36.
CONFIDENTIAL
Options
-
17
機密
(a) and (b) are presentationally unattractive as they could arguably undermine our stated intention that the BOR attempts to implement the ICCPR comprehensively. In addition, there is no case for excluding individuals from the obligations imposed by most articles. The choice therefore rests between options (c) and (d). It could be argued that a general deferment on the commencement of obligations between individuals, i.e. option (c) would remove all concerns from the private sector, without taking away rights and remedies that already exist. However, such a step would undermine our basic argument on the need for a BOR to give effect to the ICCPR and to make the rights thereunder justiciable. Option (d) would not present such a difficulty, but might invite questions on why other articles such as Article
as Article 22 could not also be deferred, and how the remaining uncertainties on the obligations of individuals in respect of other articles would be resolved. The arguments are fairly balanced, but we think there is greater risk in going for option (c) which would beg the question of what is left in the BOR, if obligations of both the government and private individuals were to be deferred. We therefore recommend option (d). On the question of Article 22, the
·
the Human Rights Committee in a recent ruling took the view that the relevant ICCPR Article applies to government only and does not extend to private individuals. There would therefore be no uncertainty regarding the obligations of individuals under this Article.
37.
Whichever option is chosen, it will be necessary to develop separate legislation and to define in detail the law in the area of rights to privacy, information and non-discrimination. The Law Reform Commission is already working on privacy legislation, and freedom of information will be covered by this exercise.
Data
protection
CONFIDENTIAL
機密
17
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.