2
A
INTIUCNTAL
22
機密
51.
It
It is possible to argue that Article 26 of the ICCPR (Article 23 of the Bill of Rights) is wide enough to prohibit any law which discriminates on grounds of sex. is also possible to argue that laws on land holding, e.g. holding or inheriting property or building houses free of premium in the New Territories, are not covered by Article 26 of ICCPR. In the only relevant case before the Human rights Committee that was one of the questions raised, but it was left unanswered. Nevertheless there is a real possibility that if the question is raised in some future case the Committee will answer it, and may well do so in a way which establishes that our system in the New Territories contravenes Article 26.
52.
is
Until such an authoritative interpretation available, it is not certain that there is any conflict between the ICCPR (as implemented by the BOR) and the provisions of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law relating to indigenous male villagers in the New Territories,
53.
However if it was subsequently established upon authority (i.e. by the UN Committee on Human rights under the ICCPR or by the courts under the BOR) that the present distinctions contravened the ICCPR or the BOR, it would be necessary to reconcile JD 156 (which provides that the ICCPR as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force) with JD 204 AND 205 (which purport to accord rent concession to successors in the male line). Such reconciliation could be achieved on the basis that neither JD 204 nor 205 should be interpreted or applied in such a way as to require the ICCPR (and thus JD 156) to be breached. In that case one solution would be to construe JD 204 as not requiring women
CONFIDENTIAL #3
機密