Mr Morris HKD
reus 301/1
PA
4
FROM:
Paul Fifoot
DATE:
29 January 1988
FILM CENSORSHIP BILL: HONG KONG TELNO 274
1.
Prior to ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights, we (or presumably the Colonial Office) must have made a trawl of all the dependent territories to enquire whether theywished to extend the Convention to them. A great number appear to have accepted that and the Convention was extended with effect from 23 November 1953. Hong Kong was not included. One reason for its not being included was presumably that there were certain provisions in the law of Hong Kong which were not in accord with the obligations assumed by parties to the Convention. A present reason for that situation continuing could well be the detention of Vietnamese refugees.
2.
I do not know whether we have included Hong Kong in a subsequent trawl to enquire whether they wished the Convention to be extended to them. I think it is unlikely. We have trawled other dependent terri- tories at regular intervals since, subsequent to our extension of the Convention to them, we have extended the right of individual petition and the submission to the jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights. Each time we renew our declarations on individual petitions and the Court, we enquire of those territories which have accepted the like obligations whether they too wished to have those declarations re- newed. But since Hong Kong is not in that category of territory it is unlikely that we have at any stage subsequent to 1953 asked Hong Kong specifically about its attitude towards the Convention.
3. There is no way of producing chapter and verse for this without retrieving the papers from the archives and that is likely to be a lengthy business. Hong Kong may well be able to get at the original papers more quickly.
4.
I suggest you reply to TUR on the following lines
"It is our understanding that when you were asked in 1953 whether it would be appropriate to extend the Convention to you, it was concluded that there were provisions in the law of Hong Kong which would not conform with the obliga- tions of a State party to the Convention. The papers here are now in the Public Records Office and may take some time to retrieve. You may be able to lay your hands on the relevant material which would date from the months prior to 23 November 1953.
You will know better than we do whether your laws are now such that they would conform with the obligations under the Convention. One point which would need to be examined is the detention of Vietnamese boat people. There may be
others."
/5.