CCPR/C/SR.856 page 4
المندان
A
10.
Mr. MARTIN (United Kingdom), replying to the question on the independence of the judiciary, said that regular checks were carried out in Hong Kong and, under the Joint Declaration, they would continue after 1997. With regard to the prevention of discrimination, he said that, in Hong Kong, there was no law as such prohibiting discrimination. It was true that the Immigration Ordinance referred to persons "of Chinese race", but the objective was to define persons who were citizens of Hong Kong. Before the adoption of that term, about 60 per cent of the persons described as "Hong Kong nationals" had been entitled to live and work in Hong Kong, but had been denied the right of abode and had therefore been liable to be deported. The Ordinance had thus been amended in order to guarantee equal rights for all Hong Kong citizens.
11. With regard to the right of peaceful assembly, the authority of commissioners of police under the Public Order Ordinance was in fact restricted, in the interests of public order itself, and any commissioner of police who abused his authority was naturally liable to penalties. Under article 11 of the Ordinance, a commissioner of police could impose conditions only on the time and place of a public meeting and the limits to his authority were thus known to the persons concerned.
12.
Mr. HENDRY (United Kingdom), replying to Mr. Movchan's question on the right of citizens to carry out an arrest without a warrant, said that, although he had quoted the Hong Kong Criminal Procedure Ordinance, the same legislation was applicable in the United Kingdom and in all dependent territories. He explained that citizens did not have the right to arrest any person they pleased; that right could be exercised only if they suspected an individual of being guilty of an arrestable offence, namely, an offence for which a person might be sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 12 months. Furthermore, any citizen who arrested a person in such circumstances must, of course, hand him over to the police as soon as possible.
13. In reply to another question raised by Mr. Movchan, he recalled that, under article 63 of the European Convention on Human Rights, any State Party might extend the provisions of the Convention to the territories for whose international relations it was responsible. His Government had therefore extended the Convention to many of its dependent territories. However, the Convention in no way took precedence over the Covenant and both instruments were implemented on an equal footing.
14.
With reference to Mr. Wennergren's question, he said that the body for the consideration and monitoring of the laws of the territories had its head office in London. That body played an important role because it ensured that laws adopted in the territories were in keeping with the provisions of the international instruments to which the United Kingdom was a party and, if it found that a law was contrary to the provisions of an instrument such as the Covenant, for example, it could request that the law should be amended or repealed. In practice, if there was any doubt, the Government of the territory concerned was so informed, amendments were proposed and the problem was usually solved. It was, however, preferable for problems to be solved even before the law was adopted.
15.
With regard to censorship, the decisions of the competent body could be reviewed by a council composed primarily of persons who were not members of the Government and the decisions taken by that council could themselves be reviewed by a court. The court could thus overrule a decision if it
Page 105Page 106