18
CONNYGINAL
of that state. Given the existence of the Protocol,
if the state submitting a report under Article 40 has
not acceded to the Protocol the Committee could hardly
oblige it to respond to individual complaints as if
it had acceded. If, on the other hand, it has acceded
then it could quite properly insist that any specific complaint be dealt with by the procedures of the Protocol
instead of by the procedures for general review under
Article 40 of the ICCPR.
4.
Secondly, Article 41 of the ICCPR, providing for submission of complaints against a state by other
etates (assuming it continues to apply to Hong Kong)
is not a meaningful substitute for the Protocol procedure. The experience under other similar international instruments is that states do not complain against other states
with whom they have good relations. If they do complain,
it is often for political reasons unrelated to the protection
of human rights. As far as I am aware Article 41 has
never been used since 1976. I know that in the first eight years of the Covenant and Protocol, the Committee
received no communications under Article 41, whereaB
it received some 187 under the Protocol,
5.
Thirdly, in my view the Protocol provides
a useful strengthening of human rights in a state without unduly interfering with its public policy. The Committee carefully screens complaints for admissibility before considering their substance. Up until mid-1985, of the 187 complaints received over half were found to be inadmissible at the preliminary stage before the
merits were addressed. Further, the state complained against is given ample opportunity to investigate the subject matter of the complaint, to explain the situation to the Committee, and to correct it if appropriate,
before the matter proceeds further.
Complaints are
CONFIDENTIAL
.../3