TNAG-2154-FCO40-3074-Human-rights-in-Hong-Kong-United-Nations-Committee-on-the-El-1990 — Page 8

CONFIDENTIAL

- 6 -

10.

AS REGARDS THE AMBIT OF ARTICLE 26 (ARTICLE 23

BOR) THE LOVELACE CASE (COMMUNICATION NO. 24/1977) IS LESS

THAN CONCLUSIVE. WHILST THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

DECLINED THE OPPORTUNITY TO RULE ON WHETHER DISCRIMINATORY

LAND PRACTICES WERE PROHIBITED UNDER ARTICLE 26 IT IS

ARGUABLE THAT THIS WAS SO BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE HAD FOUND

A BREACH OF ANOTHER ARTICLE (ARTICLE 27) WHICH MOST

DIRECTLY AFFECTED THE COMPLAINANT. FURTHERMORE, ONE

MEMBER SPECIFICALLY FOUND A BREACH OF ARTICLE 26.

11

▼

SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE ANALYSIS

ARE BOTH SENSITIVE AND DIFFICULT YOUR FURTHER VIEWS WOULD

BE INVALUABLE. IF YOUR TIME PERMITS WE WOULD VERY MUCH

APPRECIATE A RESPONSE IN ADVANCE OF YOUR RETURN TO HONG

KONG BUT IF THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE WE HOPE THE ABOVE WILL

SERVE AS A BASIS FOR DISCUSSION EARLY NEXT WEEK, PRIOR TO

SETTLING ADVICE TO THE GOVERNOR.

CONFIDENTIAL

PO BO

62:5

I-9

06.

XH 39пOH 09 000