Home Page

Finland

With regard to the reservation to article 33 made by Oman upon accession:

       “… The Government of the Republic of Finland has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman to Article 33 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (hereinafter “the Convention”).

       The Government of the Republic of Finland notes that the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances under Article 33 of the Convention is not conditional upon general recognition by the State Party. The Government of the Republic of Finland considers that Committee visits provided for in Article 33 of the Convention form an essential part of the implementation of the Convention. A general exclusion of the Committee’s competence in case of suspicion of serious violation of the provisions of the Convention unduly restricts the Committee’s competence and casts doubts on the commitment of the Sultanate of Oman to the object and purpose of the Convention.

       The Government of the Republic of Finland thus considers that the above-mentioned reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and is accordingly not permitted under Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

       Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Finland objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman to Article 33 of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Finland and the Sultanate of Oman. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Sultanate of Oman benefitting from the aforementioned reservation.”

Germany

13 January 2021

With regard to the reservation made by Oman upon accession:

       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman on June 12, 2020 to Article 33 of the International Convention of December 20, 2006 for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (hereinafter referred to as “the International Convention”).

       (i) It notes that undertakings by the Committee on Enforced Disappearances (hereinafter referred to as the “the Committee”) under Article 33 of the International Convention are not conditional upon a general recognition of the Committee’s competence by the State party. Rather, its competence under that provision is related to the elucidation of allegations of serious violations of the Convention, based on reliable information received by the Committee. Article 33, paragraphs 2 and 4, clarify that the Committee may carry out the measures referred to in paragraph 1 only if it reaches agreement with the State Party concerned on a case-by-case basis.

       The Committee must also seek the consent of the State Party to take measures under Article 33, even if the State party has generally accepted the Committee’s competence under Articles 31 and 32. However, just as in the case of the conduct of measures under Article 34, the competence of the Committee under Article 33 cannot be excluded as a matter of principle.

       (ii) The reservation made by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman is inadmissible under article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties because it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. The object and purpose of the International Convention is to give the Committee, in cases of suspicion, based on reliable information, of a serious violation of the International Convention, the competence, with the consent of the State party to request on a case-by-case basis one or more members of the Committee to undertake a visit and to report to the Committee on the visit, in order to enable the Committee to communicate observations and recommendations to the State party concerned on the basis of the information obtained. By not recognizing the competence of the Committee, which is inherent in the International Convention, the Government of the Sultanate of Oman is unduly restricting the Committee’s competence, which exists as a matter of principle under Article 33 of the International Convention.

       (iii) The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the reservation to Article 33 of the International Convention.

Portugal

14 June 2021

Objection to the reservation made by Oman to Article 33 of the Convention upon accession:

       “The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman on 12 June 2020 to Article 33 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted in New York, on 20 December 2006 (henceforth referred to as “the Convention”).

       Firstly, the Government of the Portuguese Republic notes that a reservation through which a State Party generally excludes action by the Committee on Enforced Disappearances (henceforth referred to as “the Committee”) under Article 33 defies a systematic interpretation of the Convention.

       Articles 31 and 32 of the Convention provide for the cases where a State may declare to generally recognise the competence of the Committee for certain purposes. Conversely, possible action by the Committee under Article 33 of the Convention is not reliant on such a recognition of competence; on the contrary, it necessarily rests on a [case-by-case] assessment.

       Article 33 establishes procedures for the Committee to – subject to certain conditions and with a view to provide observations and recommendations – conduct a visit to a State Party if it receives reliable information indicating that said State Party is seriously violating the provisions of the Convention. Such possible action by the Committee is subject to cumulative conditions under Article 33:

       i) The Committee must have received reliable information indicating that a State Party is seriously violating the provisions of the Convention;

       ii) The Committee must consult the State Party concerned on that received information;

       iii) Only then, having decided to do so, may the Committee request one or more of its members to undertake a visit and report back to it without delay (i.e., it is not mandatory for the Committee to conduct the visit);

       iv) For that visit to take place, the State Party concerned needs to agree to it, having been prior[l]y notified by the Committee, in writing, of the intention to organize a visit, indicating the composition of the delegation and the purpose of the visit. The modalities of the visit are defined by the Committee and the State Party concerned.

       Consequently, even in the cases where a State Party has declared to accept the competence of the Committee in relation to Article 31 and/or Article 32 of the Convention, action by the Committee under Article 33 is still subject to those conditions, including the express consent by the State Party concerned.

       Secondly, the Government of the Portuguese Republic recalls that, according to customary international law codified under subparagraph c) of Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

       Possible action by the Committee under Article 33 is an essential mechanism to the protection of persons from enforced disappearance, as an important monitoring procedure of the Convention.

       The object and purpose of a treaty should be understood from a functional perspective, i.e., including not only the guiding principles and general objectives of the treaty, but also all the mechanisms and procedures established for the prosecution of said objectives.

       The object and purpose of the Convention is the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances and the Convention provides mechanisms and procedures – including the possible action by the Committee under Article 33 – aimed at preventing and mitigating violations of the rights and freedoms protected under the Convention.

       Thus, a reservation through which a State Party generally excludes action by the Committee under Article 33 as a matter of principle is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

       Article 33 establishes a possible (non-mandatory) monitoring procedure by the Committee in cases of reliably alleged serious violations of the Convention. That monitoring procedure entails visits of one or more member of the Committee to the State Party concerned, visits that are authorized on a case-by-case basis. Should a visit take place, its outcome are observations and recommendations by the Committee.

       In this regard, the Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that this reservation, insofar as seeks to generally exclude possible action by the Committee under Article 33 of the Convention, is inadmissible for being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

       Hence, the Government of the Portuguese Republic objects to this reservation.

       Notwithstanding, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Portuguese Republic and the Sultanate of Oman.”

Argentina

11 June 2008

Article 31

       In 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 32

       In 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.

       Article 32:

       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.

       Article 31:

       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.

Chile

Article 31

       The 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 32

       The 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.

Declaration under article 31:

       “The Republic of Croatia 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.”

Declaration under article 32:

       “The Republic of Croatia 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.”

Ecuador

Article 31

       In 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 32

       In 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

9 December 2008

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.

Japan

Article 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.”

Luxembourg

20 February 2023

Declaration under article 31:

       The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg declares, in accordance with article 31 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of persons subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg of the provisions of the Convention.

20 February 2023

Declaration under article 32:

       The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg declares, in accordance with article 32 of the 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.

Mexico

2 October 2020

Declaration under article 31:

       In accordance with the provisions of article 31 (1) of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the United Mexican States 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 of provisions of the Convention by the United Mexican States.

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.”

Article 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.”

Portugal

27 January 2014

Article 31

       “The Portuguese Republic declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances in accordance and for the purposes of Article 31, paragraph 1 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted in New York, on the Twentieth of December of two thousand and six.”

27 January 2014

Article 32

       “The Portuguese Republic declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearance[s] in accordance and for the purposes of Article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted in New York, on the Twentieth of December of two thousand and six.”

Declaration 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.”

Declaration under article 31:

       “In accordance with Article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, Republic of Slovenia declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee under the said Article to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction, claiming to be victims of violations by Republic of Slovenia of provisions of this Convention.”

Declaration under article 32:

       “In accordance with Article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, Republic of Slovenia declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee under the said Article to receive and consider communications in which a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.”

Sri Lanka

Declaration under article 32

       “… the Government [of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka] wishes to declare as per Article 32 of the 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”.

Ukraine

14 August 2015

       Article 31

       “Regarding Article 31 of the Convention, Ukraine 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 violation of provisions of the Convention by Ukraine.”

14 August 2015

       Article 32

       “Regarding Article 32 of the Convention, Ukraine 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.”