CONFIDENTIAL
State Past L
чи,
he
3.
I should perhaps expand on one or two of these proposed changes:-
Article 2: I have some doubts about including paragraph (3) and believe paragraph (6) should be omitted. So far as (3) is concerned, I think that the individual's interest is sufficiently covered by paragraph (2) and that paragraph (3) is essentially an issue for the sovereign power whether ourselves or the Chinese. For "Chinese" reasons therefore I would be inclined to delete it. Paragraph (6) does not in any way affect the application of the Bill in Hong Kong and should be deleted. If Hong Kong wished subsequently to abolish capital punishment and that was questioned, reference to Article 6.6 of the ICCPR would effectively dispose of the question.
Article 9 is fundamentally defective and requires a new
initial paragraph or a proviso excepting a person who has the right of abode.
Article 11(6) could give
Mitably show well fall into this cateogry.
ive
deferent
Cimes
rise to very difficult and delicate questions after 1997. Although Chinese criminal law will not apply in Hong Kong, the same series of acts occuring in part in Hong Kong and in part in the mainland may amount to comparable offences in both jurisdictions. Economic crimes and fraud could
Should a person be tried in the same country a second time if he has already been tried and convicted or acquitted in one jurisdiction of that country for a comparable crime in respect of the same acts? I doubt whether we can try to answer this question now and the draft will have to stay as it is; but it is a point to be borne in mind when Hong Kong and China get down to talks on criminal jurisdiction, rendition and connected subjects.
Article 21: There are difficulties about the entitlement of every child to a nationality. That provision of the Covenant is reflected in Hong Kong's law today but, equally clearly, it is not a matter within Hong Kong's future autonomy. I assume that it is omitted for this reason.
"Reservations"
4.
It is desirable, both to avoid Chinese criticisms that the Bill of Rights is of a different character from other legislation (and thus its interpretation and implementation involve a departure from "the judicial system previously practiced") and for more domestic law and technical reasons, that the Bill of Rights should be as much like other
1PFABM
CONFIDENTIAL