TNAG-2487-FCO40-3618-Future-relations-between-Hong-Kong-and-China-1992 — Page 189

21

-

(e)

"The Bill of Rights Ordinance is consistent with the Basic Law and its repeal or restriction after 1997 would involve a breach of the undertakings given by the Government of the Peoples' Republic of China in the Joint Declaration."

Comment: This is a matter for the People's

Republic of China. However, it is difficult to

understand the contention in the last sentence of

the last

paragraph on page 99 and in the

and recommendation that any attempt by

repeal or modify the BOR so as to

application of its provisions to the in breach of the PRC's obligations

conclusion

the PRC to

restrict the

SAR would be

under the JD.

which says

There is nothing in the JD (or BL)

that there has to be a BOR. The legal

obligation is that effect must continue to be

given to the ICCPR.

the repeal of the BOR.

Committee of the NPC

the basis that it is

(BL160) that would be unlawful in the sense that

it is clearly not incompatible with the BL. But that is a different point.

That would not be affected by

Of course, if the Standing

were to nullify the BOR on

incompatible with the BL

The Bill of Rights Enforcement and Monitoring (Chapter XIII). The only relevant recommendation in this Chapter is

the one calling for the

Commission.

establishment of a Human Rights