TNAG-0413-FCO40-459-Extension-of-European-Convention-on-Human-Rights-to-Hong-Kon-1973 — Page 39

CONFIDENTIAL

(25 AND 46) WHICH DEAL WITH THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL PETITION AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, WERE ALSO APPLIED, AND WE CANNOT IMAGINE THAT EITHER THE CHINESE COVERMMY OR THE LOCAL POPULATION WOULD PARTICULARLY WELCOME THE RIGHT BEING CONFERRED UPON INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS TO APPEAL TO A JUDICIAL BODY IN EUROPE ABOUT MATTERS SOLELY AFFECTING HONG KONG OR HMG.

6. WE SHOULD THEREFORE PREFER TO STICK TO THE LINE TAKEN BY SIR DAVID TRENCH IN 1965 AND TO RESIST THE EXTENSION OF THIS CONVENTION, OR ANY OF ITS INDIVIDUAL ARTICLES, TO HONG KONG.

7. AS FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION FUT DOWN FOR ORAL REPLY ON 29 JANUARY 1973, WE SUGGEST AN ANSWER ON THE FOLLOWING LINES:

QUOTE IT IS NOT PROPOSED TO ENTENT THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN

RIGHTS TO HONG KONG.

IT IS NOT CONSIDERED THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE THAT HONG KONG MATTERS, AFFECTING A PREDOMINATLY CHINESE COMMUNITY IN ASIA, SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED UPON BY A TRIBUNAL IN EUROPE.

NEVERTHELESS, THE HONOURABLE MEMBER CAN BE ASSURED THAT THE IHARI TANTS OF HONG KONG RECEIVE IN PRACTICE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME PROTECTION AS THAT WHICH IS ACCORDED BY ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION

ONQUOTE.

MACLEHOSE

FILES

HKIOD

WOD

FED

UND

LEGAL ADVISERS

NEWS D

PARLIAMENTARY UNIT

SIR E HORSIS

MR WILFORD

-2·

CONFIDENTIAL

COPIES TO HKGO

6, GRAFTON STREET