TNAG-2328-FCO40-3372-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-functional-constituencies-1991 — Page 6

}

breach of Article 2. We can

same

Reference

the

abo arguet

in relation to Article 26; however,

the Human Rights Committee has expressed the that Article 26 is autonomous

view

In their case

they

decisions on individual cases

have said that

ever where a

State is not

confer a benefit, where this has

obliged to confer a

bee if it chooses to do so

it

must not be

discriminatory. In this case, the discriminatay

provisions are embodied

would seem to be a

distinct riste

lose

an

in legislation, There

that

HKG could

this point in any BOR action, if a Hke cout chose to follow the views of the MRC(although the interpretations of the Comment made by the the care antitled to great respect, we would not recomaty accept the

the coverent), as antwontative in the neave that they are legally binding wall States Parties to

н

4. with

and to the arguments in para

regard

to

8

me to be

of TUR, they do not seem relevant to the possibility of breaches of Arts 25 and 26; the declaration in

question relates only to Article I ICCAR.

I

would also doubt the wisdom of moving the debate into the realms of

✓ self-determination; an

issue beût avoided.

CODE 18-77