largely, the same composition as the House of Lords in its Boards. It is a well respected and authoritative tribunal.
45. As a matter of Hong Kong domestic law, the view that Mr PHAM is lawfully detained, and is not arbitrarily detained,
is not open to challenge. Until 8 June 1992 the matter was unarguable to the point that no one in circumstances similar to Mr PHAM's would have been advised by their lawyers to try.
46.
Legal developments have changed this position slightly because an argument based on Hong Kong's Bill of Rights Ordinance could at least now be run in the courts. It is
still very unlikely to succeed.
47. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) was extended as a Treaty to Hong Kong subject to express reservations. It was not part of domestic law but the Hong Kong Government reports to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations on a regular basis. In 1991 the Bill of
Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383, Laws of Hong Kong (BORO) was passed which, subject to some savings and exceptions, applied the ICCPR as part of Hong Kong's domestic law. S.11 and S.12 of BORO are savings clauses which reflect the express
reservations applying in Hong Kong in respect of the ICCPR as
a treaty. Another provision of BORO saved the operation of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 from BORO for one year.
This saving expired on 8 June 1992.
48. In a recent case, Mr Justice Jones upheld the effectiveness of S.11 of the BORO which saves "immigration
decisions" from the effect of the BORO.
49. S.11 states
Arb.Det
"Immigration Legislation
As regards persons not having the right to enter and remain in Hong Kong, this Ordinance does not affect any