CCPR/C/SR. 855 page 11
49. Mr. WAKO said he had been particularly pleased by the United Kingdom representative's remarks to the effect that, although the drafting of the Basic Law of Hong Kong was really a matter for the People's Republic of China, nevertheless the United Kingdom Government must satisfy itself that adequate provision was made for human rights. The United Kingdom representative had also stated that the draft Basic Law was being reviewed in the light of the views expressed, and he hoped that the dialogue in the Committee would constitute an input into that review. Since article 38 of the draft Basic Law stipulated that the provisions of the International Covenants as applied to Hong Kong would remain in force, it was incumbent on all concerned to ensure that human rights were fully taken into account in the revision of the draft Basic Law. In that connection, colleagues had mentioned certain shortcomings in chapter III of the draft Basic Law covering human rights. He would like to know how the Governments of the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China proposed to ensure the application of the Covenant in Hong Kong, only during the interim period but for the foreseeable future.
not
50. Referring to article 159 of the draft Basic Law, he noted that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region might, on its own, using the name "Hong Kong, China", maintain and develop relations and conclude and implement agreements with States, regions and relevant international organizations in the appropriate fields. Although human rights was not specifically mentioned among the "appropriate fields", he would suggest that it should be included, and he requested the United Kingdom representative's comments on that point.
51.
There was a statement in article 161 of the draft Basic Law to the effect that international agreements which the People's Republic of China was not a party but which were implemented in Hong Kong might continue to be implemented in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. That would involve a highly complicated legal situation, and he wondered how the United Kingdom proposed to ensure that Hong Kong could continue to be a party to the International Covenant.
a
52. Turning to the question of the independence of the judiciary, he noted that article 169 of the draft Basic Law conferred on the Standing Committee of
Hence, the National People's Congress the power to interpret the Basic Law. the ultimate power to interpret the law's provisions, including its human rights provisions, was not vested in the judiciary, as was normal under common law system, but in a political organ consisting of persons who were not necessarily jurists, and the interpretation of that political organ was binding upon the courts. That raised a doubt regarding the independence of the courts and he requested comments on that point. It also appeared that there were other areas in which the National People's Congress had given the last word. It would seem that the Basic Law might not be so permanent as was imagined but would be dependent on the political will of the National People's Congress which, in addition to its interpretative function under article 169, was also empowered under article 16 to consider and revoke any law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. He noted that the basic principle was that Hong Kong would be almost but not completely autonomous, but it seemed that it would be even less autonomous than would appear on paper. Furthermore, article 17 of the draft Basic Law gave the National People's Congress broad authority, when necessary, to enact any law giving expression to national unity and territorial integrity. That authority might be used to undermine the human rights provisions in the Basic Law particularly taking