2
4:19
CCPR/C/SR.855 page 10
ER
44. He would welcome an explanation of the reference in paragraph 38 of annex F, on Hong Kong, to the fact that citizens as well as the police had statutory power to arrest without warrant any person whom they might reasonably suspect of being guilty of an arrestable offence. Moreover, paragraph 81 of that annex indicated that there were no restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly other than those "prescribed by law in the interests of the community as a whole, and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others". He had the impression that the police had broad powers to impose conditions for the conduct of public meetings, and he requested clarification on the limitations applicable.
45. Finally, he requested the United Kingdom representative, in responding to the Committee's question, to give particular emphasis to the actual implementation of human rights, as opposed to their incorporation in legal instruments.
46. Mr.
EL-SHAFEI said it would be useful for the Committee to have further information on the status of the Covenant, not only in the dependent territories but also in the United Kingdom, for the two situations were closely related. The initial report (CCPR/C/1/Add.37) indicated that the Covenant did not have the force of law in the dependent territories, while the second periodic report intimated that the obligation under article 2 (2) of the Covenant could be discharged through means other than the enactment of legislation. Clarification of that point would be particularly welcome in the light of the United Kingdom's special responsibilities, as an administering Power, towards the dependent territories. Finally, he understood that, at one time, an initiative to incorporate the Covenant in Hong Kong's legal régime had been launched. Was that effort continuing or had it been abandoned?
47. Mr. MAVROMMATIS said that it was not for the Committee to comment on the 1984 agreement ceding Hong Kong, which had been made in accordance with the United Kingdom's international obligations. However, since the Covenant had been extended to that territory, certain questions arose. It was known that the People's Republic of China had for some time been consider ing acceding to the Covenant and the Optional Protocol. The Covenant itself, article 50, stated that in the case of a federal State the Covenant should apply to the whole territory of that State. In any event, in the case of a former colony which was incorporated in a large territory, it would appear that some legal statute would be required, and he believed that studies should be made as to how the protection of the Covenant could be continued after the agreement between the United Kingdom and China was put into effect.
48.
in
He was glad to hear that progress was being made towards the establishment of representative government, although one might have expected a representative government to have been in existence before 1984 and to have had some say in evolving the provisions of the draft Basic Law. Nevertheless, there was still time for the people of Hong Kong to take over the reins of Government and to ensure that human rights were fully protected. It was important to ensure that there was a fully representative government well in advance of the implementation of the agreement. Because of the difference between the customary law in Hong Kong and the law in metropolitan China, there should either be a charter of human rights or legislation including provisions to ensure the safeguarding of human rights and the full independence of the judiciary.