Sweden
27 February 1996
With regard to the reservations, understandings and declarations made by the United States of America upon ratification:
"The Government of Sweden would like to refer to its objections to the reservations entered by the United States of America with regard to article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[For the text of the objections see under "Objections" in chapter IV.4] . The same reasons for objection apply to the now entered reservation with regard to article 16 reservation I (1) of [the Convention]. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to that reservation.
It is the view of the Government of Sweden that the understandings expressed by the United States of America do not relieve the United States of America as a party to the Convention from the responsibility to fulfil the obligations undertaken therein."
14 December 1999
With regard to the declaration to article 14 (1) made by Bangladesh upon accession:
“In this context the Government of Sweden would like to recall, that under well-established international treaty law, the name assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. Thus, the Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by the Government of Bangladesh, in the absence of further clarification, in substance constitutes a reservation to the Convention.
The Government of Sweden notes that the said declaration imply that the said article of the Convention is being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing laws and regulations in the country.
The Government of Sweden is of the view that this declaration raises doubts as to the commitment of Bangladesh to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to well-established international law, a resertion incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under these treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid declaration made by the Government of Bangladesh to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
27 April 2000
With regard to the reservations made by the Qatar upon accession:
"The Government of Sweden has examined the reservations made by the Government of Qatar at the time of its accession to the [Convention], as to the competence of the committee and to any interpretation of the provisions of the Convention that is incompatible with the precepts of Islamic laws and the Islamic religion.
The Government of Sweden is of the view that as regards the latter, this general reservation, which does not clearly specify the provisions of the Convention to which it applies and the extent of the derogation therefrom, raises doubts as to the commitment of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Convention.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
According to customary law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservation made by the Government of Qatar to the [Convention].
This shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the State of Qatarand the Kingdom of Sweden, without Qatar benefiting from the said reservation".
2 October 2001
With regard to the reservation made by the Botswana upon ratification:
"The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by Botswana upon ratification of the 1984 Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, regarding article 1 of the Convention.
The Government of Sweden notes that the said article of the Convention is being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing legislation in Botswana. Article 1.2 of the Convention states that the definition of torture in article 1.1 is "without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application".
The Government of Sweden is of the view that this reservation, in the absence of further clarification, raises doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to the object and purpose of the Convention. The government of Sweden would like to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Botswana to the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Botswana and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Botswana benefiting from its reservation."
29 September 2008
With regard to the interpretative declaration made by Thailand upon accession:
“The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement does not determine whether or not it constitutes a reservation to a treaty. If the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified by an interpretative declaration, this in fact amounts to a reservation.
Since the application of a number of provisions of the Convention have been made subject to provisions of the Thai Penal Code it is unclear to what extent the Kingdom of Thailand considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty. This in turn raises doubts as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Thailand to the object and purpose of the Convention. This applies in particular to the declaration
made under Article 1 of the Convention which contains a clear and generally recognized definition of the concept of torture.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Kingdom of Thailand to the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
This objection shall not precludethe entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Thailand and Sweden, without the Kingdom of Thailand benefiting from its reservation.”
22 June 2011
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:
“The Government of Sweden is of the view that these reservations raise serious doubt as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Convention, as the reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Convention of their effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof.
The Government of Sweden would like to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Pakistan and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Pakistan benefiting from these reservations.”
7 March 2013
With regard to the reservation made by the United Arab Emirates upon accession:
“The Government of Sweden has examined the declaration and reservations made by the United Arab Emirates at the time of its accession to the Convention.
The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention.
The Government of Sweden notes that the reservation, according to which ‘the lawful sanctions applicable under national law, or pain or suffering arising from or associated with or incidental to these lawful sanctions, do not fall under the concept of ‘torture’ defined in article 1 of this Convention or under the concept of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment mentioned in this Convention’, implies that the application of the Convention is made subject to a general reservation referring to existing legislation in the United Arab Emirates. The Government of Sweden is of the view that such a reservation, which does not clearly specify the extent of its scope, raises serious doubt as to the commitment of the United Arab Emirates to the object and purpose of the Convention.
According to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the United Arab Emirates to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and considers this reservation null and void. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Arab Emirates and Sweden. The Convention enters into force between the United Arab Emirates and Sweden, without the United Arab Emirates benefiting from this reservation.”
23 September 2013
With regard to the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification:
“The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic, according to which the term 'torture' in Article 1 paragraph 1 of the Convention shall mean torture as defined in both national law and international law, in substance constitutes a reservation modifying the scope of the Convention.
The Government of Sweden notes that this reservation implies that the application of the Convention is made subject to a general reservation referring to existing legislation in the Lao People's Democratic Republic. The Government of Sweden is of the view that such a reservation, which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation, raises serious doubt as to the commitment of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to the object and purpose of the Convention.
According to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and considers the reservation null and void.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Sweden, without the Lao People's Democratic Republic benefiting from its reservation.”
26 October 2016
With regard to the reservations made by Fiji upon ratification:
“The Government of Sweden has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Republic of Fiji in relation to article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Republic of Fiji expresses that ‘[t]he Government of the Republic of Fiji does not recognize the definition of Torture as provided for in article 1 of the Convention therefore shall not be bound by these provisions. The definition of Torture in the Convention is only applicable to the extent as expressed in the Fijian Constitution’.
As regards the reservation to the definition of torture provided for in article 1 of the Convention, Sweden would like to state the following.
Reservations by which a State Party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by not considering itself bound by certain articles and by invoking general references to national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.
It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and the Republic of Fiji, without the Republic of Fiji benefitting from its aforementioned reservation.”