CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO
TO IMMEDIATE HONG KONG
TELNO 963
OF 201415Z MAY 91
CONFIDENTIAL
HKC241/5
INFO ROUTINE PEKING, UKREP JLG HONG KONG
50
51
044361
MDHOAN 385
TOP COPY Q DIST?
YOUR TELNO 1498: BILL OF RIGHTS: NEW CLAUSE 7
fe Amails.
1 WITH REFERENCE TO PARAGRAPH 2 OF TUR, IN THE VIEW OF OUR LEGAL ADVISERS, AS FAR AS INTERNATIONAL LAW IS CONCERNED, ''THE STATE''
INCLUDES JUDICIAL BODIES.
"
2. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE WOULD BE DIRECTLY ENGAGED UNDER THE ICCPR IF A COURT FAILED TO ACCORD AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED UNDER, FOR EXAMPLE, ARTICLES 14 OR 15. IT IS THEREFORE IMPORTANT THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS BINDS JUDICIAL BODIES NOT ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE BOUND TO APPLY THE
BILL OF RIGHTS IN DECIDING CASES WHERE VIOLATIONS BY EXECUTIVE OR OTHER PUBLIC BODIES ARE AT ISSUE, BUT ALSO IN THE SENSE THAT THE COURTS THEMSELVES MUST COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE JUDICIAL PROCESS (EG ARTICLES 10, 11 AND 12). THERE MIGHT BE CASES OF VIOLATIONS OF SUCH RIGHTS WHERE THE COURTS ARE THE DIRECT AND ONLY VIOLATERS AND NO EXECUTIVE OR OTHER BODIES ARE INVOLVED. IT MATTERS THEREFORE THAT ''PUBLIC AUTHORITIES' WOULD BE INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS AS INCLUDING THEMSELVES. THE DOLPHIN DELIVERY CASE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE
EXACTLY IN POINT.
3. WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL TO KNOW WHETHER THE EXPRESSION
''PUBLIC AUTHORITY HAS BEEN USED IN OTHER LEGISLATION IN HONG KONG AND, IF SO, HOW IT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS.
HURD
I t
YYYY
ΜΑΙΝ
61
.HONG KONG AGREEMENT
.(RESTRICTED)
LIMITED
DISTRIBUTION
65
PUST
RAD
PS/LORD CAITHNESS
PAGE
1
CONFIDENTIAL