1000
GUVI HUUSE HK
1 1-16 10:32
PHGE 04
why
their acceptance of Article 12.4 and of the other provisions of the Covenant is subject to the provisions of any such legislation as regards persons not at the time having the right under the law of the United Kingdom to enter and remain in the United Kingdom. The United
Kingdom also reserves a similar right in regard to each of its dependent territories."
However in so far as this reservation relates to detention at al seems designed to cover no more than short term detention, for s long only as may reasonably be needed for a decision to be taken as to whether to admit or deport the person concerned. It could not safely be relied upon in the circumstances envisaged in Hong Kong.
5. In order to remedy the current breach of Article 9 of the Covenant the law ought to be amended so as to spell out the criteria for ordering a refugee to be imprisoned in a closed can It ought further to give a right to take proceedings before a co which would be entitled to consider whether those criteria had been satisfied in any particular case. should be invited to consider what reasons they re likely to hav I suggest that Hong Kong for wishing to confine refugees to closed camps. Those reasons could then form the basis of the criteria to be written into the law. To give just one example, if the Hong Kong Government cons that there is likely to be some threat to public order etc the might be amended to enable the competent authorities to put into closed camp :-
"any person who, having entered Hong Kong in an unauthoris canner, refuses to leave voluntarily, and who would, if lef at liberty, be likely to represent a threat to public order public security or public morals."
5. The question of remedying any breach of Article 10 needs be considered first in Hong Kong, in the light of the text of relevant Rules (which we do not have),
7.
We agreed that the best solution would be to amend the 1±w on the above lines, If Hong Kong should be disinclined to do so we should have to decide what recommendation to make to Minister when the law is presented for allowance or disallowance. We straightforward way of avoiding the embarrassment involved in breach of our international obligations would be to disallow. would no doubt cause considerable difficulty in our relations wi the Hong Kong Government. However the choice facing Ministers would probably be either disallowance, or allowance in clear bre of our legal obligations under the Covenant, for which we would no real defence. If they should choose the latter, they should also know that the Covenant establishes procedures for investiga
/CLlegations
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.