understood to exclude distinctions between French citizens before the law. Article 74 of the same Constitution, however, includes a special clause for overseas territories, under which they shall have a special organization which takes into account their own interests within the general interests of the Republic. That special organization may entail, as France has pointed out in its submissions in the present communication, a different legislation given the geographic, social and economic particularities of these territories. Thus, it is the Declaration itself, as justified by France, which makes article 27 of the Covenant applicable in so far as overseas territories are concerned. the authors’ family and privacy. We cannot accept these propositions. 4. In reaching the conclusion that the facts in the instant case do not give rise to an interference with the authors’ family and privacy, we do not reject the view, expressed in the Committee’s General Comment 16 on article 17 of the Covenant, that the term “family” should “be given a broad interpretation to include all those comprising the family as understood in the society of the State party concerned.” Thus, the term “family”, when applied to the local population in French Polynesia, might well include relatives, who would not be included in a family, as this term is understood in other societies, including metropolitan France. However, even when the term “family” is extended, it does have a discrete meaning. It does not include all members of one’s ethnic or cultural group. Nor does it necessarily include all one's ancestors, going back to time immemorial. The claim that a certain site is an ancestral burial ground of an ethnic or cultural group, does not, as such, imply that it is the burial ground of members of the authors’ family. The authors have provided no evidence that the burial ground is one that is connected to their family, rather than to the whole of the indigenous population of the area. The general claim that members of their families are buried there, without specifying in any way the nature of the relationship between themselves and the persons buried there, is insufficient to support their claim, even on the assumption that the notion of family is different from notions that prevail in other societies. We therefore cannot accept the Committee’s view that the authors have substantiated their claim that allowing building on the burial ground amounted to interference with their family. In our opinion, the communication raises important issues under article 27 of the Covenant which should have been addressed on their merits, notwithstanding the declaration made by France under article 27. After the Committee decided not to reopen the issue of admissibility of the authors’ claim under article 27, we are able to associate ourselves with the Committee’s Views on the remaining aspects of the communication. APPENDIX II Individual opinion submitted by Mr. David Kretzmer, Mr. Thomas Buergenthal, Mr. Nisuke Ando and Lord Colville pursuant to rule 94, paragraph 3, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, concerning the Views of the Committee on communication No. 549/1993, Francis Hopu and Tepoaitu Bessert v. France 1. We are unable to join the Committee’s view that violations of article 17 and 23 of the Covenant have been substantiated in the present communication. 5. The Committee mentions the authors’ claim “that they consider the relationship to their ancestors to be an essential element of their identity and to play an important role in their family life.” Relying on the fact that the State party has challenged neither this claim nor the authors’ argument that the burial grounds play an important part in their history, culture and life, the Committee concludes that the construction of the hotel complex on the burial grounds interferes with the authors’ right to family and privacy. The reference by the Committee to the authors’ history, culture and life, is revealing. For it shows that the values that are being protected are not the family, or privacy, but cultural values. We share the concern of the Committee for these values. These values, however, are protected under article 27 of the Covenant and not the provisions relied on by the Committee. We regret that the Committee is prevented from applying article 27 in the instant case. 2. This Committee has held in the past (communication Nos. 220/1987 and 222/1987, declared inadmissible on 8 November 1989) that the French declaration upon ratification of the Covenant regarding article 27, must be read as a reservation, according to which France is not bound by this article. Relying on this decision, the Committee held in its decision an admissibility of 30 June 1994, that the authors’ communication was not admissible as regards an alleged violation of article 27. This decision, which was phrased in general terms, precludes us from examining whether the French declaration applies not only in Metropolitan France, but also in Overseas Territories, in which the State party itself concedes that special conditions may apply. 6. Contrary to the Committee, we cannot accept that the authors’ claim of an interference with their right to privacy has been substantiated. The only reasoning provided to support the Committee’s conclusion in this matter is the authors’ claim that their connection with their ancestors plays an important role in their identity. The notion of privacy revolves around protection of those aspects of a person’s life, or relationships with others, which one chooses to keep from the public eye, or from outside intrusion. It does not include access to public property, whatever the nature of that property, or the purpose of the access. Furthermore, the mere fact that 3. The authors’ claim is that the State party has failed to protect an ancestral burial ground, which plays on important role in their heritage. It would seem that this claim could raise the issue of whether such failure by a State party involves denial of the right of religious or ethnic minorities, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture or to practise their own religion. However, for the reasons set out above, the Committee was precluded from examining this issue. Instead the Committee holds that allowing the building on the burial ground constitutes arbitrary interference with 75