TNAG-2325-FCO40-3369-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-policy-1991 — Page 134

bob GÜVERNITENI HUUSE

HUNG KUNG

Y1

4-30 12:05

PHGE DE

XCX (91) 22

(b)

16

(c)

(0)

(4)

it

CONFIDENTIAL

Panc 7

is contrary to constitutional and legal principle and practice in both Commonwealth and territories which have enacted

non-Commonwealth Bills of Rights;

it is likely to create considerable legal uncertainty both as to the scope of the Bill and as to the jurisdiction of courts and tribunals;

10 15 likely to result in the less favourable treatment, as a matter of procedure, of private persons than of public authorities, when they are alleged to have violated the Bill; and

10 may result in the Bill being used unjustifiably after 1997 by public authorities against private persons.

-ALY

Mr

DY the Administration answering Lester's first opinion was passed to the Legislative Council Ad Нос Group on 11 January 1991. A copy of it has been deposited in the Councils Division Annexe for Members' reference. In essence, we have contended that

(a)

(D)

(c)

(d)

(e)

rights are Covenant

conferred by the International оп Civil and Political Rights on individuals not on governments, so we do not accept that the Bill as drafted could be used by the authorities against individuals;

individuals individuals,

from albeit

the Covenant imposes an obligation to protect violations by other not necessarily by conferring in a Bill of Rights rights of action between citizens;

the courts in a number of western democratic countries have applied constitutional human rights provisions or human rights treaties with constitutional or quasi-constitutional status to the acts of private individuals;

the Covenant does not provide a general guarantee of equality (save in the enjoyment of ICCPR rights), but requires that the laws themselves should not discriminate: and

the right to seek information is not the same as a right to acquire information, and that it is only the former which is protected by the Covenant.

CONFIDENTIA