A/HRC/32/4 41. The delegation stated that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons persons were not victimized or persecuted for practising their preferred sexual orientation. Article 13 of the Constitution protected the right to privacy. No person was requested to disclose his or her preferred sexual orientation in any official government form or document and no person could be refused access to public or private services on the basis of their sexual preference. The laws did not make provision for marriage between adults of the same sex. 42. In view of the colonial history of the country, during which the policies and laws of the colonial occupying Power had been systematically aimed at disadvantaging the majority black population, the framers of the Constitution saw fit to attempt to correct some of the wrongs of the past. To that end, Parliament had been empowered by the Constitution to promulgate affirmative action legislation aimed at achieving a balanced structuring of the public service, including the police, the defence forces and the prison service. The Government had passed the Affirmative Action (Employment) Act (Act No. 29 of 1998), which included measures for achieving equal opportunity in employment for racially disadvantaged persons, women and persons with disabilities. The Public Service Commission had also been pursuing an affirmative action programme. Racial discrimination by the Government and its agencies and by private persons or institutions had been prohibited and was criminalized by the Racial Discrimination Prohibition Act (Act No. 26 of 1991). 43. The delegation stated that Namibia was a party to the core international and regional human rights instruments. The remaining instruments, to which Namibia was not yet a party, would be continuously studied in order to assess the country’s ability to comply with the obligations that they would impose. Namibia followed a monist approach to the recognition of international instruments and the rules of international law in its domestic legal system. A thorough study of international instruments was being conducted to ensure that national laws were harmonized in order to comply with the provisions of those instruments before they were signed, ratified or acceded to. Namibia had no intention of condoning the violation of the rights of migrant workers and their families and they were already protected under domestic labour laws. 44. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia welcomed the adoption of the National Human Rights Action Plan 2015-2019, but noted that, according to United Nations bodies, it would be necessary to intensify reforms, particularly in regard to the rights of the child. 45. Togo congratulated Namibia on the progress made since the first universal periodic review and on creating various mechanisms for human rights protection, and noted that women enjoyed the same rights as men in regard to land as property. 46. Trinidad and Tobago commended Namibia for the launch of the National Human Rights Action Plan 2015-2019 and for its efforts since the first review to increase the capacity of the Office of the Ombudsman. 47. Turkey welcomed the creation of the Interministerial Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, and the efforts of Namibia in the area of media freedom and independence and in the fight against child abuse. 48. Uganda commended the adoption of the National Human Rights Action Plan 20152019, the establishment of the Interministerial Committee and the appointment of a minister for marginalized communities. 49. Ukraine welcomed the positive changes that had been made to the national legislation with a view to promoting and protecting children’s rights. However, it noted that 7