CONFIDENTIAL
Reference
the UK's reservations to Articles 12 and 13 (CCPR/C/SR.857, paras 13-26). No specific question was asked about the length of detention or availability of judicial review in relation to Article 9.
"1
It
4. However, I do not think we should expect to get away so lightly at the forthcoming hearing on the third periodic report. At the time of the November 1988 hearing, the screening policy had only just been introduced (June 1988). Mr Martin explained to the HRC that "there were plans to liberalise the closed centres over a period of time, since the deterrent reason for which they had been set up no longer applied. Under the new policy, all arrivals would be screened and it was hoped that that would be a sufficient deterrent to stem the influx of refugees. There were currently some 15,500 Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong and some 9,500 were awaiting screening for refugee status. was hoped that they would be resettled as quickly as possible and negotiations were currently under way to achieve that. Those not recognised as refugees were held in detention centres pending repatriation to Vietnam
(paragraph 16). Obviously the Committee will want to know why screening, resettlement and repatriation is taking so much longer than envisaged.
And, in the light of Mr Martin's statement, I should have thought they might also question why VBP have to be detained in closed camps at all. If the reason for doing so in 1982 (when all VBP were treated as refugees) was deterrence and the screening system introduced in 1988 was supposed to replace it, what is the purpose of their detention now? Would I be right in thinking that HKG now say that it is for public order reasons rather than deterrence? I think we need to be ready to give a reasoned explanation to the Committee of the public order considerations which necessitate indiscriminate detention for indefinite periods. Is it, for example, that VBP are likely to cause disorder if free to go outside the camps, or is it believed that the local population would attack them? Is there any evidence to support either contention? The Committee might well ask whether
there are not other ways of maintaining order which do not involve such drastic infringements of human rights. I note that our third periodic report contains no explanation of the closed camp policy.
5.
To return to our policy decision in 1982 (see paragraph 1 above), I note that we asked Hong Kong to keep the necessity for the legislation under regular review. Has this been done in any systematic way? Obviously the problem now is much greater in terms of numbers than it was in 1982. But this alone is not a sufficient reason for neglecting proper review. If Hong Kong wish to go ahead with their proposed legislative amendments in
FIFAAT
CODE 18-77
CONFIDENTIAL