt’s question on the Right to Information Act, that the Act is one of the greatest achievements in the legislative history so far. The fact that the government and legislature decided to “expose themselves” under the Act is by itself a great check on their working. 84. Regarding Sweden’s comments on homosexual conduct, India noted that under Section 377 of the 1860 Indian Penal Code, the concept of sexual offences “against the order of nature” was introduced. This was essentially a Western concept, which has remained over the years. The concept of homosexuality itself does not find a mention in the Indian Penal Code and it can be a matter of debate whether it is “against the order of nature”. An NGO had filed a petition before the Delhi High Court for declaring Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional. The High Court’s judgment turning down the petition was challenged in the Supreme Court which has returned it to the High Court for reconsideration. The matter was referred to the Law Commission of India, which took the view that Indian society does not currently accept homosexuality as an acceptable form of behaviour. However, the matter is under the consideration of the courts in India. 85. In conclusion, the Ambassador and Permanent Representative of India, H.E. Mr. Swashpawan Singh, thanked everyone for their presence and constructive participation in the free and frank dialogue. India stated that it had tremendously benefited from the discussion which provided a unique opportunity to know how India’s efforts for the realisation of human rights were viewed and assessed by international community. It was satisfying to note that there was a positive recognition of India’s efforts and that many initiatives launched by India are viewed as examples of best practices. India remained conscious of the challenges and was committed to persevere diligently within the parameters of its Constitution. India stated that it has always demonstrated its openness towards accepting evolving international human rights norms and remains committed to continue doing so. There are instances where India has adhered to the basic norms of an international instrument without becoming a party to it such as the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. In some other cases, the domestic norms go beyond the prevalent international norms; such as the high level of justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights. India noted that its own experience of being reviewed reconfirmed its belief in the huge potential of the UPR. Yet, the process and the success of the mechanism would depend on constructive engagement by identifying concrete areas for cooperation which would make a real difference on the ground. II. CONCLUSIONS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS 86. In the course of the interactive dialogue the following recommendations were made: 1. Expedite ratification of the Convention against Torture (United Kingdom France, Mexico, Nigeria, Italy, Switzerland, and Sweden) and its Optional Protocol (United Kingdom); 2. Continue to fully involve the national civil society in the follow-up to the UPR of India, as was done for its preparation (United Kingdom); 3. Continue energizing existing mechanisms to enhance the addressing of human rights challenges (Ghana);