TNAG-1691-FCO40-2341-Hong-Kong-legislation-regarding-the-control-of-publications--1987 — Page 131

Article 2 paragraph 3 provides that each State Party

undertakes :

"a. To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognised are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

"b. To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

"C.

To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted."

No effective implementation of the ICPR generally

6. Article 40 paragraph 1 obliges the States Parties to submit reports to the Human Rights Committee

The

"on the measures they have adopted which give effect to the rights recognised herein and on the progress made in the enjoyment of those rights".

United Kingdom has not yet

yet submitted a report on implementation in its dependent territories, including Hong Kong. It is expected to do so during the next few months. However, it gave a second periodic report (CCPR/C/32/Add.5) upon implementation of the ICPR within the United Kingdom itself. The Human Rights Committee considered that report, during its 24th session, in April 1985 (CCPR/C/SR.593-.598). The members of the Committee (both from non-Communist as well as from Communist States Parties) criticised the United Kingdom for having adopted no specific measures (whether by means of an incorporating statute, a Bill of Rights, or specific legislation) to give effect to the rights recognised in

in the ICPR. The official representative of the United Kingdom stated, at the conclusion of the hearings ( 15th April, 1985, CCPR/C/SR.598, at page 7) that

"He had been particularly interested to note the importance attached by all members of the Committee to a statutory bill of rights and the incorporation of the Covenant into domestic legislation. Such a view emphasised the issue in a way which differed from the way which, as the Committee had realised, had hitherto prevailed in the United Kingdom. The

5