Is the October 23, 2014 announcement by the United Nations Human Rights Committee about the elections in Hong Kong an example of "interference in the internal affairs of China?"

Yes. The official line(written in Basic Law) about the election is "the central government reserves the right of appointing the governor, and not appointing". the central government doesn't have the right of actively filtering the candidates, they have the final decision-making power to whether the winner in the election will be appointed. the people who can filter the candidates are the nomination committee. I don't think the problem is "'The committee doesn't want candidates filtered. The problem is that Beijing wants to vet candidates ... '". since the central government only has the right of appointing and not appointing, and not appointing a winner is a big decision which not usually can be made. Central government reserves the right because they want to ensure the autonomy of HK, without endangering China's national interests, it's a minimum requirement, never a problem, the problem is the nomination committee, whether they can elect some competent candidates, whether they are broadly representatives of HK people, whether they get their jobs through a democratic process, that's what really matters to HK. Here Mr Chanet shows us a great example how a clueless westerner comments something they don't know shit about .

Well, given United Nations is not a real nation itself, then I think it's full job is just to "interfere in the internal affairs of other nations" :D btw, I'm interested in how this committee's earlier record in commenting the elections in HK ?

"Internal affairs" is one of those terms that some countries use when they don't like what they are hearing from outsiders.  If commenting on what goes on in another country is construed as "interference," then we have no right to condemn genocidal wars, human trafficking and other evils if they occur outside the borders of our countries.  As a citizen of the world, I reserve the right to have and express an opinion on anything, anywhere, that I find immoral.

It really depends on what intention and purpose the UN committee has in making the comment.  It's rather silly to compare what's happening with Hong Kong to real human rights being degraded in other areas of the globe.  The real question we should be asking is -by China vetting the leaders who want to run for office in HK will the people be worse off.  I realize we desperately want to say yes but let's have a look at what's happening in cities like Shanghai & if our measure is wealth well China has the most billionaires.  No I'm a little suspicious when I see Yuval Shani the Israeli representative as the driver of this UN decision.  Six degrees of separation is not just for knowing everyone around the globe but also happens to be true for global decisions.  Let's see now.  Israel needs to destabilise Syria and Iran because.... Well you do the math.   Once they topple these countries they can get away with murder in the Gaza by declaring war on "terrorism" - who are the terrorists...according to Einstein prior to the formation of Israel the terrorists were the Zionists.  This minority group now are turning the world and Israel upside down.  Israel gives 200 visas for non Jewish people to move out of Gaza, these people are trapped and the only avenue for them to move out and get supplies is through the tunnels.  Let's bomb the tunnels and kill countless civilians in the process.  No one dares to go against us is the attitude.  Help the 60-70% of brilliant and moderate Israelis gain power in their country and they can then help us clean the rest of the world.  Hong Kong is just a distraction, besides do they want Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump or George Bush to represent them....these are also the problems that democracy US style hasn't solved ie electing leaders with zero vision and not much in between their ears.