代貼：聯合國人權事務委員會促香港落實真普選
香港民間代表團新聞稿
日期：2013年3月13日
(照片轉載自何秀蘭facebook)
聯合國人權事務委員會正審議香港落實國際人權公約的情況，數名委員關注香港下屆特首和立法會選舉能否落實真普選，而委員會的《一般性意見》早已訂明，政府不可引入條款來限制不同政見人士參選。
在12日的會議上，委員范達文(Mr. Flinterman)要求港府代表團列舉平等而普及的普選條件，在港府沒有就此作出回應時，另一委員桑理(Mr. Shany)期望，港府建議的普選機制須確保市民有參選權和投票權，他指出，人權事務委員會的第25號《一般性意見》已訂明，政府制訂普選機制時，不可因為個別人士的政見而限制其參選。
身為香港代表團團長的政制及內地事務局常任秘書張琼瑤在回應委員會主席獲理(Sir Nigel Rodney)的要求時承諾，港府會以2017年普選行政長官和2020年普選立法會議員為目標。
在政制發展方面，范達文又說，既然港府聲言全心全意推行普選，便毋須要求豁免按《公民和政治權利國際公約》中第25條規定選舉立法會議員的要求，促請香港特區政府撤回這項在港英年代提出的豁免。
在三小時的會議中，委員亦就港府提交的人權報告提出不同疑問。在整體人權保障方面，范達文重申，港府應該按《巴黎原則》設立一個獨立的人權委員會，對港府至今無意設立人權委員會，他「深表遺憾」，認為這是港府基於錯誤理解人權委員會的權責所致。
他更指出，現時由不同法定組織處理特定範疇的人權總會有遺漏，人權委員會的設立可確保所有人權都受到關顧；另外，現時港府處理不同人權範疇的委員會，權責有限，例如申訴專員無權提供法律服務和提出訴訟，即使有政策違反人權，專員亦不可作出修訂建議；至於平等機會委員會則只能作出調查和調解，缺乏執行權力。他更期望，港府可以擴大平機會權責。
委員會副主席岩澤雄司(Iwasaha)更指出，有關基本法和香港人權法案、政府歧視等問題，平機會均無權處理。
委員更關注平機會主席的聘任和角色衝突問題，委員Fathalla不滿政府未能解釋聘任主席的過程。對於上任平機會主席林煥光出任行政會議召集人後，仍兼任平機會主席，范達文質問港府，能否確保平機會主席日後出任行政會議召集人時，即時辭去平機會主席的職務，以免被人質疑平機會能否公正處事。
雖經港府重覆解釋，委員會仍然關注香港的法治有否受到人大常委會釋法影響。身為代表團成員的法律政策專員潘英光再解釋，並指出，明白港人和法律界的關注，期望港府不輕易尋求釋法，港府日後會盡量避免尋求釋法。
在種族歧視問題上，委員會特別關注，港府沒有就少數族裔學童訂定「中文作為第二語言」的教育政策，令他們各方面的權利受損。
另外，委員會副主席岩澤雄司強調，港府未有回應「消除種族歧視公約委員會」就《種族歧視條例》提出的關注，包括間接歧視的定義過於狹窄、基於國籍和語言的歧視不受保障、部分政府權力和功能不受條例規管。
他續稱，平機會調查發現，有六成受訪港人支持香港立法禁止不同性傾向歧視，質疑港府為何仍以問題有爭議而拒絕立法。
警方濫用暴力亦是委員會的關注議題。委員劉文(Mr. Neuman)認為，當局在過去數年沒有收到遭受酷刑或虐待的投訴個案，情況令人驚訝。他質疑，這可能是因為當局的分類過於狹窄所致，而連海關和入境處都沒有人投訴被虐待，已可反證須就有關部門設置獨立的投訴機制。
他又舉例，直接向人的面部噴胡椒噴霧、無理把被拘留人士除衫搜身都可被視為虐待。
對於港府提交的數字指，過去數年有102人死於獄中，其中73人死於自然，其餘則是自殺和死於意外，委員岑麗德(Madam Shanet)表示震驚，她要求政府解釋，為何會有這麼多人在獄中死亡，以及「死於自然」的背後原因？她質疑，死者可能是因為年老或患病而死亡，若此，他們根本不應入獄。
人權事務委員會將於日內瓦時間13日繼續審議香港落實國際人權公約的政府報告。
專程到日內瓦列席會議的團體有民主黨、公民黨、工黨、香港人權監察、香港記者協會、大律師公會、融樂會、粉紅同盟、彩虹行動及民間人權陣線。
UN Human Rights Committee Scrutinises Government’s Attempts to Undermine Universal Suffrage
The United Nations Human Rights Committee (“the Committee”) met to consider the Hong Kong government’s Third Report on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“the Covenant” / “ICCPR”) on 12 March 2013. The Committee expressed concerns and sought clarifications on a range of human rights issues.
The Committee sought assurances from the government that the mechanisms established to secure equal and universal suffrage for the election of the Hong Kong Chief Executive and the Legislative Council will be mindful not only of the right to elect but also the right to stand for elections. It emphasized that such mechanisms must ensure compliance with Article 25 of the ICCPR as elaborated under Paragraph 7 of General Comment No. 25, which limits state parties from introducing limitations against candidates from standing for election by reason of their political opinion. The Chairperson of the Committee, Sir Nigel Rodney, asked the HKSAR government to confirm the timetable for constitutional reform in accordance with the principles and standards stipulated. Committee member Mr. Flinterman emphasized that although the United Kingdom entered the reservation to Article 25(b) of the ICCPR, which absolved it of the obligation to establish a legislature in HK in accordance with Art. 25, it was now redundant since the HKSAR has had an elected legislature in place since the Handover. In light of this, he urged the government to withdraw the reservation.
The Committee also asked the government to explain the interpretative power of the Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress in the absence of a case before the court and the rule of law implications of such power. The government explained that all powers of the HKSAR courts were derived from the Central People’s Government and that it had no residual powers whatsoever. The government emphasized that there had been only 4 interpretations in the last 15 years, the latest one being initiated by the Court of Final Appeal. It suggested that the HKSAR’s rule of law had not been unduly impacted by these interpretations and that it has been very careful not to request interpretations save in exceptional circumstances. However, the government failed to mention the government’s recent request to the CFA to seek an interpretation from the NPCSC in the recent case concerning the right of abode of a former domestic helper.
Mr. Iwasaha of the Committee emphasized that the government had failed to address various issues identified by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) with respect to the Race Discrimination Ordinance (“RDO”), including, the definition of indirect discrimination and the exclusion of nationality and language-based discrimination and certain government powers and functions from the scope of the legislation. The Committee expressed particular concern over the gravity of the circumstances impacting the rights of ethnic minorities in light of these exclusions particularly, the failure to implement a Chinese as a Second Language policy for ethnic minority children, the denial of the right of abode to foreign domestic helpers through immigration laws, and the two-week rule which requires foreign domestic workers to leave Hong Kong within 14 days after the expiry or premature termination of their employment contract.
The Committee asked the government to explain its failure to implement legislation to guard against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination despite the Equal Opportunities Commission’s finding that 60% of the respondents to a survey favoured such legislation, especially since the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (“BORO”) and the Hong Kong Basic Law (“HKBL”) only cover discrimination in the public sector.
Mr. Flinterman of the Committee reiterated that for the past seven years, all treaty bodies have repeatedly urged the government to establish an independent human rights commission in accordance with the Paris Principles. He emphasized that existing mechanisms were limited in their mandates and powers. For example, he noted that the EOC’s jurisdiction is limited to investigation and conciliation and it lacks power to monitor discrimination complaints against the government for violations under the HKBL or BORO. It also expressed concerns over the independence of the EOC from the government given the concurrent appointments held by the incumbent EOC Chairman and sought further information on the processes concerning the appointment of chairs and members.
Mr. Flinterman expressed deep regret at the government’s conclusion that the existing mechanisms for protecting human rights in Hong Kong were effective enough and that there was no obvious need to establish a National Human Rights Institution, reflecting that the government’s conclusion was based on an incomplete understanding of mandate of national human rights institutions as stipulated in Paris Principles of 1992. He expressed that in light of Hong Kong’s unique political context, such an institution may have added significance in the protection of human rights.
Mr. Neuman of the Committee noted that there had been complaints about the excessive use of force by the Hong Kong police. However, the fact that there was no official record of complaints of torture or ill treatment between 2005-2012 was surprising. He questioned the classification particular instances fearing they might be too narrow and possibly skew the figures. He emphasized that instances of excessive use of force, for example, the use of pepper spray in the face and unjustified strip searches of detainees could possibly be classified as ill treatment. The Committee cast further doubt on the perfect record of no such instances of ill treatment reported against other departments, including Customs and Excise and Immigration departments, and highlighted that this may itself be suggestive of the need for independent complaints mechanisms for such departments.
Committee member, Miss Shanet expressed alarm at the rate of deaths in prison in the reporting period, 73 of which were reportedly deaths by natural causes whilst 28 were suicides and accidents. She sought clarification from the government on the nature of the accidents which contributed to deaths as well as the reasons behind such a high rate of natural deaths in prison. This suggested that there were people who ought not to have been in prison perhaps because they were too old or ill.
註：
[1] 時間表：
3月13日(三)上午10時至1時(日內瓦時間) (香港時間下午5時至晚上8時)委員會正式審議香港實施公約情況(第二節)
直播http://www.treatybodywebcast.org/
[2] 聯合國人權事務委員會會議議程、委員會關注議題清單、香港政府報告、民間團體意見書以至日後委員會審議結論，均可此網頁瀏覽。
[3]最新資訊，亦可瀏覽香港人權監察facebook專頁