TNAG-2554-FCO40-3729-International-Covenant-on-Civil-and-Political-Rights-(ICCPR)-1992 — Page 13

back to with

me

конника

nghts Falck file FROM:

میں ملا

Jill Barrett

Assistant Legal Adviser K174 3381

19 August 1992

2

Mr Bunten HKD

IRO SUBCOMMITTEE: ICCPR AND ICESCR

1. You asked me to look at the papers prepared by HKG on these two Covenants. Their papers look fine, subject only to the following comments.

2.

In the ICCPR paper, I expect it is likely to be para 5 concerning the UK's recognition of the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive inter-State complaints which will cause most alarm to the Chinese. I wonder if we might help soften its impact by stating that there have been no communications to date relating to Hong Kong. You might also like to consider slipping in reference to the fact that no communications have ever been received by the Committee from any State Party under Article 41(1) (if indeed this is still the case please check with UND). Such a reference, at least to the absence of any relating to Hong Kong, would be consistent with the detail given in para 6 about reports to the Committee.

3. In para 6, lines 8-11, I wonder whether the procedures relating to the Committee have been correctly described. When questions are posed by the Committee, is this not done orally, and are replies not given the same or the next day by the delegation? The draft answers prepared in advance are surely to the questions which we anticipate might be asked by the Committee? Do we transmit written answers to the Committee after the meeting? I suggest you seek the advice of UND on these points.

4. I also wonder why the words "in the past" have been added in the next sentence of para 6. The UK delegation has included representatives of HKG on at least the last two occasions, and presumably will do so next time. Why do we not simply say "The HKG also sends representatives, as part of the UK delegation, to attend meetings of, the Committee."?

Jill Banett तय

Jill Barrett

HKC

241/2

см