UNTC

Objections

(Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were made
upon ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.)


Latvia Latvia 22 October 2010 With regard to the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon accession: “The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Convention. The Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the declaration contains general reference to national law, making any provision of the Convention subject to the national law of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that the declaration is in fact a unilateral act deemed to limit the scope of application of the Convention and therefore, it shall be regarded as a reservation. Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the reservation named as a declaration does not make it clear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Iran considers itself bound by the provisions of the Convention and whether the manner of application of the rights prescribed by the Convention are in line with the object and purpose of the Convention. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that the provisions of Article 46 of the Convention set out that the reservations that are incompatible with object and purpose of the Convention are not permitted. Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Convention. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thus, the International Covenant will become operative without the Islamic Republic of Iran benefiting from its reservation.” 5 February 2019 With regard to the reservation made by Libya upon ratification: “The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the declaration made by Libya upon ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In the view of the Government of the Republic of Latvia, declaration made by Libya according to which Article 25 (a) of the Convention will be interpreted in a manner that does not contravene the Islamic sharia and national legislation, amounts to a reservation. Moreover, a reservation which subordinates any provision of the Convention in general to the Islamic sharia and national legislation constitutes a reservation of general scope, which is likely to cast doubt on the full commitment of Libya to the object and purpose of the Convention. The reservation made by Libya seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis thus the reservation is incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Convention and therefore inadmissible under Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to this reservation. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and Libya. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without Libya benefitting from its declaration.”

Latvia

22 October 2010

With regard to the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon accession:

“The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the declaration contains general reference to national law, making any provision of the Convention subject to the national law of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that the declaration is in fact a unilateral act deemed to limit the scope of application of the Convention and therefore, it shall be regarded as a reservation.

Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the reservation named as a declaration does not make it clear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Iran considers itself bound by the provisions of the Convention and whether the manner of application of the rights prescribed by the Convention are in line with the object and purpose of the Convention.

Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that the provisions of Article 46 of the Convention set out that the reservations that are incompatible with object and purpose of the Convention are not permitted.

Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Convention.

However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thus, the International Covenant will become operative without the Islamic Republic of Iran benefiting from its reservation.”

5 February 2019

With regard to the reservation made by Libya upon ratification:

“The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the declaration made by Libya upon ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

In the view of the Government of the Republic of Latvia, declaration made by Libya according to which Article 25 (a) of the Convention will be interpreted in a manner that does not contravene the Islamic sharia and national legislation, amounts to a reservation.

Moreover, a reservation which subordinates any provision of the Convention in general to the Islamic sharia and national legislation constitutes a reservation of general scope, which is likely to cast doubt on the full commitment of Libya to the object and purpose of the Convention.

The reservation made by Libya seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis thus the reservation is incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Convention and therefore inadmissible under Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to this reservation.

However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and Libya. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without Libya benefitting from its declaration.”