A A AJAL.
假密
16
16
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
the ICCPR and to make the rights thereunder justiciable. Option (d) would not present such a difficulty, but might invite questions оп why other articles such as Article 23 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 23, the
23, the Human Rights Committee in а 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 по uncertainty regarding the obligations of individuals under this Article.
34.
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 legislation is being developed by the Secretary for Home Affairs. [There will also a need for the enactment of legislation for non-discrimination.]
35.
A clause has therefore been added to the draft Bill as follows :
[to be povided by Law Draftsmen]
CONFIDENTIAL 機密
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.