Human Rights had found that there had been a violation of article 5, paragraph 3, and article 5, paragraph 5, of the European Convention on &man Rights, but it had made clear its understanding of the difficult situation the United Kingdom faced in Northern Ireland and had not held that the legislation under consideration was either unnecessary or undesirable. 372. The Government’s powers to deport under the Immigration Act applied only to a specific cetogory of persons, and the persons to whom it was applied had were the right of appeal, witJx the enception of those whose deportations ordored specifically on grounds of national security. Moreover, detention could only occur in cases where grounds for deportation existed and did not involve denial of access to the courts. In the cases involving several Iraqis and Palestinians, deportation action had been taken in connection with a very specific threat and the dangers flowing from it. 373. Clause 5 of the draft Hong Kong Bill of Rights reproduced article 4 of the Covenant. Furthermore, in order to resolve any inconsistency between the Covenant and any Hong Kong regulations, a comprehensive review of all ordinances in force would be carried out with the aim of ensuring strict respect for the Bill of Rights. Under article 18 (4) of the Basic Law, relevant national laws Tnight be applied only during a state of war and when turmoil endangered national unity or security. There was no inconsistency between that provision and article 4 of the Covenant. . . Non-drscrlmination S , ’ of !ihuiam 374, In connection with that issue, members of the Committee wished to know any further consitsration was being given to reviewing the remaining discriminatory provisions under the Immigration Rules, particularly those discriminating between male and female students from abroad and wives and husbands of deportees; whether members of ethnic minority groups facing criminal charges were informed systematically of the relative advantages or drawbacks of opting for a trial before a jury or pleading guilty; whether the planned legislation to ensure the equal treatment of males and females in matters of succession had been enacted: whether steps were being taken to eliminate alleged discrimination against women in some sectors of public employment, such as the police, and to ensure equality of opportunity in both the public and private sectors: and whether progressive measures in favour of women would also be introduced in Hong Kong, It was also inquired why pxisoners had no right to vote in the United Kingdom; why assistance from the Commission for Racial Equality was provided in fewer than 20 per cent of cases of alleged discriminstionr what role the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights played in relation to laws adopted after the enactment of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act of 1973; and whether the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which the United Kingdom had just ratified, would apply to Honq Kong, in particular with respect to equal pay for equal work, family property and inheritance Member6 also sought clarification of the statement in the repcrt questions. that the prison eystem in England and Wales needed a clearly stated policy on race issues, and further information was requested about the Government’s intention to reduce religious discrimination in Northern Iroland by enacting a Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act and eattilishing a Fair !2mploymeat Tribunal. In that regard, it was asked why the establisJrnent of a special tribunal had been felt necessary; whether job applicants were required to wllether -92- j 1 i I 1 ! 9 ; p