According to article 6 of the BRO, any person whose rights under the Bill have been infringed, through lawful appeal, can seek appropriate remedies. Although the present judicial system is independent, and all court hearings take place in public, the system is not accessible to and cannot be utilized by everyone, especially those who cannot afford the legal costs. By and large, the prohibitive legal costs effectively deny the rights of these people who seek justice through legal proceedings. Thus, there is an urgent need to establish an independent mechanism such as a Commission of Human Rights, as an alternative to ensure the rights to seek remedies.
As the government has simultaneously amended the Letters Patent at the time of introducing the Bill of Right, thus constitutionalizing the ICCPR, the Bill of Rights has binding effect on all pre-existing legislation and subsequent legislation. Theoretically, all existing legislation considered by the legal profession and the public as having infringed the Bill of Rights Ordinance should be either repealed or amended.
However, in the past year, amendments proposed by the government, are mainly related to those six ordinances that have been exempted under the "free period" clause; as for other legislation that may contravene the Ordinance, the government rarely took the initiative to suggest any amendment. In fact, as early as May 1990, the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs has already identified 20 pieces of legislation as possible infringement to the Ordinance, and submitted them to the responsible committee in the Legislative Council. The number of problematic legislation increased to 58 by June, including criminal law articles, and legislation governing demonstration, gathering and the expression of opinions. Yet the government chose to adopt a passive policy. The five ordinance amended during the "freeze period", remain to be criticized as violating human rights, as the extent of their amendment was superficial and failed to touch the core of the problem. Amendment to The Police Force Ordinance which is also under the "freeze" have not been passed up till July 1992.
Those legislation that were actually challenged and finally repealed in courts were merely a handful of criminal laws relate to "presumption of innocence". All other controversial legislation were left untouched, making the progress of legislative reform extremely ineffective.
Perhaps, the fact that Hong Kong is still a colony may account for the passive attitude on the part of the government to improve the domestic laws. The 'problematic legislation' keep the society and its citizen under strict control. Especially significant are those that control criticisms against the government and those that would affect neighbouring countries including China. Rights concerning the freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, demonstration, and association are particularly sensitive. Among them, the Societies Ordinance, the Public Order Ordinance, the Film Censorship Ordinance, etc., has been publicly criticized for many years, yet they are unaffected by the passage of the Bill of Rights Ordinance.
7