CHAPTER IV

HUMAN RIGHTS16International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced DisappearanceNew York, 20 December 2006Entry into force23 December 2010, in accordance with article 39(1) which reads as follows: "This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.".Registration23 December 2010, No. 48088StatusSignatories91Parties38TextDoc.A/61/488. C.N.737.2008.TREATIES-12 of 2 October 2008 (Proposal of corrections to the original text of the Convention (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts) and to the Certified True Copies) and C.N.1040.2008.TREATIES-20 of 2 January 2009 (Corrections).The above Convention was adopted on 20 December 2006 during the sixty-first session of the General Assembly by resolution A/RES/61/177. In accordance with its article 38, the Convention shall be open for signature by all Member States of the United Nations. The Convention shall be open for signature on 6 February 2007 in Paris, France, and thereafter at United Nations Headquarters in New York.

ParticipantSignatureAccession(a), RatificationAlbania 6 Feb 2007 8 Nov 2007 Algeria 6 Feb 2007 Argentina 6 Feb 2007 14 Dec 2007 Armenia10 Apr 2007 24 Jan 2011 Austria 6 Feb 2007 7 Jun 2012 Azerbaijan 6 Feb 2007 Belgium 6 Feb 2007 2 Jun 2011 Benin19 Mar 2010 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 6 Feb 2007 17 Dec 2008 Bosnia and Herzegovina 6 Feb 2007 30 Mar 2012 Brazil 6 Feb 2007 29 Nov 2010 Bulgaria24 Sep 2008 Burkina Faso 6 Feb 2007 3 Dec 2009 Burundi 6 Feb 2007 Cameroon 6 Feb 2007 Cape Verde 6 Feb 2007 Chad 6 Feb 2007 Chile 6 Feb 2007 8 Dec 2009 Colombia27 Sep 2007 11 Jul 2012 Comoros 6 Feb 2007 Congo 6 Feb 2007 Costa Rica 6 Feb 2007 16 Feb 2012 Croatia 6 Feb 2007 Cuba 6 Feb 2007 2 Feb 2009 Cyprus 6 Feb 2007 Denmark25 Sep 2007 Ecuador24 May 2007 20 Oct 2009 Finland 6 Feb 2007 France 6 Feb 2007 23 Sep 2008 Gabon25 Sep 2007 19 Jan 2011 Germany26 Sep 2007 24 Sep 2009 Ghana 6 Feb 2007 Greece 1 Oct 2008 Grenada 6 Feb 2007 Guatemala 6 Feb 2007 Haiti 6 Feb 2007 Honduras 6 Feb 2007 1 Apr 2008 Iceland 1 Oct 2008 India 6 Feb 2007 Indonesia27 Sep 2010 Iraq23 Nov 2010 aIreland29 Mar 2007 Italy 3 Jul 2007 Japan 6 Feb 2007 23 Jul 2009 Kazakhstan27 Feb 2009 aKenya 6 Feb 2007 Lao People's Democratic Republic29 Sep 2008 Lebanon 6 Feb 2007 Lesotho22 Sep 2010 Liechtenstein 1 Oct 2007 Lithuania 6 Feb 2007 Luxembourg 6 Feb 2007 Madagascar 6 Feb 2007 Maldives 6 Feb 2007 Mali 6 Feb 2007 1 Jul 2009 Malta 6 Feb 2007 Mauritania27 Sep 2011 3 Oct 2012 Mexico 6 Feb 2007 18 Mar 2008 Monaco 6 Feb 2007 Mongolia 6 Feb 2007 Montenegro 6 Feb 2007 20 Sep 2011 Morocco 6 Feb 2007 14 May 2013 Mozambique24 Dec 2008 Netherlands<superscript>1</superscript>29 Apr 2008 23 Mar 2011 Niger 6 Feb 2007 Nigeria27 Jul 2009 aNorway21 Dec 2007 Palau20 Sep 2011 Panama25 Sep 2007 24 Jun 2011 Paraguay 6 Feb 2007 3 Aug 2010 Peru26 Sep 2012 aPortugal 6 Feb 2007 Republic of Moldova 6 Feb 2007 Romania 3 Dec 2008 Samoa 6 Feb 2007 27 Nov 2012 Senegal 6 Feb 2007 11 Dec 2008 Serbia 6 Feb 2007 18 May 2011 Sierra Leone 6 Feb 2007 Slovakia26 Sep 2007 Slovenia26 Sep 2007 Spain27 Sep 2007 24 Sep 2009 St. Vincent and the Grenadines29 Mar 2010 Swaziland25 Sep 2007 Sweden 6 Feb 2007 Switzerland19 Jan 2011 Thailand 9 Jan 2012 The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 6 Feb 2007 Togo27 Oct 2010 Tunisia 6 Feb 2007 29 Jun 2011 Uganda 6 Feb 2007 United Republic of Tanzania29 Sep 2008 Uruguay 6 Feb 2007 4 Mar 2009 Vanuatu 6 Feb 2007 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)21 Oct 2008 Zambia27 Sep 2010 4 Apr 2011 CubaDeclaration:The Republic of Cuba hereby declares, in accordance with article 42, paragraph 2, that it does not consider itself obliged to refer its disputes to the International Court of Justice, as provided for in paragraph 1 of the same article.GermanyDeclarations:<i>“Article 16</i>The prohibition of return shall only apply if the person concerned faces a real risk of being subjected to enforced disappearance.<i>Regarding Art. 17 (2) (f)</i>Under German law it is guaranteed that deprivation of liberty is only lawful if it has been ordered by a court or – in exceptional cases – subsequently authorized by a court. Article 104 para. 2 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) expressly provides: ‘Only a judge may rule upon the permissibility or continuation of any deprivation of liberty. If such a deprivation is not based on a judicial order, a judicial decision shall be obtained without delay’. Article 104 para. 3 of the Basic Law provides that a person who has been provisionally arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence ‘shall be brought before a judge no later than the day following the arrest’.In the event that a person is being held arbitrarily in contravention of Article 104 of the Basic Law, anyone can bring about a judicial decision leading to that person’s release by applying to the competent Local Court for his/her immediate release. If the person concerned has been detained beyond the time limit permissible under the Basic Law, the court has to order that person’s release pursuant to section 128 (2), first sentence, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung, StPO).<i>Article 17 para. 3</i>In the case of an involuntary placement of sick persons by a custodian or a person having power of attorney, the information required under letters (a) to (h) is known to the court which authorizes the placement. The court can ascertain the information required under letters (a) to (h) at any time through the custodian or person having power of attorney; the information is then included in thecase-file. This information is also to be regarded as records within the meaning of article 17 para. 3.<i>Regarding Article 18</i>Under German law, all persons with a legitimate interest are entitled to obtain information from the court files. The restrictions provided for in German law for the protection of the interests of the person concerned or for safeguarding the criminal proceedings are permissible pursuant to Article 20 para. 1 of the Convention.<i>Regarding Article 24 para. 4</i>It is clarified that the envisaged provision on reparation and compensation does not abrogate the principle of state immunity.”MoroccoDeclaration:Pursuant to 42 (2) of the Convention, the Kingdom of Morocco does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article and declares that for any dispute between two or more States to be brought before the International Court of Justice, it is necessary to have, in each case, the agreement of all States parties to the dispute.Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)Reservation made upon signature:The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in accordance with article 42, paragraph 2, of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, hereby formulates a specific reservation concerning the provisions of paragraph 1 of that article. Therefore, it does not consider itself to be obliged to resort to arbitration as a dispute settlement mechanism, nor does it recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.Albania<right>8 November 2007</right>Article 31In accordance with Article 31 of …..[the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance], the Republic of Albania declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of this Convention by Albanian State.Article 32In accordance with Article 32 of …..[the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance], the Republic of Albania declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.Argentina<right>11 June 2008</right>Article 31In accordance with the provisions of article[s] 31, paragraph 1 ... of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Argentine Republic recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Argentine Republic claiming to be victims of a violation by the State of any of the provisions of the Convention ...Article 32In accordance with the provisions of ... article[s] 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Argentine Republic recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances ... to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.AustriaDeclaration under article 31:Pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, the Republic of Austria recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of this Convention by Austria.Declaration under article 32:Pursuant to Article 32 of the Convention, the Republic of Austria recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.Belgium<i>Article 31:</i>The Kingdom of Belgium declares that in accordance with article 31 of the convention, [Belgium] recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of this Convention by the Kingdom of Belgium.<i>Article 32:</i>The Kingdom of Belgium declares, in accordance with article 32 of hte Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.Bosnia and Herzegovina<right>13 December 2012</right>Article 31“Bosnia and Herzegovina hereby declares that in accordance with article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted in New York, December 20, 2006, Bosnia and Herzegovina recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of this Convention by Bosnia and Herzegovina.”<right>13 December 2012</right>Article 32“Bosnia and Herzegovina hereby declares, in accordance with article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted in New York, December 20, 2006, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.”ChileArticle 31The Republic of Chile hereby declares, in accordance with article 31 of this Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by this State Party of provisions of this Convention.Article 32The Republic of Chile hereby declares, in accordance with article 32 of this Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.EcuadorArticle 31In accordance with the provisions of article 31 (1) of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Republic of Ecuador recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of violations of provisions of this Convention by this State Party.Article 32In accordance with the provisions of article 32 of the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Republic of Ecuador recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.France<right>9 December 2008</right>Article 31... in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 31, [France] recognizes the competence of the Committee on enforced disappearance to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of this Convention by France.Article 32... in accordance with article 32, [France] recognizes the competence of the Committee on enforced disappearance to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.GermanyArticle 31In accordance with Article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CED) of 20 December 2006, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Republic of Germany claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of this Convention by the Federal Republic of Germany.Article 32In accordance with Article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CED) of 20 December 2006, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that the Federal Republic of Germany is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.JapanArticle 32“In accordance with Article 32 of the Convention, the Government of Japan declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.”Mali<right>2 February 2010</right>Declaration under articles 31 and 32:The Government of the Republic of Mali declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive communications from individuals or any other State Party in accordance with the provisions of articles 31 and 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearance, adopted on December 20, 2006.MontenegroArticle 31“In accordance with Article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection al All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted in New York, December 20, 2006, the Government of Montenegro declares that Montenegro recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by Montenegro of provisions of this Convention.”Article 32“In accordance with Article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection al All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted in New York, 20 December 2006, the Government of Montenegro declares that Montenegro recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.”NetherlandsArticle 31:“In accordance with Article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for the European part of the Netherlands and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba), declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by the Kingdom of the Netherlands of provisions of this Convention.”Article 32:“In accordance with Article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for the European part of the Netherlands and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba), declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.”SerbiaDeclaration under article 31 (1):“The Republic of Serbia recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by the Republic of Serbia of provisions of this Convention.”Declaration under article 32:“The Republic of Serbia recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.”Spain<right>5 January 2011</right><i>Declarations under articles 31</i>In accordance with article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Kingdom of Spain declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction, claiming to be victims of violations by Spain of provisions of this Convention.<i>Declarations under articles 32</i>In accordance with article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Kingdom of Spain declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in which a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.UruguayArticle 31In accordance with article 31, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications submitted by or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by that State of the provisions of that Convention.Article 32… in accordance with article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay recognizes the competence of the Committee [on Enforced Disappearances] to receive and consider communications in which a State party claims that the Uruguayan State is not fulfilling its obligations under that Convention.1For the European part of the Netherlands and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the Islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba).