CCPR/C/SR.857 page 6
metropolitan territory, who had the right to enter that territory; and those who were citizens of British dependent territories having connections by birth, descent or naturalization with the dependent territory concerned, who had the right of abode and entry in respect of that territory but no right on that account to enter the United Kingdom metropolitan territory, although many of them also qualified for British citizenship and thus possessed such right of entry.
23.
Mr ZIELINSKI said that while it was true that it was not the Committee's function to consider the reasons underlying reservations one of its tasks was to consider the problem of protection of human rights. He wished to know specifically whether a person due to be expelled was allowed sufficient time · to prepare his defence and protect his rights as provided for in article 13 of the Covenant.
24.
Mr. DIMITRIJEVIC said that he was entirely satisfied with the reply given by the United Kingdom representative but he wished to dispel any possible misunderstanding as to the reason for his question. The reservation to article 12 (1) appeared to be merely of an interpretative nature and he had wished to know how the paragraph was interpreted.
25.
Mr. FEARN (United Kingdom) said that his comment on reservations had been a general one. His delegation was always eager to help the Committee and he was grateful to Mr. Zielinski for making his question more specific.
26. Mr. MARTIN (United Kingdom) said that it was necessary to distinguish between two different procedures applied in Hong Kong with respect to expulsion. In relation to the powers exercised by the Director and Deputy Director of Immigration, the full rights provided for in the Covenant were available to persons who were subject to an order. The Immigration Ordinance specifically provided that no one could be removed pursuant to that order until the time-limit for an appeal had passed or the person against whom the order had been made had declared in writing that he did not intend to appeal. The Immigration Tribunal was an independent body, and the right to appeal and to avoid being removed before the time-limit had expired or the appeal had been determined was fully protected.
27. Persons subject to orders of the Governor in Council were in a different category, as explained in the relevant section of the report
(CCPR/C/32/Add.14, annex F, paras. 66-68), and it was to cover that category that a reservation had been entered.
IX.
Right to privacy (article 17)
28. Mr. FEARN (United Kingdom), responding to the request for additional information on article 17, said that the legal systems of the dependent territories were founded upon the common law, under which an individual whose privacy, family, home or correspondence was subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference from Government agencies or private persons could bring a civil claim seeking compensation for any resulting damage or, in certain circumstances, an order restraining the agency or person from further interference. An individual subjected to unlawful attacks upon his honour or
There his reputation could also sue for defamation or injurious falsehood. were also many specific legislative provisions which limited and controlled