。
CONFIDENTIAL
1
but it is in no way comparable to long term detention of Vietnamese refugees in prison camps. Moreover even the right under this reservation to detain a person for a very short period would seem to disappear once a decision is taken to admit him. Thereafter it is reasonable to assume that the immigrant must be granted full human rights under the Covenant unless some other reservation can be relied on. There is one other such reservation in respect of Hong Kong i.e. the second of the two quoted above. This is the only permissible departure from the Covenant once an immigrant has been admitted to Hong Kong. This reservation relates only to Article 13 and it does not allow any derogation from Article 9 or any other provision in the Covenant.
8.
-
The Attorney General of Hong Kong also refers on page. 3 of his letter to a report. That report was presented to the UN Human Rights Commission in 1961, more than 20 years ago, at a time when the Covenants were not in force and when there was virtually no relevant international jurisprudence. The Committee established by the Commission consisted of only four members (Chile, Norway, Pakistan and the Phillipines Chile and Pakistan being replaced later by Argentina and Ceylon). The report does not say to which kind of habeas corpus procedure it was referring and it is questionable whether any of the countries represented had habeas corpus procedure comparable to our own. It is doubtful whether it can be regarded as qualifying subsequent jurisprudence, dealing with the particular kind of habeas corpus procedures which apply in the UK (and Hong Kong).
9.
Notwithstanding these legal difficulties, which have of course been drawn to the attention of Ministers here, it is proposed that, for reasons of policy, the UK should allow the Hong Kong ordinance to stand. I attach a copy of a minute from the Minister of State to the Secretary of State which explains the reasons for the policy. Paragraph 5 of the minute also recommends certain ways of containing the problem, so far as possible.
10. If this policy should give rise to Parliamentary difficulty in the future, I think that probably the only sort of legal arguments that could be adduced in its defence would be along the lines suggested by the Attorney General of Hong Kong. However, for the reasons given above my colleagues and I do not think that those arguments can be relied upon with any confidence. In these circumstances it seems right that the Law Officers should be informed of the difficulties which may lie ahead.
11. I should also perhaps mention that we have considered whether it might be open to the United Kingdom to denounce the Covenant in respect of Hong Kong, or to make some further reservation to deal with the present difficulty. Unfortunately this does not seem to be possible because, in the absence of any provisions in the Covenant permitting it, we should be
/obliged
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.