355. With regard to that issue , members of the Committee wished to know whether the United Kingdom intended to review its reservations to the Covenant and to withdraw some or all of them; whether any consideration had been given to ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Covenant; and whether any consideration was being given to incorporating the Covenant into the domestic law of the United Kingdom and the dependent territories, particularly in view of the fact that commonlaw rules did not always accord exactly with the corresponding provisions of the Covenant and that United Kingdom legislation was sometimes not generally applicable throughout the realm. In that latter regard, it was also inquired whether any consideration was being given to the adoption of a bill of rights in view of the number of judgements delivered by the European Court of HumanRights in cases concerning the United Kingdom and what kind of difficulties were expected to arise in the process of unifying the British legal system. Clarification was also requested of the apparent contradiction in the Cayman Islands legislation that, on the one hand, required legislation in contravention with the Covenant to be revoked but seemed to allow for the adoption of new laws that might be in violation of its provisions: of the position of the Government during the Gulf conflict; and of the legal reasoning behind the reservation to article 1 of the Covenant on the grounds that the United Kingdom’s obligations under article8 1, 2 and Wof the Charter of the United Nations took precedence over the Covenant. 356. Referring to the specific situation in Hong Kong, members of the Committee inquired whether the Hong Kong Bill of Rights had supremacy over other lawsr whether, in the view of the Government, the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, especially its articles 39 and 158, corresponded to the Sine-British Joint Declaration of 1984: whether the Basic Law corresponded to the United Kingdom’s intention to secure the application of the Covenant in the future Administrative Region1 whether the Government planned to discuss possible inconsistencies between the Basic Law and the Covenant with the Government of the People’s Republic China before the Joint Declaration would be fully implemented; what sanctions would apply if one of the parties to the Joint Declaration failed to respect the agreement after 19971 what arrangements had been contemplated for ensuring that reporting obligations relating to Rang Kong would be met after 19971 and what had been the experience to date with the operations of Hong Kong’s Commissioner for Administrative Complaints. In addition, members wished to know whether the Bill of Rights, once adopted, would be enshrined in the Constitution; whether the proposed one-year freeae scheduled to follow the adoption of the Bill of Rights could be extended1 whether consideration had been given to making use of article 151 of the Basic Law to enable Hong Kong to become a party to the Covenant directly1 whether courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region would be entitled to interpret the Basic Law after 19971 what the composition, status and functions were of the Law Reform Commission; what was the meaning of the term @@as applied to Hong Kong”, used in article 39 of the Basic Law! and the extent to which the United Kingdom’s obligations toward6 Hong Kort, were affected by its reservations concerning article 25 of the Covenant. 357. In his reply, the representative of the State party said that careful consideration had been given to the issues involved in incorporating the Covenant into domestic law and that the Government would review its policy -87- in