CONFIDENTIAL
- 6 -
10.
AS REGARDS THE AMBIT OF ARTICLE 26 (ARTICLE 23
BOR) THE LOVELACE CASE (COMMUNICATION NO. 24/1977) IS LESS
THAN CONCLUSIVE. WHILST THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
DECLINED THE OPPORTUNITY TO RULE ON WHETHER DISCRIMINATORY
LAND PRACTICES WERE PROHIBITED UNDER ARTICLE 26 IT IS
ARGUABLE THAT THIS WAS SO BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE HAD FOUND
A BREACH OF ANOTHER ARTICLE (ARTICLE 27) WHICH MOST
DIRECTLY AFFECTED THE COMPLAINANT. FURTHERMORE, ONE
MEMBER SPECIFICALLY FOUND A BREACH OF ARTICLE 26.
11
▼
SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE ANALYSIS
ARE BOTH SENSITIVE AND DIFFICULT YOUR FURTHER VIEWS WOULD
BE INVALUABLE. IF YOUR TIME PERMITS WE WOULD VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE A RESPONSE IN ADVANCE OF YOUR RETURN TO HONG
KONG BUT IF THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE WE HOPE THE ABOVE WILL
SERVE AS A BASIS FOR DISCUSSION EARLY NEXT WEEK, PRIOR TO
SETTLING ADVICE TO THE GOVERNOR.
CONFIDENTIAL
PO BO
62:5
I-9
06.
XH 39пOH 09 000