Afghanistan
Algeria13
Argentina
Understanding: The Argentine Government states that the application of the second part of article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall be subject to the principle laid down in article 18 of the Argentine National Constitution.
Australia14
Reservations: Article 10 "In relation to paragraph 2 (a) the principle of segregation is accepted as an objective to be achieved progressively. In relation to paragraph 2 (b) and 3 (second sentence) the obligation to segregate is accepted only to the extent that such segregation is considered by the responsible authorities to be beneficial to the juveniles or adults concerned". Article 14 "Australia makes the reservation that the provision of compensation for miscarriage of justice in the circumstances contemplated in paragraph 6 of article 14 may be by administrative procedures rather than pursuant to specific legal provision." Article 20 "Australia interprets the rights provided for by articles 19, 21 and 22 as consistent with article 20; accordingly, the Common wealth and the constituent States, having legislated with respect to the subject matter of the article in matters of practical concern in the interest of public order ( ordre public ), the right is reserved not to introduce any further legislative provision on these matters."
Declaration: "Australia has a federal constitutional system in which legislative, executive and judicial powers are shared or distributed between the Commonwealth and the constituent States. The implementation of the treaty throughout Australia will be effected by the Commonwealth, State and Territory authorities having regard to their respective constitutional powers and arrangements concerning their exercise."
Austria
Bahamas
Reservation “The Government of The Bahamas recognizes and accepts the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment contained in paragraph 6 of article 14, but the problems of implementation are such that the right not to apply that principle is presently reserved.”
Bahrain15
Reservation : "1. The Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain interprets the Provisions of Article 3, (18) and (23) as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah. 2. The Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain interprets the provisions of Article (9), Paragraph (5) as not detracting from its right to layout the basis and rules of obtaining the compensation mentioned in this Paragraph. 3. The Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain interprets Article (14) Paragraph (7) as no obligation arise from it further those set out in Article (10) of the Criminal Law of Bahrain which provides: ‘Legal Proceedings cannot be instated against a person who has been acquitted by Foreign Courts from offenses of which he is accused or a final judgement has been delivered against him and the said person fulfilled the punishment or the punishment has been abolished by prescription.' "
Bangladesh
Reservation: Article 14 “The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh reserveapply paragraph 3 (d) of Article 14 in view of the fact, that, while the existing laws of Bangladesh provide that, in the ordinary course a person, shall be entitled to be tried in his presence, it also provides for a trial to be held in his absence if he is a fugitive offender, or is a person, who being required to appear before a court, fails to present himself or to explain the reasons for non-appearance to the satisfaction of the court.”
Declarations: “Article 10: So far as the first part of paragraph 3 of Article 10 relating to reformation and social rehabilitation of prisoners is concerned, Bangladesh does not have any facility to this effect on account of financial constraints and for lack of proper logistics support. The last part of this paragraph relating to segregation of juvenile offenders from adults is a legal obligation under Bangladesh law and is followed accordingly. Article 11: Article 11 providing that “no one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation,” is generally in conformity with the Constitutional and legal provisions in Bangladesh, except in some very exceptional circumstances, where the law provides for civil imprisonment in case of willful default in complying with a decree. The Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh will apply this article in accordance with its existing municipal law. Article 14: So far as the provision of legal assistance in paragraph 3(d) of Article 14 is concerned, a person charged with criminal offences is statutorily entitled to legal assistance if he does not have the means to procure such assistance. The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, notwithstanding its acceptance of the principle of compensation for miscarriage of justice, as stipulated in Article 14, paragraph 6, is not in a position to guarantee a comprehensive implementation of this provision for the time being. However, the aggrieved has the right to realise compensation for miscarriage of justice by separate proceedings and in some cases, the court suo moto grants compensation to victims of miscarriage of justice. Bangladesh, however, intends to ensure full implementation of this provision in the near future.”
Barbados
Belarus16
Belgium17
Reservations: ... 2. The Belgian Government considers that the provision of article 10, paragraph 2 (a), under which accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons is to be interpreted in conformity with the principle, already embodied in the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners [resolution (73) 5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of 19 January 1973], that untried prisoners shall not be put in contact with convicted prisoners against their will [rules 7 (b) and 85 (1)]. If they so request, accused persons may be allowed to take part with convicted persons in certain communal activities. 3. The Belgian Government considers that the provisions of article 10, paragraph 3, under which juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status refers exclusively to the judicial measures provided for under the régime for the protection of minors established by the Belgian Act relating to the protection of young persons. As regards other juvenile ordinary-law of- fenders, the Belgian Government intends to reserve the option to adopt measures that may be more flexible and be designed precisely in the interest of the persons concerned. 4. With respect to article 14, the Belgian Government considers that the last part of paragraph 1 of the article appears to give States the option of providing or not providing for certain derogations from the principle that judgements shall be made public. Accordingly, the Belgian constitutional principle that there shall be no exceptions to the public pronouncements of judgements is in conformity with that provision. Paragraph 5 of the article shall not apply to persons who, under Belgian law, are convicted and sentenced at second instance following an appeal against their acquittal of first instance or who, under Belgian law, are brought directly before a higher tribunal sch as the Court of Cassation, the Appeals Court or the Assize Court. 5. Articles 19, 21 and 22 shall be applied by the Belgian Government in the context of the provisions and restrictions set forth or authorized in articles 10 and 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, by the said Convention.
Declarations: 6. The Belgian Government declares that it does not consider itself obligated to enact legislation in the field covered by article 20, paragraph 1, and that article 20 as a whole shall be applied taking into account the rights to freedom of thought and religion, freedom of opinion and freedom of assembly and association proclaimed in articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in articles 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant. 7. The Belgian Government declares that it interprets article 23, paragraph 2, as meaning that the right of persons of marriageable age to marry and to found a family presupposes not only that national law shall prescribe the marriageable age but that it may also regulate the exercise of that right.
Belize
Reservations: "(a) The Government of Belize reserves the right not to apply paragraph 2 of article 12 in view of the statutory provisions requiring persons intending to travel abroad to furnish tax clearance certificates; (b) The Government of Belize reserves the right not to apply in full the guarantee of free legal assistance in accordance with paragraph 3 (d) of article 14, since, while it accepts the principle contained in that paragraph and at present applies it in certain defined cases, the problems of implementation are such that full application cannot be guaranteed at present; (c) The Government of Belize recognizes and accepts the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment contained in paragraph 6 of article 14, but the problems of implementation are such that the right not to apply that principle is presently reserved."
Botswana18
Reservations made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: “The Government of the Republic of Botswana considers itself bound by: a) Article 7 of the Covenant to the extent that “torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” means torture inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment prohibited by Section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana. b) Article 12 paragraph 3 of the Covenant to the extent that the provisions are compatible with Section 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana relating to the imposition of restrictions reasonably required in certain exceptional instances.”
Bulgaria
Congo
Reservation: The Government of the People's Republic of Congo declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 11 [...] Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is quite incompatible with articles 386 et seq . of the Congolese Code of Civil, Commercial, Administrative and Financial Procedure, derived from Act 51/83 of 21 April 1983. Under those provisions, in matters of private law, decisions or orders emanating from conciliation proceedings may be enforced through imprisonment for debt when other means of enforcement have failed, when the amount due exceeds 20,000 CFA francs and when the debtor, between 18 and 60 years of age, makes himself insolvent in bad faith.
Cuba
Declaration: The Republic of Cuba hereby declares that it was the Revolution that enabled its people to enjoy the rights set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America and its policy of hostility and aggression against Cuba constitute the most serious obstacle to the Cuban people's enjoyment of the rights set out in the Covenant. The rights protected under this Covenant are enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic and in national legislation. The State's policies and programmes guarantee the effective exercise and protection of these rights for all Cubans. With respect to the scope and implementation of some of the provisions of this international instrument, Cuba will make such reservations or interpretative declarations as it may deem appropriate.
Czech Republic7
Denmark19
2 April 2014
Egypt
Finland20
Reservations: "With respect to article 10, paragraph 2 (b) and 3, of the Covenant, Finland declares that although juvenile offenders are, as a rule, segregated from adults, it does not deem appropriate to adopt an absolute prohibition not allowing for more flexible arrangements; With respect to article 14, paragraph 7, of the Covenant, Fin- land declares that it is going to pursue its present practice, according to which a sentence can be changed to the detriment of the convicted person, if it is established that a member or an official of the court, the prosecutor or the legal counsel have through criminal or fraudulent activities obtained the acquittal of the defendant or a substantially more lenient penalty, or if false evidence has been presented with the same effect, and according to which an aggravated criminal case may be taken up for reconsideration if within a year until then unknown evidence is presented, which would have led to conviction or a substantially more severe penalty; With respect to article 20, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, Fin- land declares that it will not apply the provisions of this paragraph, this being compatible with the standpoint Finland already expressed at the 16th United Nations General Assembly by voting against the prohibition of propaganda for war, on the grounds that this might endanger the freedom of expression referred in article 19 of the Covenant."
France21,22
Declarations and reservations: (1) The Government of the Republic considers that, in accordance with Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations, in case of conflict between its obligations under the Covenant and its obligations under the Charter (especially Articles 1 and 2 thereof), its obligations under the Charter will prevail. (2) The Government of the Republic enters the following reservation concerning article 4, paragraph 1: firstly, the circumstances enumerated in article 16 of the Constitution in respect of its implementation, in article 1 of the Act of 3 April 1978 and in the Act of 9 August 1849 in respect of the declaration of a state of siege, in article 1 of Act No. 55-385 of 3 April 1955 in respect of the declaration of a state of emergency and which enable these instruments to be implemented, are to be understood as meeting the purpose of article 4 of the Covenant; and, secondly, for the purpose of interpreting and implementing article 16 of the Constitution of the French Republic, the terms "to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation" cannot limit the power of the President of the Republic to take "the measures required by circumstances". (3) The Government of the Republic enters a reservation concerning articles 9 and 14 to the effect that these articles cannot impede enforcement of the rules pertaining to the disciplinary régime in the armies. (4) The Government of the Republic declares that article 13 cannot derogate from chapter IV of Order No. 45-2658 of 2 November 1945 concerning the entry into, and sojourn in, France of aliens, nor from the other instruments concerning the expulsion of aliens in force in those parts of the territory of the Republic in which the Order of 2 November 1945 does not apply. (5) The Government of the Republic interprets article 14, paragraph 5, as stating a general principle to which the law may make limited exceptions, for example, in the case of certain offences subject to the initial and final adjudication of a police court. However, an appeal against a final decision may be made to the Court of Cassation which rules on the legality of the decision concerned. (6) The Government of the Republic declares that articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant will be implemented in accordance with articles 10, 11 and16 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950. (7) The Government of the Republic declares that the term "war", appearing in article 20, paragraph1, is to be understood to mean war in contravention of international law and considers, in any case, that French legislation in this matter is adequate. (8) In the light of article 2 of the Constitution of the French Republic, the French Government declares that article 27 is not applicable so far as the Republic is concerned.
Gambia
Germany10,23
Guinea
Guyana
In respect of sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 3 of article 14 "While the Government of the Republic of Guyana accept the principle of Legal Aid in all appropriate criminal proceedings, is working towards that end and at present apply it in certain defined cases, the problems of implementation of a comprehensive Legal Aid Scheme are such that full application cannot be guaranteed at this time."
In respect of paragraph 6 of article 14 "While the Government of the Republic of Guyana accept the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment, it is not possible at this time to implement such a principle."
Hungary
Iceland24,25
The ratification is accompanied by reservations with respect to the following provisions: 1. ... 2. Article 10, paragraph 2 (b), and paragraph 3, second sentence, with respect to the separation of juvenile prisoners from adults. Icelandic law in principle provides for such separation but it is not considered appropriate to accept an obligation in the absolute form called for in the provisions of the Covenant. 3. ... 4. Article 14, paragraph 7, with respect to the resumption of cases which have already been tried. The Icelandic law of procedure has detailed provisions on this matter which it is not considered appropriate to revise. 5. Article 20, paragraph 1, with reference to the fact that a prohibition against propaganda for war could limit the freedom of expression. This reservation is consistent with the position of Iceland at the General Assembly at its 16th session. Other provisions of the Covenant shall be inviolably observed.
India
Indonesia
Declaration: "With reference to Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that, consistent with the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, and the relevant paragraph of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action of 1993, the words "the right of self-determination" appearing in this article do not apply to a section of people within a sovereign independent state and can not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states."
Iraq
Ireland26,27
Article 10, paragraph 2 Ireland accepts the principles referred to in paragraph 2 of article 10 and implements them as far as practically possible. It reserves the right to regard full implementation of these principles as objectives to be achieved progressively. ...
Article 20, paragraph 1 Ireland accepts the principle in paragraph 1 of article 20 and implements it as far as it is practicable. Having regard to the difficulties in formulating a specific offence capable of adjudication at a national level in such a form as to reflect the general principles of law recognised by the community of nations as well as the right to freedom of expression, Ireland reserves the right to postpone consideration of the possibility of introducing some legislative addition to, or variation of, existing law until such time as it may consider that such is necessary for the attainment of the objective of paragraph 1 of article 20.
Israel
Reservation: "With reference to Article 23 of the Covenant, and any other provision thereof to which the present reservation may be relevant, matters of personal status are governed in Israel by the religious law of the parties concerned. "To the extent that such law is inconsistent with its obligations under the Covenant, Israel reserves the right to apply that law."
Italy28
Article 15, paragraph 1 With reference to article 15, paragraph 1, last sentence: "If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby", the Italian Republic deems this provision to apply exclusively to cases in progress. Consequently, a person who has already been convicted by a final decision shall not benefit from any provision made by law, subsequent to that decision, for the imposition of a lighter penalty.
Article 19, paragraph 3 The provisions of article 19, paragraph 3, are interpreted as being compatible with the existing licensing system for national radio and television and with the restrictions laid down by law for local radio and television companies and for stations relaying foreign programmes.
Japan
Kuwait29
Lao People's Democratic Republic30
Reservation: “The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic accepts Article 22 of the Covenant on the basis that Article 22 shall be interpreted in accordance with the right to selfdetermination in Article 1, and shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Constitution and the relevant laws of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.”
Declarations: “The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic declares that Article 1 of the Covenant concerning the right to self-determination shall be interpreted as being compatible with the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted by the General Assembly on 24th October 1970, and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights on 25th June 1993. The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic declares that Article 18 of the Covenant shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any activities, including economic means, by anyone which directly or indirectly, coerce or compel an individual to believe or not to believe in a religion or to convert his or her religion or belief. The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic considers that all acts creating division and discrimination among ethnic groups and among religions are incompatible with Article 18 of the Covenant.”
Libya
Liechtenstein31
Declarations concerning article 3: “The Principality of Liechtenstein declares that it does not interpret the provisions of article 3 of the Covenant as constituting an impediment to the constitutional rules on the hereditary succession to the throne of the Reigning Prince.”
Reservation concerning article 14 (1): “The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to apply the provisions of article 14, paragraph 1 of the Covenant, concerning the principle that hearings must be held and judgments pronounced in public, only within the limits deriving from the principles at present embodied in the Liechtenstein legislation on legal proceedings.”
Reservation concerning article 17 (1): “The Principality of Liechtenstein makes the reservation that the right to respect for family life, as guaranteed by article 17, paragraph 1 of the Covenant, shall be exercised, with regard to aliens, in accordance with the principles at present embodied in the legislation on aliens.” ...
Reservation concerning article 26: “The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to guarantee the rights contained in article 26 of the Covenant concerning the equality of all persons before the law and their entitlement without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law only in connection with other rights contained in the present Covenant.”
Luxembourg
1 December 2004*
Maldives32
Reservation: "The application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives."
Malta
Reservations: "1. Article 13 - The Government of Malta endorses the principles laid down in article 13. However, in the present circumstances it cannot comply entirely with the provisions of this article; 2. Article 14 (2) - The Government of Malta declares that it interprets paragraph 2 of article 14 of the Covenant in the sense that it does not preclude any particular law from imposing upon any person charged under such law the burden of proving particular facts; 3. Article 14 (6) - While the Government of Malta accepts the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment, it is not possible at this time to implement such a principle in accordance with article 14, paragraph 6, of the Covenant; 4. Article 19 - The Government of Malta desiring to avoid any uncertainty as regards the application of article 19 of the Covenant declares that the Constitution of Malta allow such restrictions to be imposed upon public officers in regard to their freedom of expression as are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. The code of Conduct of public officers in Malta precludes them from taking an active part in political discussions or other political activity during working hours or on the premises. "The Government of Malta also reserves the right not to apply article 19 to the extent that this may be fully compatible with Act 1 of 1987 entitled "An act to regulate the limitations on the political activities of aliens", and this in accordance with Article 16 of the Convention of Rome (1950) for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or with Section 41 (2) (a) (ii) of the Constitution of Malta; "5. Article 20 - The Government of Malta interprets article 20 consistently with the rights conferred by Articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant but reserves the right not to introduce any legislation for the purposes of article 20; "6. Article 22 - the Government of Malta reserves the right not to apply article 22 to the extent that existing legislive measures may not be fully compatible with this article.
Mauritania
Reservations: Article 18 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. 3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. The Mauritanian Government, while accepting the provisions set out in article 18 concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion, declares that their application shall be without prejudice to the Islamic Shariah. Article 23, paragraph 4 States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children. The Mauritanian Government interprets the provisions of article 23, paragraph 4, on the rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah.
Mexico33
Interpretative statements: Article 9, paragraph 5 Under the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and the relevant implementing legislation, every individual enjoys the guarantees relating to penal matters embodied therein, and consequently no person may be unlawfully arrested or detained. However, if by reason of false accusation or complaint any individual suffers an infringement of this basic right, he has, inter alia , under the provisions of the appropriate laws, an enforceable right to just compensation. Article 18 Under the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, every person is free to profess his preferred religious belief and to practice its ceremonies, rites and religious acts, with the limitation, with regard to public religious acts, that they must be performed in places of worship and, with regard to education, that studies carried out in establishments designed for the professional education of ministers of religion are not officially recognized. The Government of Mexico believes that these limitations are included among those established in paragraph 3 of this article.
Reservations: Article 25, subparagraph (b) The Government of Mexico also makes a reservation to this provision, since article 130 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States provides that ministers of religion shall have neither a passive vote nor the right to form associations for political purposes.
Monaco
Interpretative declarations and reservations made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: The Government of Monaco declares that it does not interpret the provisions of article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2, and articles 3 and 25 as constituting an impediment to the constitutional rules on the devolution of the Crown, according to which succession to the Throne shall take place within the direct legitimate line of the Reigning Prince, in order of birth, with priority being given to male descendants within the same degree of relationship, or of those concerning the exercise of the functions of the Regency. The Princely Government declares that the implementation of the principle set forth in article 13 shall not affect the texts in force on the entry and stay of foreigners in the Principality or of those on the expulsion of foreigners from Monegasque territory. The Princely Government interprets article 14, paragraph 5, as embodying a general principle to which the law can introduce limited exceptions. This is particularly true with respect to certain offences that, in the first and last instances, are under the jurisdiction of the police court, and with respect to offences of a criminal nature. Furthermore, verdicts in the last instance can be appealed before the Court of Judicial Review, which shall rule on their legality. The Princely Government declares that it considers article 19 to be compatible with the existing system of monopoly and authorization applicable to radio and television corporations. The Princely Government, recalling that the exercise of the rights and freedoms set forth in articles 21 and 22 entails duties and responsibilities, declares that it interprets these articles as not prohibiting the application of requirements, conditions, restrictions or penalties which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society to national security, territorial integrity or public safety, the defence of order and the prevenion or crime, the protection of health or morals, and the protection of the reputation of others, or in order to prevent the disclosure of confidential information or to guarantee the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. The Princely Government formulates a reservation concerning article 25, which shall not impede the application of article 25 of the Constitution and of Order No. 1730 of 7 May 1935 on public employment. Article 26, together with article 2, paragraph 1, and article 25, is interpreted as not excluding the distinction in treatment between Monegasque and foreign nationals permitted under article 1, paragraph 2, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, taking into account the distinctions established in articles 25 and 32 of the Monegasque Constitution.
Mongolia
Netherlands (Kingdom of the)34
Reservations: "Article 10 "The Kingdom of the Netherlands subscribes to the principle set out in paragraph 1 of this article, but it takes the view that ideas about the treatment of prisoners are so liable to change that it does not wish to be bound by the obligations set out in paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 (second sentence) of this article. "Article 12, paragraph 1 "The Kingdom of the Netherlands regards the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles as separate territories of a State for the purpose of this provision. "Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 4 "The Kingdom of the Netherlands regards the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles as separate countries for the purpose of these provisions. "Article 14, paragraph 3 (d) "The Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves the statutory option of removing a person charged with a criminal offence from the court room in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings. "Article 14, paragraph 5 "The Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves the statutory power of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands to have sole jurisdiction to try certain categories of persons charged with serious offences committed in the discharge of a public office. "Article 14, paragraph 7 "The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts this provision only insofar as no obligations arise from it further to those set out in article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Netherlands and article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Netherlands Antilles as they now apply. They read: "1. Except in cases where court decisions are eligible for review, no person may be prosecuted again for an offence in respect of which a court in the Netherlands or the Netherlands Antilles has delivered an irrevocable judgement. "2. If the judgement has been delivered by some other court, the same person may not be prosecuted for the same of fence in the case of (I) acquittal or withdrawal of proceeding or (II) conviction followed by complete execution, remission or lapse of the sentence. "Article 19, paragraph 2 "The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provision with the proviso that it shall not prevent the Kingdom from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. "Article 20, paragraph 1 "The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the obligation set out in this provision in the case of the Netherlands." "[The Kingdom of the Netherlands] clarify that although the reservations [...] are partly of an interpretational nature, [it] has preferred reservations to interpretational declarations in all cases, since if the latter form were used doubt might arise concerning whether the text of the Covenant allows for the interpretation put upon it. By using the reservation form the Kingdom of the Netherlands wishes to ensure in all cases that the relevant obligations arising out of the Covenant will not apply to the Kingdom, or will apply only in the way indicated.11 October 2010Declaration: "...The Kingdom of the Netherlands, consisting, as per 10 October 2010, of the European part of the Netherlands, the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba), Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, regards these parts as separate territories for the purpose of Article 12, paragraph 1, and as separate countries for the purpose of Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 4, of the Covenant."
11 October 2010
Declaration: "...The Kingdom of the Netherlands, consisting, as per 10 October 2010, of the European part of the Netherlands, the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba), Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, regards these parts as separate territories for the purpose of Article 12, paragraph 1, and as separate countries for the purpose of Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 4, of the Covenant."
New Zealand
Reservations: "The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply article 10 (2) (b) or article 10 (3) in circumstances where the shortage of suitable facilities makes the mixing of juveniles and adults unavoidable; and further reserves the right not to apply article 10 (3) where the interests of other juveniles in an establishment require the removal of a particular juvenile offender or where mixing is considered to be of benefit to the persons concerned. "The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply article 14 (6) to the extent that it is not satisfied by the existing system for ex gratia payments to persons who suffer as a result of a miscarriage of justice. "The Government of New Zealand having legislated in the areas of the advocacy of national and racial hatred and the exciting of hostility or ill will against any group of persons, and having regard to the right of freedom of speech, reserves the right not to introduce further legislation with regard to article 20. "The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply article 22 as it relates to trade unions to the extent that existing legislative measures, enacted to ensure effective trade union representation and encourage orderly industrial relations, may not be fully compatible with that article."
Norway35
19 September 1995
Pakistan36
Upon signature Reservation: “The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to attach appropriate reservations, make declarations and state its understanding in respect of various provisions of the Covenant at the time of ratification.”
Qatar37
Reservations upon accession: The State of Qatar does not consider itself bound by the following provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the below mentioned reasons: 1. Article 3 with regard to provisions related to the inheritance of power, for it contravenes the provisions of article 8 of the Constitution. 2. Article 23.4, for it contravenes the Islamic Sharia.
Statements upon accession: 1. The State of Qatar shall interpret the term “punishment” in Article 7 of the Covenant in accordance with the applicable legislation of Qatar and the Islamic Sharia. 2. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Covenant based on the understanding that it does not contravene the Islamic Sharia. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such paragraph in accordance with such understanding. 3. The State of Qatar shall interpret that the term “trade unions” and all related matters, as mentioned in Article 22 of the Covenant, are in line with the Labor Law and national legislation. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such article in accordance with such understanding. 4. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant in a manner that does not contravene the Islamic Sharia. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such paragraph in accordance with such understanding. 5. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 27 of the Covenant that professing and practicing one's own religion require that they do not violate the rules of public order and public morals, the protection of public safe[t]y and public health, or the rights of and basic freedoms of others.
Republic of Korea38
Reservation: The Government of the Republic of Korea [declares] that the provisions of [...], article 22 [...] of the Covenant shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the provisions of the local laws including the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.
Romania
Russian Federation
Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which a number of States cannot become parties to these Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature and considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States concerned without any discrimination or limitation.
Samoa
Slovakia7
Sweden
Reservations: Sweden reserves the right not to apply the provisions of article 10, paragraph 3, with regard to the obligation to segregate juvenile offenders from adults, the provisions of article 14, paragraph 7, and the provisions of article 20, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
Switzerland39
Reservations: ... (b) Reservation concerning article 12, paragraph 1: The right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose one's residence is applicable, subject to the federal laws on aliens, which provide that residence and establisment permits shall be valid only for the canton which issues them. ... (f) Reservation concerning article 20: Switzerland reserves the right not to adopt further measures to ban propaganda for war, which is prohibited by article 20, paragraph 1. ... (g) Reservation concerning article 25, subparagraph (b): The present provision shall be applied without prejudice to the cantonal and communal laws, which provide for or permit elections within assemblies to be held by a means other than secret ballot. (h) Reservation concerning article 26: The equality of all persons before the law and their entitlement without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law shall be guaranteed only in connection with other rights contained in the present Covenant.
Syrian Arab Republic
Thailand40
Interpretative declarations: "The Government of Thailand declares that: 1. The term "self-determination" as appears in article 1, paragraph 1, of the Covenant shall be interpreted as being compatible with that expressed in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights on 25 June 1993. 2. [Withdrawn] 3. [Withdrawn] 4. With respect to article 20 of the Covenant, the term "war" appearing in paragraph 1 is understood by Thailand to mean war in contravention of international law."
Trinidad and Tobago41
Türkiye
Declarations and reservation: The Republic of Turkey declares that; it will implement its obligations under the Covenant in accordance to the obligations under the Charter of the United Nations (especially Article 1 and 2 thereof). The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of this Covenant only to the States with which it has diplomatic relations. The Republic of Turkey declares that this Convention is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. The Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes.
Ukraine
Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic declares that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which a number of States cannot become parties to these Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature and considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States concerned without any discrimination or limitation.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland42
Upon signature: "First, the Government of the United Kingdom declare their understanding that, by virtue of Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations, in the event of any conflict between their obligations under Article 1 of the Covenant and their obligations under the Charter (in particular, under Articles 1, 2 and 73 thereof) their obligations under the Charter shall prevail. "Secondly, the Government of the United Kingdom declare that: "(a) In relation to Article 14 of the Covenant, they must reserve the right not to apply, or not to apply in full, the guarantee of free legal assistance contained in sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 3 in so far as the shortage of legal practitioners and other considerations render the application of this guarantee in British Honduras, Fiji and St. Helena impossible; "(b) In relation to Article 23 of the Covenant, they must reserve the right not to apply the first sentence of paragraph 4 in so far as it concerns any inequality which may arise from the operation of the law of domicile; "(c) In relation to Article 25 of the Covenant, they must reserve the right not to apply: "(i) Sub-paragraph (b) in so far as it may require the establishment of an elected legislature in Hong Kong and the introduction of equal suffrage, as between different electoral rolls, for elections in Fiji; and "(ii) Sub-paragraph (c) in so far as it applies to jury service in the Isle of Man and to the employment of married women in the Civil Service of Northern Ireland, Fiji, and Hong Kong. "Lastly, the Government of the United Kingdom declare that the provisions of the Covenant shall not apply to Southern Rhodesia unless and until they inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they are in a position to ensure that the obligations imposed by the Covenant in respect of that territory can be fully implemented."
Upon ratification: "Firstly the Government of the United Kingdom maintain their declaration in respect of article 1 made at the time of signature of the Covenant. "The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to apply to members of and persons serving with the armed forces of the Crown and to persons lawfully detained in penal establishments of whatever character such laws and procedures as they may from time to time deem to be necessary for the preservation of service and custodial discipline and their acceptance of the provisions of the Covenant is subject to such restrictions as may for these purposes from time to time be authorised by law. "Where at any time there is a lack of suitable prison facilities or where the mixing of adults and juveniles is deemed to be mutually beneficial, the Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply article 10 (2) (b) and 10 (3), so far as those provisions require juveniles who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults, and not to apply article 10 (2) (a) in Gibraltar, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands in so far as it requires segregation of accused and convicted persons. "The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to interpret the provisions of article 12 (1) relating to the territory of a State as applying separately to each of the territories comprising the United Kingdom and its dependencies. "The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to continue to apply such immigration legislation governing entry into, stay in and departure from the United Kingdom as they may deem necessary from time to time and, accordingly, their acceptance of article 12 (4) and of the other provisions of the Covenant is subject to the provisions of any such legislation as regards persons not at the time having the right under the law of the United Kingdom to enter and remain in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom also reserves a similar right in regard to each of its dependent territories. "The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply article 13 in Hong Kong in so far as it confers a right of review of a decision to deport an alien and a right to be represented for this purpose before the competent authority. "The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply or not to apply in full the guarantee of free legal assistance in sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 3 of article 14 in so far as the shortage of legal practitioners renders the application of this guarantee impossible in the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, the Gilbert Islands, the Pitcairn Islands Group, St. Helena and Dependencies and Tuvalu. "The Government of the United Kingdom interpret article 20 consistently with the rights conferred by articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant and having legislated in matters of practical concern in the interests of public order (ordre public) reserve the right not to introduce any further legislation. The United Kingdom also reserve a similar right in regard to each of its dependent territories. "The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to postpone the application of paragraph 3 of article 23 in regard to a small number of customary marriages in the Solomon Islands. "The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to enact such nationality legislation as they may deem necessary from time to time to reserve the acquisition and possession of citizenship under such legislation to those having sufficient connection with the United Kingdom or any of its dependent territories and accordingly their acceptance of article 24 (3) and of the other provisions of the Covenant is subject to the provisions of any such legislation. "The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply sub-paragraph (b) of article 25 in so far as it may require the establishment of an elected Executive or Legislative Council in Hong Kong [...]. "Lastly, the Government ofhe United Kingdom declare that the provisions of the Covenant shall not apply to Southern Rhodesia unless and until they inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they are in a position to ensure that the obligations imposed by the Covenant in respect of that territory can be fully implemented."
United States of America
Reservations: "(1) That article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. "(2) That the United States reserves the right, subject to its Constitutional constraints, to impose capital punishment on any person (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing or future laws permitting the imposition of capital punishment, including such punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age. "(3) That the United States considers itself bound by article 7 to the extent that `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel and unusual treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. "(4) That because U.S. law generally applies to an offender the penalty in force at the time the offence was committed, the United States does not adhere to the third clause of paragraph 1 of article 15. "(5) That the policy and practice of the United States are generally in compliance with and supportive of the Covenant's provisions regarding treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, the United States reserves the right, in exceptional circumstances, to treat juveniles as adults, notwithstanding paragraphs 2 (b) and 3 of article 10 and paragraph 4 of article 14. The United States further reserves to these provisions with respect to States with respect to individuals who volunteer for military service prior to age 18."
Understandings: "(1) That the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee all persons equal protection of the law and provide extensive protections against discrimination. The United States understands distinctions based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or any other status - as those terms are used in article 2, paragraph 1 and article 26 - to be permitted when such distinctions are, at minimum, rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. The United States further understands the prohibition in paragraph 1 of article 4 upon discrimination, in time of public emergency, based `solely' on the status of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin, not to bar distinctions that may have a disproportionate effect upon persons of a particular status. "(2) That the United States understands the right to compensation referred to in articles 9 (5) and 14 (6) to require the provision of effective and enforceable mechanisms by which a victim of an unlawful arrest or detention or a miscarriage of justice may seek and, where justified, obtain compensation from either the responsible individual or the appropriate governmental entity. Entitlement to compensation may be subject to the reasonable requirements of domestic law. "(3) That the United States understands the reference to `exceptional circumstances' in paragraph 2 (a) of article 10 to permit the imprisonment of an accused person with convicted persons where appropriate in light of an individual's overall dangerousness, and to permit accused persons to waive their right to segregation from convicted persons. The United States further understands that paragraph 3 of article 10 does not diminish the goals of punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation as additional legitimate purposes for a penitentiary system. "(4) That the United States understands that subparagraphs 3 (b) and (d) of article 14 do not require the provision of a criminal defendant's counsel of choice when the defendant is provided with court-appointed counsel on grounds of indigence, when the defendant is financially able to retain alternative counsel, or when imprisonment is not imposed. The United States further understands that paragraph 3 (e) does not prohibit a requirement that the defendant make a showing that any witness whose attendance he seeks to compel is necessary for his defense. The United States understands the prohibition upon double jeopardy in paragraph 7 to apply only when the judgment of acquittal has been rendered by a court of the same governmental unit, whether the Federal Government or a constituent unit, as is seeking a new trial for the same cause. "(5) That the United States understands that this Covenant shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the state or local governments may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of the Covenant."
Declarations: "(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing. "(2) That it is the view of the United States that States Party to the Covenant should wherever possible refrain from imposing any restrictions or limitations on the exercise of the rights recognized and protected by the Covenant, even when such restrictions and limitations are permissible under the terms of the Covenant. For the United States, article 5, paragraph 2, which provides that fundamental human rights existing in any State Party may not be diminished on the pretext that the Covenant recognizes them to a lesser extent, has particular relevance to article 19, paragraph 3 which would permit certain restrictions on the freedom of expression. The United States declares that it will continue to adhere to the requirements and constraints of its Constitution in respect to all such restrictions and limitations. "(3) That the United States declares that the right referred to in article 47 may be exercised only in accordance with international law."
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)43
Viet Nam
Yemen44
Australia
18 September 2007
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession : "The Government of Australia considers that the reservation with respect to article 18 of the Covenant is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Australia recalls 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 is not permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party 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. Furthermore, the Government of Australia considers that the Republic of Maldives, through this reservation, is purporting to make the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights subject to the provisions of constitutional law in force in the Republic of Maldives. As a result, it is unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Republic of Maldives to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Australia considers that the reservation with respect to article 18 of the Covenant is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation, pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Further, the Government of Australia recalls that according to article 4 (2) of the Covenant, no derogation of article 18 is permitted. For the above reasons, the Government of Australia objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and expresses the hope that the Republic of Maldives will soon be able to withdraw its reservation in light of the ongoing process of a revision of the Maldivian Constitution. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Australia and the Republic of Maldives."
28 June 2011
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of Australia has examined the reservation made by The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and now hereby objects to the same for and on behalf of Australia: The Government of Australia considers that the reservations by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are incompatible with the object and purpose of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant). The Government of Australia recalls 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 is not permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party 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. Furthermore, the Government of Australia considers that The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, through its reservations, is purporting to make the application of the Covenant subject to the provisions of general domestic law in force in The Islamic Republic of Pakistan. As a result, it is unclear to what extent The Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Australia considers that the reservations to the Covenant are subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation, pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of the Lawof Treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Further, the Government of Australia recalls that according to article 4 (2) of the Covenant, no derogation of article 18 is permitted. For the above reasons, the Government of Australia objects to the aforesaid reservations made by The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Covenant and expresses the hope that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will withdraw its reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Australia and The Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of Austria has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006 in respect of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Austria is of the opinion that reservations which consist in a general reference to a system of norms (like the constitution of the legal order of the reserving State) without specifying the contents thereof leave it uncertain to which extent that State accepts to be bound by the obligations under the treaty. Moreover, those norms may be subject to changes. The reservation made by the Republic of Maldives is therefore not sufficiently precise to make it possible to determine the restrictions that are introduced into the agreement. The Government of Austria is therefore of the opinion that the reservation is capable of contravening the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Austria therefore regards the above-mentioned reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Maldives."
13 October 2010
With regard to the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification: “The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights at the time of its ratification. In the view of Austria a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. A reservation which consists of a general reference to constitutional provisions without specifying its implications does not do so. The Government of Austria therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Austria and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.”
24 June 2011
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of Austria has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Government of Austria considers that in aiming to exclude the application of those provisions of the Covenant which are deemed incompatible with the Constitution of Pakistan, Sharia laws and certain national laws, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has made reservations of general and indeterminate scope. These reservations do not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. The Government of Austria therefore considers the reservations of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19; further to Articles 12, 13 and 25 incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to them. Austria further considers that the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant has a pivotal role in the implementation of the Covenant. The exclusion of the competence of the Committee is not provided for in the Covenant and in Austria’s views incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Austria therefore objects to this reservation. These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Austria and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”
16 May 2019
With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: “The Government of Austria has carefully examined the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Austria considers statements 1, 2, 3 and 4 to amount to reservations as they aim at applying provisions of the Covenant only in conformity with national legislation or the Islamic sharia. However, the Covenant is to be applied in accordance with international law, not only in accordance with the legislation of a particular state. By referring to its national legislation or to the Islamic sharia, Qatar’s reservations to Articles 7, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 23.4 of the Covenant are of a general and indeterminate scope. These reservations do not clearly define for the other States Parties the extent to which the reserving state has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. Furthermore, the reservation to Article 23.4 contravenes Article 3 of the Covenant, one of its most central provisions. Austria therefore considers the reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to them. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Austria and the State of Qatar. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without Qatar benefitting from the aforementioned reservations.”
Belgium
6 November 1984
5 October 1993
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: Belgium has carefully examined the reservations made by Pakistan upon accession on 23 June 2010 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The vagueness and general nature of the reservations made by Pakistan with respect to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may contribute to undermining the bases of international human rights treaties. The reservations make the implementation of the Covenant’s provisions contingent upon their compatibility with the Islamic Sharia and/or legislation in force in Pakistan. This creates uncertainty as to which of its obligations under the Covenant Pakistan intends to observe and raises doubts as to Pakistan’s respect for the object and purpose of the Covenant. As to the reservation made with respect to Article 40, Belgium emphasizes that the object and purpose of the Covenant are not only to confer rights upon individuals, thereby imposing corresponding obligations on States, but also to establish an effective mechanism for monitoring obligations under the Covenant. It is in the common interest for all parties to respect the treaties to which they have acceded and for States to be willing to enact such legislative amendments as may be necessary in order to fulfil their treaty obligations. Belgium also notes that the reservations concern a fundamental provision of the Covenant. Consequently, Belgium considers the reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Belgium notes that under 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 is not permitted (article 19 (c)). Furthermore, under Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Consequently, Belgium objects to the reservations formulated by Pakistan with respect to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Belgium and Pakistan.
21 May 2019
With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: The Kingdom of Belgium has carefully examined the reservations and declarations made by the State of Qatar upon its accession, on 21 May 2018, to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Reservations to articles 3 and 23 (4), as well as declarations 1 to 4 relating to articles 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (2), makes the provisions of the Covenant subject to their compatibility with Sharia or with the national legislation. The Kingdom of Belgium considers that these reservations and declarations tend to limit the responsibility of the State of Qatar under the Covenant by means of a general reference to the rules of national law and Sharia Law. This creates an uncertainty as to the extent to which the State of Qatar intends to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant and raises doubts about the State of Qatar's compliance with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Kingdom of Belgium recalls that under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, a State cannot make a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty. Moreover, article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties stipulates that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justifying the non-fulfilment of a treaty. Accordingly, the Kingdom of Belgium objects to the reservations made by the State of Qatar with regard to articles 3 and 23 (4) and to the declarations made by it in respect of articles 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Kingdom of Belgium specifies that this objection does not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights between the Kingdom of Belgium and the State of Qatar.
Canada
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of Canada has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Maldives upon acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with which the "application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives". The Government of Canada considers that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law constitutes, in reality, a reservation with a general, indeterminate scope, such that it makes it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant, which it purports to introduce and it does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. The Government of Canada notes that the reservation made by the Government of the Maldives which addresses one of the most essential provisions of the Covenant, to which no derogation is allowed according to article 4 of the Covenant, is in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Maldives. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Canada and the Maldives."
27 June 2011
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of Canada has carefully examined the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which declare that: “the provisions of Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws”; “the provisions of Article 12 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan”; “With respect to Article 13, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners”; “the provisions of Article 25 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan”; and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan “does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant”. The Government of Canada considers that reservations which consist of a general reference to national law or to the prescriptions of the Islamic Sharia constitute, in reality, reservations with a general, indeterminate scope. This makes it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant that each reservation purports to introduce and impossible for the other States Parties to the Covenant to know the extent to which Pakistan has accepted the obligations of the Covenant, an uncertainty which is unacceptable, especially in the context of treaties related to human rights. The Government of Canada further considers that the competence of the Committee to receive, study and comment on the reports submitted by States Parties as provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant is essential to the implementation of the Covenant. Through its function and its activity, the Human Rights Committee plays an essential role in monitoring the fulfillment of the obligations of the States Parties to the Convention. Participation in the reporting mechanism outlined in Article 40, which is aimed at encouraging more effective implementation by States Parties of their treaty obligations, is standard practice of States Parties to the Covenant. The Government of Canada notes that the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, addressing many of the most essential provisions of the Covenant, and aiming to exclude the obligations under those provisions, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and thus inadmissible under Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In addition, Articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant are among the provisions from which no derogation is allowed, according to Article 4 of the Covenant. The Government of Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Canada and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”
With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: “The Government of Canada has carefully examined the reservations and declarations made by the Government of Qatar upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Canada considers that reservations consisting of a general reference to national law or to the prescriptions of the Islamic Sharia constitute. in reality reservations with a general, indeterminate scope. This makes it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant that the reservation purports to introduce. With such a reservation, the other States Parties to the Covenant do not know the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. This uncertainty is unacceptable, especially in the context of treaties related to human rights. The Government of Canada notes that the reservations made by the Government of Qatar, which address some of the most essential provisions of the Covenant and aim to exclude or limit the obligations under those provisions, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and thus inadmissible under Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Government of Canada notes that the declarations made by the Government of Qatar aim at applying a provision of the Covenant only in conformity with domestic law or Islamic Sharia. However, the Covenant is to be applied in accordance with international law. The Government of Canada considers that these declarations are reservations in disguise, incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and thus inadmissible under article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It is in the common interest of States that the treaties to which they have chosen to become Party 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 Canada therefore objects to the reservations and declarations made by the Government of Qatar. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Canada and Qatar.”
Cyprus
26 November 2003
With regard to the declaration made by the Turkey upon ratification: ".....the Government of the Republic of Cyprus has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966) on 23 September 2003, in respect of the implementation of the provisions of the Convention only to the States Parties which it recognizes and with which it has diplomatic relations. In the view of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, this declaration amounts to a reservation. This reservation creates uncertainty as to the States Parties in respect of which Turkey is undertaking the obligations in the Covenant, and raises doubt as to the commitment of Turkey to the object and purpose of the said Covenant. The Government of the Republic of Cyprus therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This reservation or the objection to it shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Turkey."
Czech Republic<superscript>7</superscript>
12 September 2007
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of the Czech Republic has carefully examined the contents of the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, in respect of Article 18 thereof. The Government of the Czech Republic is of the opinion that the aforementioned reservation is in contradiction with the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a State party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform according to the obligations set out by the treaty. Furthermore, the reservation consists of a general reference to the Constitution without specifying its content and as such does not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Covenant. The Government of the Czech Republic recalls that it is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party 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. According to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. The Government of the Czech Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Czech Republic and the Republic of Maldives, without the Republic of Maldives benefiting from its reservation.".
20 June 2011
20 May 2019
With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: “The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the reservations and statements formulated by the State of Qatar upon its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of the Czech Republic is of the view that the statements formulated by the State of Qatar with respect to Article 7, Article 18.2, Article 22 and Article 23.2 amount to reservations of general and vague nature, since they make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia and national law and their character and scope cannot be properly assessed. These statements, together with the reservation formulated by the State of Qatar to Article 23.4, leave open the question to what extent the State of Qatar commits itself to the obligations under these Articles and to the object and purpose of the Covenant as a whole. The Government of the Czech Republic wishes to recall that the reservations may not be general or vague and that the Covenant is to be applied and interpreted in accordance with international law. The Government of the Czech Republic therefore considers the aforementioned reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to them. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Czech Republic and the State of Qatar, without the State of Qatar benefitting from the reservations.”
Denmark
1 October 1993
With regard to the reservations made by the United States of America: "Having examined the contents of the reservations made by the United States of America, Denmark would like to recall article 4, para 2 of the Covenant according to which no derogation from a number of fundamental articles, inter alia 6 and 7, may be made by a State Party even in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation. In the opinion of Denmark, reservation (2) of the United States with respect to capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age as well as reservation (3) with respect to article 7 constitute general derogations from articles 6 and 7, while according to article 4, para 2 of the Covenant such derogations are not permitted. Therefore, and taking into account that articles 6 and 7 are protecting two of the most basic rights contained in the Covenant, the Government of Denmark regards the said reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and consequently Denmark objects to the reservations. These objections do not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Denmark and the United States.
4 October 2001
With regard to the reservations made by the Botswana upon ratification: "The Government of Denmark has examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of Botswana to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reservations refer to legislation in force in Botswana as regards the scope of application of two core provisions of the Covenant, Articles 7 and 12 para.3. The Government of Denmark considers that the reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to fulfill her obligations under the Covenant and are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. For these reasons, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations made by the Government of Botswana. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant in its entirety between Botswana and Denmark without Botswana benefiting from the reservations."
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Denmark considers that the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant, which make the applications of these essential obligations under the Covenant subject to Sharia and/or constitutional and/or national law in force in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, raise doubts as to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty and concern as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom on Denmark has also examined the reservation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with respect to Article 40 of the Covenant. The Government of Denmark considers, that the supervisory machinery established under the Covenant, including the system of periodic reporting to the human rights Committee is an essential part of the treaty. Accordingly a reservation to the effect that a State Party does not recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee to review and comment State reports must be considered contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Denmark wishes to recall that, according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted. Consequently, the Government of Denmark considers the said reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. The Government of Denmark therefore objects to the aforementioned reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant in its entirety between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Denmark. The Government of Denmark recommends the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to reconsider its reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
Estonia
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of Estonia has carefully examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Estonia considers the reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant as with this reservation the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the provisions of constitutional law. The Government of Estonia is of the view that the reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Republic of Maldives to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Estonia therefore objects to the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and expresses the hope that the Republic of Maldives will soon be able to withdraw its reservation in light of the ongoing process of the revision of the Maldivian Constitution. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights between Estonia and the Republic of Maldives."
21 June 2011
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the Republic of Estonia has carefully examined the reservations made on 23 June 2010 by Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant. Regarding Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25, the Government of the Republic of Estonia considers these reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant as with these reservations the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the provisions of constitutional law. The Government of Estonia is of the view that the reservation which consists of a general reference to a national law without specifying its content does not clearly indicate to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations contained in the relevant Articles of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant. Furthermore, the reservation made by Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Article 40 of the Covenant is in the view of the Government of the Republic of Estonia contrary to the aim of the Covenant as this Article sets out the commitments of States towards the Human Rights Committee. The reporting mechanism is one of the core elements of the implementation of the Covenant. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Estonia objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Nevertheless, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as between the Republic of Estonia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”
8 May 2019
With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: “The Government of Estonia has carefully examined the reservations made by the State of Qatar to Article 3 and Article 23(4), as well as the statements made with regard to Article 7, Article 18(2), Article 22 and Article 23(2) of the Covenant. The reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23(4) as well as statements 1 to 4 make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Statements 1 to 4 are thus of their nature also reservations. The reservations and statements 1 to 4 are raising doubts concerning the extent to which the State of Qatar intends to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. Estonia considers aforementioned reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, which are not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. The Government of Estonia thus objects to them. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Estonia and the State of Qatar.”
Finland
28 September 1993
With regard to the reservations, understandings and declarations made by the United States of America: "... It is recalled that under 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. Understanding (1) pertaining to articles 2, 4 and 26 of the Covenant is therefore considered to constitute in substance a reservation to the Covenant, directed at some of its most essential provisions, namely those concerning the prohibition of discrimination. In the view of the Government of Finland, a reservation of this kind is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant, as specified in article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. As regards reservation (2) concerning article 6 of the Coven- ant, it is recalled that according to article 4(2), no restrictions of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are allowed for. In the view of the Government of Finland, the right to life is of fundamental importance in the Covenant and the said reservation therefore is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. As regards reservation (3), it is in the view of the Government of Finland subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty. For the above reasons the Government of Finland objects to reservations made by the United States to articles 2, 4 and 26 [ cf . Understanding (1)], to article 6 [ cf . Reservation (2)] and to article 7 [cf. Reservation (3)]. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Finland and the United States of America.
25 July 1997
With regard to declarations and the reseration made by Kuwait: "The Government of Finland notes that according to the interpretative declarations the application of certain articles of the Covenant is in a general way subjected to national law. The Government of Finland considers these interpretative declarations as reservations of a general kind. The Government of Finland is of the view that such general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Kuwait to the object and purpose of the Covenant and would recall that a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted. As regards the reservation made to article 25 (b), the Government of Finland wishes to refer to its objection to the reservation made by Kuwait to article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. It is 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 Finland is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Kuwait, which do not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provisions of the covenant, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. The Government of Finland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Kuwait to the [said Covenant] which are considered to be inadmissible. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Kuwait and Finland."
13 October 2004
With regard to declarations and the reservation made by Turkey upon ratification: "The Government of Finland has examined the declarations and reservation made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland notes that the Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 27 of the Covenant in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes. The Government of Finland emphasises the great importance of the rights of minorities provided for in Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reference to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey is of a general nature and does not clearly specify the content of the reservation. The Government of Finland therefore wishes to declare that it assumes that the Government of the Republic of Turkey will ensure the implementation of the rights of minorities recognised in the Covenant and will do its utmost to bring its national legislation into compliance with the obligations under the Covenant with a view to withdrawing the reservation. This declaration does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Turkey and Finland."
15 November 2005
With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification: "The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the declaration made by the Government of Mauritania on Article 18 and paragraph 4 of Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to religious or other national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the receiving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law asjustification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations. The Government of Finland notes that the reservations made by the Government of Mauritania, addressing some of the most essential provisions of the Covenant, and aiming to exclude the obligations under those provisions, are in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration made by the Government of Mauritania to the Covenant. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and Finland. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without the Islamic Republic of Mauritania benefiting from its declarations."
14 September 2007
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of Finland has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland notes that the Republic of Maldives reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 18 of the Covenant in accordancewith the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives. The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Covenant and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the receiving State to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations. Furthermore, the Government of Finland emphasises the great importance of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion which is provided for in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland therefore wishes to declare that it assumes that the Government of the Republic of Maldives will ensure the implementation of the rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion recognised in the Covenant and will do its utmost to bring its national legislation into compliance with the obligations under the Covenant with a view to withdrawing the reservation. This declaration does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Maldives and Finland. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without the Republic of Maldives benefiting from its reservation."
5 October 2010
With regard to the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification: “The Government of Finland welcomes the ratification by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Finland has taken note of the reservation made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to Article 22 thereof upon ratification. The Government of Finland notes that Article 22(2) provides that States Parties may, under certain specific circumstances and for certain specific purposes, restrict the right protected under Article 22(1). The Government of Finland is of the view that the reservation made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic seeks to limit the obligation of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic not to restrict the freedom of association to an extent which is incompatible with Article 22(2). The reservation would therefore restrict one of the essential obligations of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic under the Covenant and raises serious doubts as to the commitment of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to the object and purpose of the Covenant. It is in the common interest of States that treaties they have chosen to become parties to 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 such treaties. Furthermore, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, and according to well established customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted. The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic in respect of Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Finland. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without the Lao People’s Democratic Republic benefiting from its reservation.”
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: The Government of Finland welcomes the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Government of Finland has carefully examined the content of the reservations relating to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Convention made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification. The Government of Finland notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves the right to apply the provisions of Article 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 to the extent that they are not repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws, the provisions of Article 12 so as to be in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan, and the provisions of Article 25 to the extent that they are not repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan, and that, as regards the provisions of Article 13, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves the right to apply its law relating to foreigners. The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its content does not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving States commits itself to the Covenant and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations. Furthermore, the Government of Finland notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant. The reporting mechanism established under Article 40 is an essential feature of the system of human rights protection created by the Covenant and an integral undertaking of States Parties to the Covenant. All of the above reservations seek to restrict essential obligations of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan under the Covenant and raise serious doubts as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and customary international law, a reservation contrary to 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 and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in respect of Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its reservations.
With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: “The Government of Finland is pleased to learn that the State of Qatar has become party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the Government of Finland has carefully examined the reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23.4, as well as the statements concerning Article 7, 18.2, 22, and 23.2 made by the State of Qatar upon accession, and is of the view that they raise certain concerns. In fact, also the said statements amount to reservations that purport to subject the application of specific provisions of the Covenant to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. The reservations to Article 3, 7, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 23.4 make the application of these provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Thus, the Government of Finland is of the opinion that the State of Qatar has submitted reservations which cast doubts on the commitment of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Covenant. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations. The above-mentioned reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and are accordingly not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Finland and the State of Qatar. The Covenant will thus enter into force between the two stateswithout Qatar benefitting from the aforementioned reservation.”
France
4 October 1993
15 October 2001
With regard to the reservation made by Botswana upon ratification: The Government of the French Republic has studied Botswana's reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The purpose of the two reservations is to limit Botswana's commitment to articles 7 and 12, paragraph 3, of the Covenant to the extent to which these provisions are compatible with sections 7 and 14 of the Constitution of Botswana. The Government of the French Republic considers that the first reservation casts doubt upon Botswana's commitment and might nullify article 7 of the Covenant which prohibits in general terms torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Consequently, the Government of the French Republic objects to the Government of Botswana's reservation to article 7 of the Covenant.
18 November 2005
With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification: “The Government of the French Republic has examined the declarations formulated by the Government of Mauritania upon acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, in accordance with which the Government of Mauritania, on the one hand, ‘while accepting the provisions set out in article 18 concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion, declares that their application shall be without prejudice to the Islamic sharia’ and, on the other, ‘interprets the provisions of article 23, paragraph 4, on the rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic sharia’. By making the application of article 18 and the interpretation of article 23, paragraph 4, of the Covenant subject to the prescriptions of the Islamic sharia, the Government of Mauritania is, in reality, formulating reservations with a general, indeterminate scope, such that they make it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant, which they purport to introduce. The Government of the French Republic considers that the reservations thus formulated are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of any effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof. It therefore enters an objection to these reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between France and Mauritania.”
19 September 2007
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: The Government of the French Republic has reviewed the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives at the time of its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 to the effect that the Republic of Maldives intends to apply the principles relating to freedom of thought, conscience and religion set out in article 18 of twithout prejudice to its own Constitution. The French Republic considers that by subordinating the general application of a right set out in the Covenant to its internal law, the Republic of Maldives is formulating a reservation that is likely to deprive a provision of the Covenant of any effect and makes it impossible for other States Parties to know the extent of its commitment. The Government of the French Republic considers the reservation as contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. It therefore objects to that reservation. This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Covenant between the French Republic and the Republic of Maldives.
With regard to the servations made by Pakistan upon ratification: The Government of the French Republic has considered the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 23 June 2010. Concerning the reservations to articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 18, 19 and 25, France considers that in seeking to exclude the application of provisions of the Covenant, insofar as they might be contrary to or inconsistent with the Constitution of Pakistan and/or Sharia law, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has made reservations of a general and indeterminate nature. Indeed, these reservations are vague since they do not specify which provisions of domestic law are affected. Thus, they do not allow other States Parties to appreciate the extent of the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, including the compatibility of the provisions with the object and purpose of the Covenant. With regard to article 40, France believes that in seeking to exclude the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider periodic reports, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is depriving this key body under the Covenant of its main function. As such, the Government of the French Republic considers this reservation to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the French Republic therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between France and Pakistan
Germany
21 April 1982
25 October 1990
With regard to interpretative declaration made by Algeria:
28 May 1991
29 September 1993
10 July 1997
With regard to declarations and the reservation made by Kuwait:
With regard to declarations and the reservation made by Turkey upon ratification: The Government of the Republic of Turkey has declared that it will implement the provisions of the Covenant only to the states with which it has diplomatic relations. Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Turkey has declared that it ratifies the Covenant exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Turkey has reserved the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 27 of the Covenant in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany would like to recall that it is in the common interest of all states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected and applied 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 the Federal Republic of Germany is therefore concerned about declarations and reservations such as those made and expressed by the Republic of Turkey with respect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany believes these declarations do not aim to limit the Covenant's scope in relation to those states with which Turkey has established bonds under the Covenant, and that they do not aim to impose any other restrictions that are not provided for by the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany attaches great importance to the rights guaranteed by Article 27 of the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany understands the reservation expressed by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to mean that the rights guaranteed by Article 27 of the Covenant will also be granted to all minorities not mentioned in the provisions and rules referred to in the reservation."
With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification: The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of Mauritania on 17 November 2004 in respect of Articles 18 and 23 (4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that the limitations set out therein leave it unclear to which extent Mauritania considers itself bound by the obligations resulting from the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore regards the above-mentioned declaration as a reservation and as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and Mauritania.
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006 in respect of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that reservations which consist in a general reference to a system of norms (like the constitution or the legal order of the reserving State) without specifying the contents thereof leave it uncertain to which extent that State accepts to be bound by the obligations under the treaty. Moreover, those norms may be subject to changes. The reservation made by the Republic of Maldives is therefore not sufficiently precise to make it possible to determine the restrictions that are introduced into the agreement. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is therefore of the opinion that the reservation is capable of contravening the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore regards the above-mentioned reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Maldives."
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on 23 June 2010 to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that these reservations subject the applications of Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant to a system of domestic norms without specifying the contents thereof, leaving it uncertain to which extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan accepts to be bound by the obligations under the Covenant and raising serious doubts as to its commitment to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. These reservations therefore are considered incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and consequently impermissible under Art. 19 c of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. By refusing to recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant the Republic of Pakistan calls into question the complete reporting mechanism which is a central procedural element of the Covenant system. This specific reservation against Article 40 therefore is considered to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant as well. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”
25 January 2019
Objection to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar with regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966. The reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23.4 as well as statements 1 to 4 make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Statements 1 to 4 are thus of their nature also reservations. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that by making the application of Articles 3, 7, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 23.4 of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national law, the State of Qatar has submitted reservations which raise doubts concerning the extent to which it intends to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. The above-mentioned reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and are accordingly not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. The Federal Republic of Germany thus objects to these reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and the State of Qatar.
Greece
11 October 2004
With regard to the declarations made by Turkey upon ratification: "The Government of Greece has examined the declarations made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of the Covenant only to the States with which it has diplomatic relations. In the view of the Government of Greece, this declaration in fact amounts to a reservation. This reservation is incompatible with the principle that inter-State reciprocity has no place in the context of human rights treaties, which concern the endowment of individuals with rights. It is therefore contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Republic of Turkey furthermore declares that the Covenant is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. In the view of the Government of Greece, this declaration in fact amounts to a reservation. This reservation is contrary to the letter and the spirit of article 2 (i) of the Covenant. Indeed, a State Party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within the power or effective control of that State Party, even if not situated within the territory of such State Party. Accordingly, this reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. For these reasons, the Government of Greece objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Turkey. The Covenant, therefore, enters into force between the two States without the Republic of Turkey benefiting from these reservations."
24 October 2005
With regard to the reservations made by Mauritania upon accession: "The Government of the Hellenic Republic have examined the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966) in respect of articles 18 and 23 paragraph 4 thereof. The Government of the Hellenic Republic consider that these declarations, seeking to limit the scope of the aformentioned provisions on a unilateral basis, amount in fact to reservations. The Government of the Hellenic Republic furthermore consider that, although these reservations refer to specific provisions of the Covenant, they are of a general character, as they do not clearly define the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations deriving from the Covenant. For these reasons, the Government of the Hellenic Republic object to the abovementioned reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Greece and Mauritania."
22 June 2011
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the Covenant are of fundamental importance and that the reservations formulated by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to those Articles, containing a general reference to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws without specifying the extent of the derogation there from, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Furthermore, the Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the reservation formulated with respect to Article 40 of the Covenant, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, which seeks, inter alia, to establish an effective monitoring mechanism for the obligations undertaken by the States Parties. For this reason the Government of the Hellenic Republic objects to the abovementioned reservations formulated by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Greece and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”
With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: “The Government of the Hellenic Republic has examined the reservations and the statements made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 (hereinafter ‘the Covenant’). In the above reservations, the State of Qatar declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Articles 3 and 23.4 of the Covenant, for they contravene, respectively, the provisions of Article 8 of the [Constitution] of Qatar and the Islamic Sharia. Moreover, in the statements made upon accession to the Covenant, the State of Qatar inter alia declares that it shall interpret Articles 7, 18.2, 22 and 23.2 thereof, ‘in accordance with the applicable legislation of Qatar’ and/or ‘in a manner that does not contravene the Islamic Sharia’. However, in the view of the Government of the Hellenic Republic, these statements in fact amount to a reservation as they limit the scope of application of the relevant provisions of the Covenant solely to the extent that they do not contravene the Islamic Sharia and the national legislation of Qatar. The Government of the Hellenic Republic notes that the above reservations are of a general and indeterminate scope, as they purport to subject the application of the aforementioned provisions of the Covenant to the Islamic Sharia and national legislation, without, however, specifying the content thereof, and are, accordingly, contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant, since they do not clearly define for the other State Parties the extent to which Qatar has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. For the above reasons, the Government of the Hellenic Republic considers the aforesaid reservations of Qatar impermissible as contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant, according to customary international law, as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties. The Government of the Hellenic Republic, therefore, objects to the abovementioned reservations by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Hellenic Republic and the State of Qatar.”
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of the Republic of Hungary has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006 upon accession to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966. The reservation states that the application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives. The Government of the Republic of Hungary is of the opinion that the reservation to Article 18 will unavoidably result in a legal situation in respect of the Republic of Maldives, which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Namely the reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant thus raising concerns as to its commitment to the object and purpose of the Covenant. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party 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. According to Article 19 point (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, a State may formulate a reservation unless it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. The Government of the Republic of Hungary therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Maldives."
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “With regard to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan: The Government of the Republic of Hungary has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, in respect of Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 thereof. The Government of the Republic of Hungary is of the opinion that the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, and 19 are in contradiction with the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a State party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform according to the obligations set out by the treaty. Furthermore, the reservations consist of a general reference to the provisions of the Constitution, the Sharia laws, and/or Pakistani internal law relating to foreigners without specifying their content and as such do not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Covenant. The Government of the Republic of Hungary recalls that it is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party 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. According to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. The Government of the Republic of Hungary therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18 and 19 of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Hungary and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”
17 May 2019
WIth regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: “Hungary has examined the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights done in New York on 16 December 1966. The reservations to Article 3 and Article 23 paragraph 4 and the statements 1 to 5 make the application of these provisions of the Covenant subject to the Constitution of the State of Qatar, the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Hungary considers the statements 1 to 5 made by the State of Qatar by their nature also as reservations. Hungary is of the view that making the application of Article 3, 23 paragraph 4, as well as Article 7, Article 18 paragraph 2, Article 22, Article 23 paragraph 2 and Article 27 of the Covenant subject to the Constitution of the State of Qatar, the Islamic Sharia and the national legislation, raises doubts as to the extent of Qatar’s commitment to meet its obligations under the Covenant and are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, that is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all civil and political freedom by all individuals. Accordingly, Hungary considers the aforementioned reservations inadmissible as they are not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, thus objects to these reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Hungary and the State of Qatar. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two States without the State of Qatar benefitting from its reservations.”
Ireland
11 October 2001
With regard to the reservations made by Botswana upon ratification: "The Government of Ireland have examined the reservations made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to Article 7 and to Article 12, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These reservations invoke provisions of the internal law of the Republic of Botswana. The Government of Ireland are of the view that such reservations may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Furthermore, the Government of Ireland are of the view that such reservations may undermine the basis of international treaty law. The Government of Ireland therefore object to the reservations made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to Article 7 and Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and the Republic of Botswana."
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of Ireland notes that the Republic of Maldives subjects application of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives. The Government of Ireland is of the view that a reservation which consists of a general reference to the Constitution of the reserving State and which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provision of the Covenant may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. The Government of Ireland is furthermore of the view that such a reservation may undermine the basis of international treaty law and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and the Republic of Maldives."
With regard to the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification: “The Government of Ireland has examined the reservations and declarations made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and notes in particular, the intention of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to apply the provisions in Article 22 of the Covenant in its territory only insofar as those provisions are in conformity with the Constitution and relevant laws of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. The Government of Ireland is of the view that a reservation which consists of a general reference to the Constitution or domestic laws of the reserving State and which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provision of the Covenant may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. The Government of Ireland is furthermore of the view that such a reservation may undermine the basis of international treaty law and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Ireland recalls that according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.”
23 June 2011
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of Ireland has examined the reservations made on 23 June 2010 by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Ireland notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan subjects Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 to the Constitution of Pakistan, its domestic law and/or Sharia law. The Government of Ireland is of the view that a reservation which consists of a general reference to the Constitution or the domestic law of the reserving State or to religious law, may cast doubt on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. The Government of Ireland is of the view that such general reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and may undermine the basis of international treaty law. The Government of Ireland further notes the reservation by Pakistan to Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reporting mechanism is an integral undertaking of all States Parties to the Covenant. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”
With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: “Ireland welcomes the accession of Qatar to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 21 May 2018. Ireland has examined the reservations and statements made by Qatar to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights at the time of its accession. Ireland is of the view that the reservations by Qatar, purporting to exclude its obligations under Article 3 and Article 23 (4), are contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. Ireland is furthermore of the view that the statements by Qatar purporting to subject the implementation of Article 7, Article 18 (2), Article 22, Article 23 (2) and Article 27 to an interpretation that does not contravene the Islamic Sharia and/or its national law in substance constitute reservations limiting the scope of the Covenant. Ireland considers that such reservations, which purport to subject the reserving State’s obligations under an international agreement to religious law and to national law without specifying the content thereof and which do not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provisions of the international agreement, may cast doubt on the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the international agreement. Ireland is furthermore of the view that such reservations may undermine the basis of international treaty law and are incompatible with the object and purpose of the international agreement. Ireland recalls that under international treaty law a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the international agreement shall not be permitted. Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by Qatar to Articles 3, 7, 18 (2), 22, 23 (2), 23 (4) and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and Qatar.”
Italy
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of Italy has examined the reservations made on 23 June 2010 by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Italy has noted that the reservations to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18, 19, 12, 13 and 25 makes the constitutive provisions of International Covenant subject to the national law of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (the Constitution, its domestic law and/or Sharia laws). In the view of the Government of Italy a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. A reservation which consists of a general reference to national provisions without specifying its implications makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Italy is of the view that such general reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and may undermine the basis of international treaty law. The Government of Italy recalls that customary international law as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c), sets out that reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permissible. The Government of Italy, therefore, objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18, 19, 12, 13 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Italy and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”
With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: “The Government of the Italian Republic has carefully examined the reservation and statement by the State of Qatar with regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966. The reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23 .4 as well as statements 1 to 4 make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Statements 1 to 4 are thus of their nature also reservations. The Government of the Italian Republic is of the opinion that by making the application of Articles 3, 7, 8, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 23.4 of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national law, the State of Qatar has submitted reservations which raise doubts concerning the extent to which it intends to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. The above-mentioned reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and are accordingly not permitted under customary international law, as codified in Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. The Italian Republic thus objects to these reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Italian Republic and the State of Qatar.”
Latvia
With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification: "The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the declaration made by Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights upon accession. The Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the declaration contains general reference to prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah, making the provisions of International Covenant subject to the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah. Thus, 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 International Covenant and therefore, it shall be regarded as a reservation. Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia noted that the reservation does not make it clear to what extent Mauritania considers itself bound by the provisions of the International Covenant and whether the way of implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant is in line with the object and purpose of the International Covenant. The Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that customary international law as codified by Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19c), sets out that reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permissible. The Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and Mauritania. Thus, the International Covenant will become operative without Mauritania benefiting from its reservation."
13 August 2007
With regard to reservation made by Bahrain: "The Government of the Republic of Latvia has noted that the reservation made by the Kingdom of Bahrain is submitted to the Secretary General on 4 December 2006, but the consent to be bound by the said Covenant by accession is expressed on 20 September 2006. In accordance with Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties reservations might be made upon signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. Taking into considerations the aforementioned, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the said reservation is not in force since its submission."
4 September 2007
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights upon accession. The Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the said reservation makes the constitutive provisions of International Covenant subject to the national law (the Constitution) of the Republic of Maldives. The Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that customary international law as codified by Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c), sets out that reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permissible. The Government of the Republic of Latvia, therefore, objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenantbetween the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Maldives. Thus, the International Covenant will become operative without the Republic of Maldives benefiting from its reservation."
29 June 2011
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservations expressed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant upon ratification. Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the International Covenant shall be viewed as constituting the object and purpose thereof. Therefore, pursuant to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations, whereby the mentioned provisions of the International Covenant are subjected to the regime of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan or of Sharia law may not be viewed as being compatible with the object and purpose of the International Covenant. Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia notes that the reservations expressed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the International Covenant are ambiguous, thereby lacking clarity, whether and to what extent the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the International Covenant will be ensured. Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that Article 40 of the International Covenant contains essential provisions to oversee the implementation of the rights guaranteed by the International Covenant. Therefore, the reservation declaring that the State Party does not consider itself bound with the provisions of this Article cannot be in line with the object and purpose of the International Covenant. Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan regarding Articles 3, 6, 7 and 40 of the International Covenant. At the same time, this objection shall notpreclude the entry into force of the International Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Thus, the International Covenant will become operative without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its reservation.”
15 May 2019
With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: “The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservations and the statements made by the State of Qatar upon ratification of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights making the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. The Republic of Latvia considers that Article 3 and Article 23.4 of the Covenant forms the very basis of the Covenant and its main purpose. In addition, the Republic of Latvia is in the opinion that Articles mentioned in the statements 1 to 4 consists of the core elements of the Covenant and the statements also are in their nature reservations. Therefore, no derogations from those obligations can be made. The reservations made by the State of Qatar excludes the legal effect of central provisions of the Covenant, thus the reservations are incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Covenant and therefore inadmissible under Article 19 (c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and the State of Qatar. Thus, the Covenant will become operative between the two States without the State of Qatar benefitting from its reservations.”
Netherlands (Kingdom of the)
12 June 1980
12 January 1981
17 September 1981
18 March 1991
10 June 1991
With regard to the reservations to articles 6 and 7 made by the United States of America: "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservations with respect to capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age, since it follows from the text and history of the Covenant that the said reservation is incompatible with the text, the object and purpose of article 6 of the Covenant, which according to article 4 lays down the minimum standard for the protection of the right to life. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation with respect to article 7 of the Covenant, since it follows from the text and the interpretation of this article that the saidreservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. In the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands this reservation has the same effect as a general derogation from this article, while according to article 4 of the Covenant, no derogations, not even in times of public emergency, are permitted. It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the understandings and declarations of the United States do not exclude or modify the legal effect of provisions of the Covenant in their application to the United States, and do not in any way limit the competence of the Human Rights Committee to interpret these provisions in their application to the United States. Subject to the proviso of article 21, paragraph 3 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, these objections do not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States."
22 July 1997
With regard to the declarations and the reservation made by Kuwait:
26 December 1997
With regard to the interpretative declaration concerning article 6 paragraph 5 made by Thailand: ""The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers this declaration as a reservation. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the aforesaid declaration, since it follows from the text and history of the Covenant that the declaration is incompatible with the text, the object and purpose of article 6 of the Covenant, which according to article 4 lays down the minimum standard for the protection of the right to life.This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Thailand."
9 October 2001
With regard to the reservations made by Botswana upon ratification: "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Government of Botswana upon signature of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and confirmed upon ratification, regarding articles 7 and 12, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the said articles of the Covenant are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing legislation in Botswana. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that, in the absence of further clarification, these reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Botswana as to the object and purpose of the Covenant and 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 preparedto undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Botswana to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Botswana."
31 May 2005
With regard to the reservations made by Mauritania upon accession: "The Government of the Netherlands has examined the reservation made by Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The application of the Articles 18 and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been made subject to religious considerations. This makes it unclear to what extent Mauritania considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of Mauritania to the object and purpose of the Covenant. It is of the common interest of States that all parties respect treaties to which they have chosen to become parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted (Art. 19 c). The Government of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation made by Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Mauritania and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, without Mauritania benefiting from its reservation."
27 July 2007
With regard to the reservation made by Bahrain: "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since the reservations were made after the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations were too late and therefore inconsistent with article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Furthermore, the reservation with respect to articles 3, 18 and 23 of the Covenant is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the Islamic Shariah. This makes it unclear to what extent the Kingdom of Bahrain considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls 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 is not permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party 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 the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to all of thereservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain since they were made after accession, and specifically objects to the content of the reservation on articles 3, 18 and 23 made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Bahrain."
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservation with respect to article 18 of the Covenant is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Furthermore, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the provisions of constitutional law in force in the Republic of Maldives. This makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Republic of Maldives to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls 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 is not permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all partiesand that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and expresses the hope that the Republic of Maldives will soon be able to withdraw its reservation in light of the ongoing process of a revision of the Maldivian Constitution. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Maldives."
8 October 2010
Objection to the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification: “The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of Article 22 of the Covenant is made subject to national law in force in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. This makes it unclear to what extent the Lao People’s Democratic Republic considers itself bound by the obligations under Article 22 of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such a reservation must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and would recall that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic republic to Article 22 of the Covenant. This object does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.”
With regard to the reservations and declarations made by Qatar upon accession: “The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation and the statements made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as communicated by the Secretary-General via depositary notification C.N.262.2018.TREATIES-IV.4 of 21 May 2018, and wishes to communicate the following. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that Qatar does not consider itself bound by provisions of Article 3 and Article 23, paragraph 4, of the Covenant as these contravene provisions of the Constitution of Qatar or the Islamic Sharia. Further, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the statements made by the State of Qatar with respect to Article 7, Article 18, paragraph 2, Article 22, and Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant in substance constitute reservations limiting the scope of these provisions of the Covenant, by applying these provisions only in conformity with the Islamic Sharia and/or national legislation of the State of Qatar. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Covenant by invoking provisions of the Islamic Sharia and/or national legislation, are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of their effect and therefore must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservations of the State of Qatar to the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the State of Qatar.”
Norway
With regard to reservations to articles 6 and 7 made by the United States of America: "1. In the view of the Government of Norway, the reservation (2) concerning capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age is according to the text and history of the Covenant, incompatible with the object and purpose of article 6 of the Covenant. According to article 4 (2), no derogations from article 6 may be made, not even in times of public emergency. For these reasons the Government of Norway objects to this reservation. 2. In the view of the Government of Norway, the reservation (3) concerning article 7 of the Covenant is according to the text and interpretation of this article incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. According to article 4 (2), article 7 is a non-derogable provision, even in times of public emergency. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to this reservation. The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Norway and the United States of America."
With regard to the declarations and the reservation made by Kuwait : "In the view of the Government of Norway, a statement by which a State Party purports to limit its responsibilities by invoking general principles of internal law may create doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to the objective and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. Under well-established treaty law, a State is not permitted to invoke internal law as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. Furthermore, the Government of Norway finds the reservations made to article 8, paragraph 1 (d) and article 9 as being problematic in view of the object and purpose of the Covenant. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the said reservations made by the Government of Kuwait. The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the State of Kuwait."
With regard to the reservation made by Botswana upon ratification : "The Government of Norway has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reservation's reference to the national Constitution without further description of its contents, exempts the other States Parties to the Covenant from the possibility of assessing the effects of the reservation. In addition, as the reservation concerns two of the core provisions of the Covenant, it is the position of the Government of Norway that the reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. Norway therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Botswana. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Botswana. The Covenant thus becomes operative between Norway and Botswana without Botswana benefiting from the said reservation."
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of Norway has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Norway considers that the reservations with regard to articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant are so extensive as to be contrary to its object and purpose. The Government of Norway therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Covenant thus becomes operative between the Kingdom of Norway and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from the aforesaid reservations.”
With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: “… the Government of the Kingdom of Norway has carefully examined the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966. The reservations made by the State of Qatar to Article 3 and Article 23 (4), as well as the statements concerning Article 7, Article 18 (2), Article 22 and Article 23 (2), make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Statements 1 to 4 are thus also formulated as reservations. The Government of the Kingdom of Norway is of the view that the above-mentioned provisions concern essential elements of the Covenant, and that the State of Qatar, by making the application of these provisions subject to the Islamic Sharia or national law, has submitted reservations which raise doubts as to the full commitment of the Government of the State of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Covenant. These reservations are thus not permitted under international law. The State of Qatar has furthermore declared that it ‘shall interpret Article 27 of the Covenant that professing and practicing one’s own religion require that they do not violate the rules of public order and public morals, the protection of public safety and public health, or the rights of and basic freedoms of others’. If this statement is to be understood as a mere reference to Article 18 (3) of the Covenant, the statement is acceptable to the Government of the Kingdom of Norway. However, if the statement is meant to make the application of Article 27 subject to specific national rules, which are not further specified,this statement also lacks the necessary clarity and raises doubt as to the full commitment of the Government of the State of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of Norway thus objects to the reservations made by the State of Qatar with regard to Article 3, Article 7, Article 18 (2), Article 22, Article 23 (2) and Article 23 (4). The statement related to Article 27 is acceptable to the Government of the Kingdom of Norway as far as it is in conformity with Article 18 (3). This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the State of Qatar.”
Pakistan
17 April 2008
With regard to the declaration made by India upon accession: "The Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan objects to the declaration made by the Republic of India in respect of article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The right of Self-determination as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and as embodied in the Covenants applies to all peoples under foreign occupation and alien domination. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan cannot consider as valid any interpretation of the right of self-determination which is contrary to the clear language of the provisions in question. Moreover, the said reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenants. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and India without India benefiting from its reservations."
Poland
22 November 2005
With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification: "The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the Declaration made by Mauritania upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, done in New York on 16 December 1966, hereinafter called the Covenant, in respect of Articles 18 and 23 (4). The Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the Declaration made Mauritania - which constitutes de facto a reservation - is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant which guarantees every person equal enjoyment of the rights set forth in the Covenant. The Government of the Republic of Poland therefore considers that, according to the customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, done at Vienna on 23 May 1969, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted (Article 19 c). Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the Declaration made by Mauritania is not precise enough to define for the other State Parties the extent to which Mauritania has accepted the obligation of the Covenant. The Government of the Republic of Poland therefore objects to Declaration made by Mauritania. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Poland and Mauritania."
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966, with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant. In the view of the Government of the Republic of Poland, if put into practice, the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, especially when taking into account their unspecified extent and the vast area of rights they affect, will considerably limit the ability to benefit from the rights guaranteed by the Covenant. Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers these reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, which is to guarantee equal rights to everyone without any discrimination. In consequence, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is a treaty and customary norm, these reservations shall not be permitted. In order to justify its will to exclude the legal consequences of certain provisions of the Covenant, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan raised in its reservations the inconsistency of these provisions with its domestic legislation. The Government of the Republic of Poland recalls that, according to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the State Party to an international agreement may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. On the contrary, it should be deemed a rule that a State Party adjusts its internal law to the treaty which it decides to be bound by. On these grounds, the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant shall not be permitted. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan refers in its reservations to the Sharia laws and to its domestic legislation as possibly affecting the application of the Covenant. Nonetheless it does not specify the exact content of these laws and legislation. As a result, it is impossible to clearly define the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. Thus, the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant shall not be permitted. Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers that reservations aimed at limitation or exclusion of the application of treaty norms stipulating non-derogable rights are in opposition with the purpose of this treaty. On these grounds, the reservations made with regard to Articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are impermissible. The Government of the Republic of Poland objects also to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Article 40 of the Covenant considering it as impermissible as it undermines the basis of the United Nations mechanism of monitoring of the respect of human rights. The Government of the Republic of Poland considers the reporting obligations of States Parties to the Covenant to be of utmost importance for the effectiveness of the UN system of the protection of human rights and as such – not of optional nature. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Poland objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966, with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Poland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan."
22 March 2019
With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: “The Government of the Republic of Poland has reviewed the reservations made by the State of Qatar along with the ratification document to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, done in New York on December 16, 1966, with regard to Article 3 and Article 23(4), as well as the statements which the State of Qatar made with regard to Article 7, Article 18(2), Article 22, Article 23(2) and Article 27 of the Covenant. The Government of the Republic of Poland is of the view that the application of the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar will introduce too wide restrictions in the implementation of the provisions of the Covenant as regards the essential spheres of social life (among others equality between women and men in the exercise of their civil and political rights, freedom to marry, rights of a woman of marriageable age to marry, prohibition of inhuman or degrading punishment, freedom of religion and the right to form and to join trade unions). Accordingly, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers these reservations and statements to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the Covenant, which aims to create conditions that guarantee any person enjoyment of civil and political rights, and as such, to be unacceptable under Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In its reservations, the State of Qatar has referred to the incompatibility of the provisions of the Covenant with its internal law (the Constitution) and Islamic law as justification for its intention to exclude the legal effects of certain provisions of the Covenant. The Government of the Republic of Poland notes that pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State Party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Conversely, the domestic law should, as a rule be brought into line with the provisions of a treaty by which given state is bound. In addition, while referring in its statements to Islamic law, national labor law and national legislation, as well as to the rights and fundamental freedoms of others, the State of Qatar does not indicate the specific content thereof that may apply to the implementation of the Covenant, which renders it impossible to determine the exact scope of application of the provisions of the Covenant in relation to the State of Qatar. In view of the above, the Government of the Republic of Poland objects to the reservations of the State of Qatar with regard to Article 3 and Article 23(4), as well as to the statements of this State with regard to Article 7, Article 18(2), Article 22, Article 23(2) and Article 27 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, done in New York on 16 December 1966. This objection does not hinder entrance into force of the Covenant in the relations between the Republic of Poland and the State of Qatar.”
Portugal
26 October 1990
With regard to the reservations made by the United States of America: "The Government of Portugal considers that the reservation made by the United States of America referring to article 6, paragraph 5 of the Covenant which prohibits capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age is in compatible with article 6 which, as made clear by paragraph 2 of article 4, lays down the minimum standard for the protection of the right to life. The Government of Portugal also considers that the reservation with regard to article 7 in which a State limits its responsibilities under the Covenant by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the Reserving State to the object and purpose of the Covenant and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations made by the United States of America. These objections shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Portugal and the United States of America."
26 July 2001
With regard to the reservation to article 7 made by Botswana upon ratification: "The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966). The Government of the Portuguese Republic is of the view that, according to article 4 (2) of the Covenant, the said reservation is incompatible with its object and purpose. Furthermore, this reservation goes against the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a State party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform according tothe obligations set out by the said treaty. It is 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 the Portuguese Republic considers that the Government of the Republic of Botswana, by limiting its responsibilities under the Covenant by invoking general principles of its Constitutional Law, may create doubts on its commitment to the Covenant and, moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of International Law. The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to article 7 of the Covenant. This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Botswana."
With regard to declarations and the reservation made by Turkey upon ratification: "The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by invoking certain provisions of national law in general terms may create doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international law. It is in the common interest of all 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 Portugal therefore objects to the reservation by Turkey to the ICCPR. This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Portugal and Turkey."
21 November 2005
With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification: "Portugal considers that the declaration concerning both Article 18 and Article 23, paragraph 4 is a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis and that is not authorised by the Covenant. This reservation creates doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international law. The Government of the Portuguese Republic, therefore, objects to the above reservation made by the Mauritanian Government to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Portugal and Mauritania."
29 August 2007
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of the Portuguese Republic has carefully examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). According to the reservation, the application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives. Portugal considers that this article is a fundamental provision of the Covenant and the reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant, raises concerns as to its commitment to the object and purpose of the Covenant and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international law. It is in the common interest of all 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 the Portuguese Republic, therefore, objects to the above mentioned reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the ICCPR. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and the Maldives."
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, 16 December 1966. The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 are reservations that seek to subject the application of the Covenant to its Constitution, its domestic law or/and Sharia Law, limiting the scope of the [Covenant] on an unilateral basis and contributing to undermining the basis of International Law. The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by invoking its Constitution, the domestic law or/and the Sharia Law raise serious doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Covenant, as the reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of their effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof. It is in the common interest of all the 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 the Portuguese Republic furthermore notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant. The Government of the Portuguese Republic is of the view that the reporting mechanism is a procedural requirement of the Covenant, an integral undertaking of its States Parties and that the reservation is likely to undermine the international human rights treaty body system. Thus, the reservation to article 40 is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Portuguese Republic recalls 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 the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, 16 December 1966. However, these objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Portuguese Republic and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”
With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: “The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the contents of the reservation to Articles 3 and 23 (4) and of the statements regarding Articles 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights made by the State of Qatar. The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23 (4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are contrary to the object and purpose of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Furthermore, it considers that the statements regarding Articles 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (2) are in fact reservations that seek to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis. The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under [the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] by invoking the domestic law or/and religious beliefs and principles [raise] doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention, as such 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 the Portuguese Republic recalls 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 the Covenant shall not be permitted. Thus, the Government of the Portuguese Republic objects to these reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Portuguese Republic and the State of Qatar.”
Republic of Moldova
With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: “The Republic of Moldova has carefully examined the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar on May 21, 2018 upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966. The reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23.4 as well statements 1 to 4 make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Statements 1 to 4 are thus of their nature also reservations. The Republic of Moldova considers that the reservations regarding Articles 3, 7, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 23.4 of the Covenant are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant since these articles form an essential element of the Covenant, and are accordingly not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. Therefore, the Republic of Moldova objects to the aforementioned reservations made by the State of Qatar. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force or the Covenant between the Republic of Moldova and the State or Qatar. The Covenant enters into force in its [entirety] between the Republic of Moldova and the State of Qatar, without the State of Qatar benefiting from its reservation[s].”
With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: “Romania has examined the reservation and the declaration made upon [accession] by the State of Qatar to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 1966). Romania considers that the declaration aiming to interpret the term ‘punishment’ in Article 7, as well as the provisions of Articles 18.2, 22 and 23.2 of the Covenant in the light of the Islamic sharia and the national legislation respectively amounts to reservations of undefined character, inadmissible under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The same character has the reservation made in relation to Article 23.4 of the Covenant. In accordance with Article 27 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it is the duty of States Parties to a treaty to ensure that their internal law allows the application and observance of the treaty. Moreover, the general nature of these reservations limits the understanding as to the extent of the obligations assumed by State of Qatar under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Therefore, Romania objects to these reservations formulated by State of Qatar to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as being incompatible with the scope and purpose of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as required by the Article 19 ( c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This objection shall not affect the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights between Romania and State of Qatar.”
Slovakia<superscript>7,15,32</superscript>
With regard to the reservations amde by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Slovak Republic has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, according to which: ‘[The] Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Article 12 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan. With respect to Article 13, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Article 25 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant’. The Slovak Republic considers that with the reservations to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the Islamic Sharia law. Moreover it considers the reservations with respect to Articles 12, 13, 25 and 40 of the Covenant as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant as to its commitment to the object and purpose of the Covenant. It isin the common interest of States that all parties respect treaties to which they have chosen to become party, 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. The Slovak Republic recalls that the customary international law, as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c), sets out that the reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted. The Slovak Republic therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Slovak Republic and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its reservations."
Spain
With regard to the reservations made by the United States of America: ... After careful consideration of the reservations made by the United States of America, Spain wishes to point out that pursuant to article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, a State Party may not derogate from several basic articles, among them articles 6 and 7, including in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation. The Government of Spain takes the view that reservation (2) of the United States having regard to capital punishment for crimes committed by individuals under 18 years of age, in addition to reservation (3) having regard to article 7, constitute general derogations from articles 6 and 7, whereas, according to article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, such derogations are not to be permitted. Therefore, and bearing in mind that articles 6 and 7 protect two of the most fundamental rights embodied in the Covenant, the Government of Spain considers that these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and, consequently, objects to them. This position does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America.
With regard to the reservation to article 7 made by Botswana upon ratification: The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation made on 16 December 2000 by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which makes its adherence to that article conditional by referring to the current content of Botswana's domestic legislation. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this reservation, by referring to domestic law, affects one of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Covenant (prohibition of torture, right to physical integrity), from which no derogation is permitted under article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. The Government of Spain also considers that the presentation of a reservation referring to domestic legislation, in the absence of further clarifications, raises doubts as to the degree of commitment assumed by the Republic of Botswana in becoming a party to the Covenant. Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to article 7 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966. This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Botswana.
17 September 2007
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has reviewed the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006, at the time of its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain observes that the broad formulation of the reservation, which makes the application of article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights conditional on its conformity with the Constitution of Maldives without specifying the content thereof, renders it impossible to ascertain to what extent the Republic of Maldives has accepted the obligations arising from that provision of the Covenant and, in consequence, raises doubts about its commitment to the object and purpose of the treaty. The Government of the Kingdomof Spain considers the reservation of the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain recalls that, under customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permitted. Accordingly, the Government of Spain objects to the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Maldives."
9 June 2011
With regard to the reservation made by Pakistan upon ratification: The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, concerning articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the said Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the above-mentioned reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, since they are intended to exempt Pakistan from its commitment to respect and guarantee certain rights essential for the fulfilment of the object and purpose of the Covenant, such as equality between men and women; the right to life and restrictions on the imposition of the death penalty; the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of expression; liberty of movement and freedom in choice of residence; restrictions on the expulsion of aliens lawfully in the territory of a State Party; and the right to take part in public affairs, the right to vote and to be elected and the right to have access to public service on terms of equality, or to limit the said commitment in an undefined manner. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain also considers that the reservation whereby Pakistan declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee provided for in article 40 of the Covenant is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Furthermore, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the above-mentioned reservations made by Pakistan, subordinating the application of certain articles of the Covenant either to their conformity with sharia law or to their conformity with the Constitution of Pakistan, or to both, to which general reference is made without specifying their content, in no way excludes the legal effects of the obligations arising from the relevant provisions of the Covenant. Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the reservations made by Pakistan to articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Spain and Pakistan.
18 June 1993
With regard to interpretative declarations made by the United States of America: "... In this context the Government recalls that under 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 considers that some of the understandings made by the United States in substance constitute reservations to the Covenant. A reservation by which a State modifies or excludes the application of the most fundamental provisions of the Covenant, or limits its responsibilities under that treaty by invoking general principles of national law, may cast doubts upon the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The reservations made by the United States of America include both reservations to essential and non-derogable provisions, and general references to national legislation. Reservations of this nature contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. All States Parties share a common interest in the respect for the object and purpose of the treaty to which they have chosen to become parties. Sweden therefore objects to the reservations made by the United States to: - article 2; cf. Understanding (1); - article 4; cf. Understanding (1); - article 6; cf. Reservation (2); - article 7; cf. Reservation (3); - article 15; cf. Reservation (4); - article 24; cf. Understanding (1). This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Sweden and the United States of America."
23 July 1997
With regard to the declarations and the reservation made by Kuwait: "The Government of Sweden notes that the interpretative declarations regarding article 2, paragraph 1, article 3 and 23 imply that central provisions of the Covenant are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of national law. The Government of Sweden further notes that the reservation concerning article 25 (b) is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden is of the view that these interpretative declarations and this reservation raise doubts as to the commitment of Kuwait to the object and purpose of the Covenant. 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 interpretative declarations and reservation made by the Government of Kuwait upon accession to the [said Covenant]. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Kuwait and Sweden."
25 July 2001
With regard to the reservation made by Botswana upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: "The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by Botswana upon signature of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and confirmed upon ratification, regarding articles 7 and 12 (3) of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden notes that the said articles of the Covenant are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing legislation in Botswana. The Government of Sweden is of the view that, in the absence of further clarification, this reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to the object and purpose of the Covenant and 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 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Botswana and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Botswana benefiting from its reservation."
30 June 2004
With regard to the declarations and reservation made by Turkey upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: The Government of Sweden has examined the declarations and reservation made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of the Covenant only to the State parties with which it has diplomatic relations. This statement in fact amounts, in the view of the Government of Sweden, to a reservation. The reservation of the Republic of Turkey makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Turkey considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant. In absence of further clarification, therefore, the reservation raises doubt as to the commitment of the Republic of Turkey to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Republic of Turkey furthermore declares that the Covenant is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. This statement also amounts, in the view of the Government of Sweden, to a reservation. It should be recalled that the duty to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the Covenant is mandatory upon State parties in relation to all individuals under their jurisdiction. A limitation to the national territory is contrary to the obligations of State parties in this regard and therefore incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden notes that the interpretation and application of article 27 of the Covenant is being made subject to a general reservation referring to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes. The general reference to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, which, in the absence of further clarification, does not clearly specify the extent of the Republic of Turkey's derogation from the provision in question, raises serious doubts as to the commitment of the Republic of Turkey to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden furthermore wishes to recall that the rights of persons belonging to minorities in accordance with article 27 of the Covenant are to be respected without discrimination. As has been laid down by the Human Rights Committee in its General comment 23 on Article 27 of the Covenant, the existence of a minority does not depend upon a decision by the state but requires to be established by objective criteria. The subjugation of the application of article 27 to the rules and provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne and its Appendixes is, therefore, in the view of the Government of Sweden, incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. According to established customary law as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of all 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 Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Turkey and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without the Republic of Turkey benefiting from its reservations.
5 October 2005
With regard to the reservations made by the Mauritania upon accession: "The Government of Sweden has examined the declarations made by the Government of Mauritania upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, regarding Article 18 and paragraph 4 of Article 23. The Government of Sweden would like to recall 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 this declaration made by the Government of Mauritania in substance constitutes a reservation. The reservations make general references to the Islamic Sharia. The Government of Sweden is of the view that the reservations which do not clearly specify the extent of Mauritania's derogation from the provisions in question raises serious doubts as to the commitment of Mauritania to the object and purpose of the Covenant. In addition, article 18 of the Covenant is among the provisions from which no derogation is allowed, according to article 4 of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden wishes to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that all parties respect treaties to which they have chosen to become parties 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. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and considers the reservation null and void. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Mauritania and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Mauritania benefiting from its reservation."
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "...the Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Sweden notes that the Maldives gives precedence to its Constitution over the application of article 18 of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden is of the view that this reservation, which does not clearly specify the extent of the Maldives' derogation from the provision in question, raises serious doubt as to the commitment of the Maldives to the object and purpose of the Covenant. According to international customary law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of all 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 Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and considers the reservation null and void. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Maldives and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the Maldives and Sweden, without the Maldives benefiting from its reservation."
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 Covenant, as the reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of their effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof. The Government of Sweden furthermore notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 40 of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden is of the view that the reporting mechanism is a procedural requirement of the Covenant, an integral undertaking of its States Parties and that the reservation is likely to undermine the international human rights treaty body system. Thus, the reservation to article 40 is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. According to international customary law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of all 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 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and considers the reservations null and void. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Pakistan and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between Pakistan and Sweden, without Pakistan benefiting from these reservations.”
Switzerland
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: Concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966: “The Swiss Federal Council has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, with regard to articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 of the Covenant. The reservations to the articles, which refer to the provisions of domestic law and Islamic Sharia law, do not specify their scope and raise doubts about the ability of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to honour its obligations as a party to the Covenant. Furthermore, the Swiss Federal Council emphasizes that the third sentence of article 6, paragraph 1; article 7; and article 18, paragraph 2, constitute jus cogens and therefore enjoy absolute protection. A general reservation to article 40, a key provision of the Covenant, raises serious doubts as to the compatibility of such a reservation with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 prohibits any reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty. Consequently, the Swiss Federal Council objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Switzerland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”
WIth regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: The Swiss Federal Council has examined the reservations and declarations made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966. The Swiss Federal Council considers that the declarations concerning articles 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (2) of the Covenant amount in fact to reservations. Reservations subjecting all or part of articles 3, 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (3) and (4) of the Covenant in general terms to Sharia law and/or national legislation constitute reservations of general scope which raise doubts about the full commitment of the State of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Swiss Federal Council recalls that, according to sub-paragraph (c) of article 19 of the Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 on the law of treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant are not permitted. It is in the common interest of States that instruments to which they have chosen to become parties be respected in their object and purpose by all parties and that States be prepared to amend their legislation in order to fulfil their treaty obligations. Henceforth, the Swiss Federal Council objects to these reservations by the State of Qatar. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant, in its entirety, between Switzerland and the State of Qatar.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
24 May 1991
With regard to the reservations made by the Republic of Korea upon accession: "The Government of the United Kingdom have noted the statement formulated by the Government of the Republic of Korea on accession, under the title "Reservations". They are not however able to take a position on these purported reservations in the absence of a sufficient indication of their intended effect, in accordance with the terms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the practice of the Parties to the Covenant. Pending receipt of such indication, the Government of the United Kingdom reserve their rights under the Covenant in their entirety."
17 August 2005
With regard to the declarations made by Mauritania upon accession: "The Government of the United Kingdom have examined the Declaration made by the Government of Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (done at New York on 16 December 1966) on 17 November 2004 in respect of Articles 18 and 23 (4). The Government of the United Kingdom consider that the Government of Mauritania's declaration that: ‘The Mauritanian Government, while accepting the provisions set out in article 18 concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion, declares that their application shall be without prejudice to the Islamic Shariah. ... The Mauritanian Government interprets the provisions of article 23, paragraph 4, on the rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah' is a reservation which seeks to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis. The Government of the United Kingdom note that the Mauritanian reservation specifies particular provisions of the Convention Articles to which the reservation is addressed. Nevertheless this reservation does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving Sta has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Mauritania. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Mauritania."
6 September 2007
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General and has the honour to refer to the reservation made by the Government of the Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which reads: ‘The application of the principles set out in Article 18 [freedom of thought, conscience and religion] of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of the Maldives.' In the view of the United Kingdom a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. A reservation which consists of a general reference to a constitutional provision without specifying its implications does not do so. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to the reservation made by the Government of the Maldives. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the United Kingdom and the Maldives."
With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has examined the reservations made by the Government of Pakistan to the [International] Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights] on 23 June 2010, which read: 1. [The] Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws. 2. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 12 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan. 3. With respect to Article 13, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners. 4. [The] Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 25 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan. 5. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant. In the view of the United Kingdom a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. Reservations which consist of a general reference to a constitutional provision, law or system of laws without specifying their contents do not do so. In addition, the United Kingdom considers that the reporting mechanism enshrined in Article 40 is an essential procedural requirement of the Covenant, and an integral undertaking of States Parties to the Covenant. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore objects to the reservations made by the Government of Pakistan. The United Kingdom will re-consider its position in light of any modifications or withdrawals of the reservations made by the Government of Pakistan to the Covenant.”
With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession: “The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has examined the declarations made by the Government of the State of Qatar to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“the Covenant”), done at New York on 16 December 1966, which read: Declarations 1. The State of Qatar shall interpret the term “punishment” in Article 7 of the Covenant in accordance with the applicable legislation of Qatar and the Islamic Sharia. 2. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Covenant based on the understanding that it does not contravene the Islamic Sharia. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such paragraph in accordance with such understanding. 3. The State of Qatar shall interpret that the term “trade unions” and all related matters, as mentioned in Article 22 of the Covenant, are in line with the Labor Law and national legislation. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such article in accordance with such understanding. 4. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant in a manner that does not contravene the Islamic Sharia. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such paragraph in accordance with such understanding. 5. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 27 of the Covenant that professing and practicing one’s own religion require that they do not violate the rules of public order and public morals, the protection of public safety and public health, or the rights of and basic freedoms of others. The Government of the United Kingdom considers that the Government of the State of Qatar’s declarations in respect of Article 7; Article 18, paragraph 2; Article 22; Article 23 and Article 27 are reservations which seek to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis. The Government of the United Kingdom notes that a reservation to a convention which consists of a general reference to national law or a system of law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for the other States Parties to a convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the convention. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations. These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the State of Qatar.”
Objection to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the United States of America objects to Pakistan’s reservations to the ICCPR. Pakistan has reserved to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 25 of the Covenant, which address the equal right of men and women to the full enjoyment of civil and political rights, the right to life, protections from torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, freedom of movement, expulsion of aliens, the freedoms of thought, conscious and religion, the freedom of expression, and the right to take part in political affairs. Pakistan has also reserved to Article 40, which provides for a process whereby States Parties submit periodic reports on their implementation of the Covenant when so requested by the Human Rights Committee (HRC). These reservations raise serious concerns because they both obscure the extent to which Pakistan intends to modify its substantive obligations under the Covenant and also foreclose the ability of other Parties to evaluate Pakistan’s implementation through periodic reporting. As a result, the United States considers the totality of Pakistan’s reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the United States and Pakistan, and the aforementioned articles shall apply between our two states, except to the extent of Pakistan’s reservations.”
Uruguay
With regard to a reservation made by Pakistan upon ratification: The Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay considers that the oversight procedures established by international human rights agreements are an essential tool for monitoring and determining the degree to which States Parties are complying with their obligations and an integral part of the system for the international protection of human rights. Rejecting the competence of the Committee to request, receive and consider reports from the State Party thwarts the aim of promoting universal and effective respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as set forth in the preamble of the Covenant. Accordingly, the Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay objects to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with respect to article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Covenant between the Eastern Republic of Uruguay and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Algeria
28 January 1993
10 September 1978
Belarus
30 September 1992
5 March 1987
18 June 1987
Bosnia and Herzegovina
12 May 1993
29 October 1979
Chile
7 September 1990
6 July 1989
Croatia
12 October 1995
19 April 1983
Ecuador
6 August 1984
9 June 1988
Germany10,46
27 December 2001
Ghana
7 September 2000
Guinea-Bissau
24 September 2013
10 May 1993
7 September 1988
Iceland
22 August 1979
15 September 1978
Liechtenstein
18 August 1983
11 December 1978
28 December 1978
31 August 1972
Peru
9 April 1984
Philippines
25 September 1990
Republic of Korea
1 October 1991
San Marino
4 August 2015
Senegal
5 January 1981
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain47
11 March 1998
Sri Lanka
26 November 1971
18 June 1992
25 April 1997
11 May 2010
27 March 2017
24 January 2022
Tunisia
24 June 1993
28 July 1992
Zimbabwe
20 August 1991*
19 June 1991
14 February 1992
25 February 2011
7 June 1989
12 July 1989
26 December 2001
4 January 2002
21 January 2002
1 June 2020
10 September 2021
Armenia
6 March 2008
11 March 2008
20 March 2020
17 April 2020
15 May 2020
14 July 2020
16 September 2020
5 October 2020
Azerbaijan
16 April 1993
27 September 1993
7 October 1994
27 October 1994
15 December 1994
20 December 1994
23 February 1995
17 April 1995
21 April 1995
29 September 2020
16 December 2020
Bahrain
12 May 2011
28 April 2011
13 June 2011
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
8 March 2010
Burkina Faso
18 April 2019
7 September 1976
23 September 1986
29 October 1986
20 November 1986
29 January 1987
31 August 1988
23 March 2010
25 March 2020
18 June 2020
17 September 2020
23 December 2020
14 August 2023
13 October 2023
28 December 2023
6 February 2024
1 March 2024
2 May 2024
Colombia
18 July 1980
11 October 1982
11 April 1984
8 June 1984
12 December 1984
13 August 1991
21 July 1992
20 November 1992
29 March 1993
27 May 1994
8 June 1994
7 November 1995
25 March 1996
First notification: By Legislative Decree No. 1901 of 2 November, the Government limits or restricts fundamental rights or freedoms laid down in the [said] Covenant.
Second notification: By Decree No. 205 of 29 January 1996, the state of internal disturbance was extended for 90 calendar days, starting on 31 January 1996. The Government of Colombia has specified that the provision from which it has derogated are articles 17 and 9 respectively of the Covenant.7 May 1996 (Dated 21 March 1996) Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Decree No. 0717 of 18 April 1996, the guarantee set forth in article 12 of the Covenant was to be restricted. The measure was adopted in connection with Decree No. 1900 of 2 November 1995 whereby the state of internal disturbance was declared throughout the national territory (see notification of 7 November 1995 above). 21 June 1996 (Dated 18 June 1996)First notification: By Decree No. 777 of 29 April 1996, the state of internal disturbance (proclaimed by Decree No. 1900 of 2 November 1995) was extended for a further period of 90 calendar days, starting on 30 April 1996.Second notification: By Decree No. 900 of 22 May 1996, measures were adopted to control the activities of criminal and terrorist organizations in special public-order zones. The provisions of the Pact which were derogated from are articles 9 (1) and 12.31 July 1996 (Dated 30 July 1996) By Decree No. 1303 of 25 July 1996, lifting of the state of internal disturbance (proclaimed by Decree No. 1900 of 2 November 1995) and extension of some of the measures instituted by means of Decree No. 1901 of 2 November 1995, Decree No. 208 of 29 January 1996 and Decree No. 777 of 29 April 1996.13 August 2002 (Dated 12 August 2002) Transmission of Decree No. 1837 dated 11 August 2002, which declared a state of internal disturbance throughout the national territory, and Decree No. 1838 dated 11 August 2002, which introduced a special tax to meet the necessary expenditure under the country’s General Budget to maintain democratic security.19 November 2002 (Dated 8 November 2002) Transmisison of Decree No. 2555 dated 8 November 2002, which extended the state of internal disturbance declared by Decree 1837 of 11 August 2002 for ninety (90) calendar days, as from 9 November 2002.25 February 2003 (Dated 12 February 2003) Transmission Decree 245 of 5 February 2003, concerning the second extension of the declaration of internal disturbance decreed on 5 February 2003 throughout the national territory.16 October 2008 ..., by Legislative Decree No. 3929 of 9 October 2008, a nationwide state of internal disturbance has been declared for 90 days.31 August 2010 Pursuant to the provision of article 16 of Law No. 137 of 1994 and in keeping with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I [...] inform you of the issuance of Decree No. 2799 of 2010, "which partially amends Decrees Nos. 2693 and 2694 of 2010". By means of this measure, a special category of goods excluded from sales tax is temporarily created, with the aim of benefiting those people affected by the situation that led to teh declaration of a social emergency...25 March 2020 The Secretary-General received from the Government of Colombia a notification dated 25 March 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency throughout the territory of Colombia for a period of 30 days starting on 17 March 2020, by Decree No. 417 of 2020. (See C.N.131.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 20 April 2020 for the text of the notification.)20 April 2020 The Secretary-General received from the Government of Colombia a notification dated 17 April 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the expiration, with effect from 16 April 2020, of the state of emergency declared in Decree no. 417 of 17 March 2020. (See C.N.141.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 20 April 2020 for the text of the notification.)7 May 2020 The Secretary-General received from the Government of Colombia a notification dated 7 May 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the state of emergency throughout the territory of Colombia for a period of 30 days in effect from 6 May to 4 June 2020, by Decree No. 637 of 2020. (See C.N.163.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 15 May 2020 for the text of the notification.)5 June 2020 The Secretary-General received from the Government of Colombia a notification dated 5 June 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the end of the state of emergency on 4 June 2020, at the end of Decree No. 637 of 2020. (See C.N.200.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 15 June 2020 for the text of the notification.)
7 May 1996
21 June 1996
First notification: By Decree No. 777 of 29 April 1996, the state of internal disturbance (proclaimed by Decree No. 1900 of 2 November 1995) was extended for a further period of 90 calendar days, starting on 30 April 1996.
Second notification: By Decree No. 900 of 22 May 1996, measures were adopted to control the activities of criminal and terrorist organizations in special public-order zones. The provisions of the Pact which were derogated from are articles 9 (1) and 12.31 July 1996 (Dated 30 July 1996) By Decree No. 1303 of 25 July 1996, lifting of the state of internal disturbance (proclaimed by Decree No. 1900 of 2 November 1995) and extension of some of the measures instituted by means of Decree No. 1901 of 2 November 1995, Decree No. 208 of 29 January 1996 and Decree No. 777 of 29 April 1996.13 August 2002 (Dated 12 August 2002) Transmission of Decree No. 1837 dated 11 August 2002, which declared a state of internal disturbance throughout the national territory, and Decree No. 1838 dated 11 August 2002, which introduced a special tax to meet the necessary expenditure under the country’s General Budget to maintain democratic security.19 November 2002 (Dated 8 November 2002) Transmisison of Decree No. 2555 dated 8 November 2002, which extended the state of internal disturbance declared by Decree 1837 of 11 August 2002 for ninety (90) calendar days, as from 9 November 2002.25 February 2003 (Dated 12 February 2003) Transmission Decree 245 of 5 February 2003, concerning the second extension of the declaration of internal disturbance decreed on 5 February 2003 throughout the national territory.16 October 2008 ..., by Legislative Decree No. 3929 of 9 October 2008, a nationwide state of internal disturbance has been declared for 90 days.31 August 2010 Pursuant to the provision of article 16 of Law No. 137 of 1994 and in keeping with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I [...] inform you of the issuance of Decree No. 2799 of 2010, "which partially amends Decrees Nos. 2693 and 2694 of 2010". By means of this measure, a special category of goods excluded from sales tax is temporarily created, with the aim of benefiting those people affected by the situation that led to teh declaration of a social emergency...25 March 2020 The Secretary-General received from the Government of Colombia a notification dated 25 March 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency throughout the territory of Colombia for a period of 30 days starting on 17 March 2020, by Decree No. 417 of 2020. (See C.N.131.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 20 April 2020 for the text of the notification.)20 April 2020 The Secretary-General received from the Government of Colombia a notification dated 17 April 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the expiration, with effect from 16 April 2020, of the state of emergency declared in Decree no. 417 of 17 March 2020. (See C.N.141.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 20 April 2020 for the text of the notification.)7 May 2020 The Secretary-General received from the Government of Colombia a notification dated 7 May 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the state of emergency throughout the territory of Colombia for a period of 30 days in effect from 6 May to 4 June 2020, by Decree No. 637 of 2020. (See C.N.163.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 15 May 2020 for the text of the notification.)5 June 2020 The Secretary-General received from the Government of Colombia a notification dated 5 June 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the end of the state of emergency on 4 June 2020, at the end of Decree No. 637 of 2020. (See C.N.200.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 15 June 2020 for the text of the notification.)
31 July 1996
13 August 2002
19 November 2002
25 February 2003
16 October 2008
31 August 2010
20 April 2020
7 May 2020
5 June 2020
Dominican Republic
25 June 2020
31 July 2020
8 September 2020
5 February 2021
10 May 2021
9 June 2021
12 May 1983
20 March 1984
29 March 1984
17 March 1986
19 March 1986
29 October 1987
30 October 1987
3 June 1988
14 January 1999
16 March 1999
12 April 1999
10 September 1999
28 December 1999
1 February 2000
17 July 2002
(Signed) Dr. Heinz Moeller Freile
Minister for Foreign Affairs
18 August 2005
22 August 2005
18 April 2006
6 June 2016
18 July 2016
25 July 2016
7 December 2016
3 February 2017
15 March 2017
1 June 2017
3 January 2018
5 February 2018
3 April 2018
30 April 2018
16 July 2019
26 July 2019
4 October 2019
10 October 2019
24 March 2020
17 June 2020
19 August 2020
19 October 2020
19 January 2021
5 April 2021
23 April 2021
29 July 2021
18 June 2022
21 June 2022
27 June 2022
30 June 2022
5 July 2022
17 August 2022
23 September 2022
3 November 2022
8 November 2022
9 March 2023
11 April 2023
27 July 2023
10 August 2023
15 August 2023
9 January 2024
11 March 2024
23 May 2024
El Salvador
14 November 1983
18 June 1984
2 August 1985
19 December 1989
14 April 2020
16 April 2020
21 May 2020
24 May 2020
27 March 2022
29 April 2022
13 June 2022
22 July 2022
23 November 2022
19 May 2023
18 May 2020
Ethiopia
9 June 2020
12 January 2006
25 November 2015
26 February 2016
22 July 2016
21 December 2016
14 July 2017
20 July 2018
Georgia
7 March 2006
23 March 2006
8 November 2007
21 March 2020
22 April 2020
23 May 2020
15 July 2020
31 December 2020
30 June 2021
30 December 2021
Guatemala
23 November 1998
2 August 2001
10 August 2001
14 October 2005
5 September 2006
18 September 2006
18 December 2006
9 May 2008
12 May 2008
27 May 2008
24 June 2008
14 October 2008
27 April 2009
7 May 2009
20 May 2009
8 February 2010
16 March 2010
16 July 2010
26 February 2010
28 June 2010
23 April 2010
31 May 2010
15 July 2010
2 August 2010
28 December 2010
27 January 2011
25 May 2011
21 July 2011
25 August 2011
6 September 2011
12 October 2011
14 October 2011
20 October 2011
13 June 2012
23 November 2012
18 December 2012
15 January 2013
27 February 2013
24 September 2014
14 October 2014
10 November 2014
2 August 2016
28 September 2016
3 October 2016
19 May 2017
12 June 2017
6 September 2019
21 January 2020
29 January 2020
7 February 2020
17 February 2020
9 March 2020
23 March 2020
26 March 2020
30 April 2020
17 May 2020
29 May 2020
2 June 2020
3 June 2020
6 July 2020
24 July 2020
3 August 2020
20 August 2020
3 September 2020
17 November 2020
4 December 2020
7 April 2021
27 October 2021
29 November 2021
26 January 2022
9 June 2022
24 June 2022
11 July 2022
13 October 2022
3 October 1991
Jamaica
28 September 2004
22 October 2004
27 October 2004
24 August 2007
27 August 2007
1 June 2010
30 June 2010
23 January 2018
Kyrgyzstan
31 March 2020
16 March 2020
13 May 2020
30 December 2020
8 February 2021
6 April 2021
21 October 2021
15 November 2021
Namibia
6 August 1999
14 September 1999
Nepal
8 March 2002
31 May 2002
21 November 2002
16 February 2005
29 March 2005
5 May 2005
Panama
21 June 1987
1 July 1987
Paraguay
27 April 2010
6 August 2020
7 September 2020
27 October 2020
12 February 2021
12 July 2022
24 January 2007
21 February 2007
30 March 2007
5 April 2007
25 April 2007
6 June 2007
11 June 2007
11 July 2007
26 July 2007
13 September 2007
7 January 2008
12 February 2008
21 February 2008
12 March 2008
8 May 2008
9 July 2008
21 July 2008
8 August 2008
22 August 2008
2 September 2008
18 September 2008
12 November 2008
18 November 2008
16 December 2008
14 January 2009
30 March 2009
15 May 2009
9 June 2009
29 June 2009
30 June 2009
20 July 2009
10 September 2009
16 September 2009
23 November 2009
6 January 2010
9 April 2010
6 May 2010
21 May 2010
11 August 2010
17 September 2010
1 November 2010
7 December 2011
23 December 2011
24 May 2012
1 June 2012
10 July 2012
17 July 2012
8 August 2012
7 August 2012
4 October 2012
12 December 2012
13 March 2013
28 March 2013
9 May 2013
30 May 2013
31 July 2013
11 October 2013
5 December 2013
28 January 2014
27 June 2014
11 August 2014
1 December 2014
18 February 2015
7 July 2015
On 2 October 2015
On 9 November 2015
11 December 2015
17 March 2016
21 March 2016
28 June 2016
30 June 2016
27 July 2016
3 August 2016
11 August 2016
14 September 2016
31 October 2016
14 November 2016
27 December 2016
22 February 2017
26 April 2017
30 June 2017
5 September 2017
11 January 2018
16 January 2018
20 June 2018
5 July 2018
20 august 2018
1 February 2019
27 August 2019
13 November 2019
14 November 2019
20 December 2019
30 March 2020
11 April 2020
27 April 2020
25 May 2020
30 June 2020
5 August 2020
2 September 2020
6 October 2020
9 November 2020
3 December 2020
18 January 2021
1 February 2021
4 March 2021
1 April 2021
5 May 2021
2 July 2021
4 August 2021
25 August 2021
6 October 2021
2 December 2021
6 January 2022