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
Interpretative declaration regarding article 2, paragraph 1, and article 3: Although the Government of Kuwait endorses the worthy principles embodied in these two articles as consistent with the provisions of the Kuwait Constitution in general and of its article 29 in particular, the rights to which the articles refer must be exercised within the limits set by Kuwaiti law.
Interpretative declaration regarding article 23: The Government of Kuwait declares that the matters addressed by article 23 are governed by personal-status law, which is based on Islamic law. Where the provisions of that article conflict with Kuwaiti law, Kuwait will apply its national law.
Reservations concerning article 25 (b): [The Government of Kuwait] declares that the provisions of [article 25 (b)] shall not apply to members of the armed forces or the police.
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
Netherlands34
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.”
Republic of Korea37
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
Switzerland38
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
Thailand39
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 Tobago40
Turkey
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 Ireland41
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, proerty, 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)
Viet Nam
Yemen42
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.”
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.
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.”
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
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.”
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.
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
Germany10
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.”
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 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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
Netherlands
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.”
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.”
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."
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.”
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.”
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.”
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
Germany10,44
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
Spain45
11 March 1998
Sri Lanka
26 November 1971
18 June 1992
25 April 1997
11 May 2010
27 March 2017
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
Armenia
6 March 2008
11 March 2008
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
Bahrain
12 May 2011
28 April 2011
13 June 2011
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
1 October 1985
9 January 1986
29 August 1986
28 November 1986
17 November 1989
22 March 1990
19 April 1995
26 July 1995
16 August 1995
25 October 1995
8 March 2010
7 September 1976
23 September 1986
29 October 1986
20 November 1986
29 January 1987
31 August 1988
23 March 2010
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...
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...
31 July 1996
13 August 2002
19 November 2002
25 February 2003
16 October 2008
31 August 2010
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
1 June 2017
18 July 2016
25 July 2016
7 December 2016
3 February 2017
15 March 2017
El Salvador
14 November 1983
18 June 1984
2 August 1985
19 December 1989
12 January 2006
25 November 2015
26 February 2016
22 July 2016
21 December 2016
14 July 2017
Georgia
7 March 2006
23 March 2006
8 November 2007
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
20 October 2011
14 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
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
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
Nicaragua
4 June 1980
14 April 1982
8 June 1982
26 August 1982
14 December 1982
1 August 1984
22 August 1984
13 November 1985
30 January 1987
13 May 1987
8 February 1988
20 May 1993
13 August 1993
1 June 2005
3 June 2005
Panama
21 June 1987
1 July 1987
Paraguay
27 April 2010
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
1 February 1982
22 December 1982
25 July 1983
18 October 1988
17 January 1990
25 January 1990
26 March 1990
5 November 1992
7 April 1993
22 October 1993
27 October 1993
28 October 1993
29 December 1993
18 February 1994
25 April 1994
23 May 1994
21 June 1994
12 August 1994
(21 October 1994)
5 January 1995
Serbia
13 March 2003
24 April 2003
21 May 1984
23 May 1984
16 January 1989
29 August 1989
4 October 1994
30 May 2000
9 June 2010
On 19 November 2015
Sudan
17 August 2001
20 December 2001
Suriname
Thailand
14 April 2010
9 February 2011
20 March 2014
8 July 2014
Trinidad and Tobago
6 November 1990
18 August 1995
29 September 2011
22 December 2011
14 October 2016
9 January 2017
19 April 2017
27 July 2017
5 June 2015
27 November 2015
6 July 2016
17 May 1976
23 December 1988
31 March 1989
18 December 1989
21 February 2001
18 December 2001
“Notification of the United Kingdom’s derogation from article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: [..The Government of the United Kingdom conveys] the following information in order to ensure compliance with the obligations of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom under Article 4 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 1966.
Public emergency in the United Kingdom The terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania on 11th September 2001 resulted in several thousand deaths, including many British victims and others from 70 different countries. In its resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001), the United Nations Security Council recognised the attacks as a threat to international peace and security. The threat from international terrorism is a continuing one. In its resolution 1373 (2001), the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, required all States to take measures to prevent the commission of terrorist attacks, including by denying safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist attacks. There exists a terrorist threat to the United Kingdom from persons suspected of involvement in international terrorism. In particular, there are foreign nationals present in the United Kingdom who are suspected of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of international terrorism, of being members of organisations or groups which are so concerned or of having links with members of such organisations orand who are a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom. As a result, a public emergency, within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Covenant, exists in the United Kingdom.
The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 As a result of the public emergency, provision is made in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, inter alia, for an extended power to arrest and detain a foreign national which will apply where it is intended to remove or deport the person from the United Kingdom but where removal or deportation is not for the time being possible, with the consequence that the detention would be unlawful under existing domestic law powers. The extended power to arrest and detain will apply where the Secretary of State issues a certificate indicating his belief that the person’s presence in the United Kingdom is a risk to national security and that he suspects the person of being an international terrorist. That certificate will be subject to an appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (‘SIA’), established under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, which will have power to cancel it if it considers that the certificate should not have been issued. There will be an appeal on a point of law from a ruling by SIAC. In addition, the certificate will be reviewed by SIAC at regular intervals. SIAC will also be able to grant bail, where appropriate, subject to conditions. It will be open to a detainee to end his detention at any time by agreeing to leave the United Kingdom. The extended power of arrest and detention in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is a measure which is strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. It is a temporary provision which comes into force for an initial period of 15 months and then expires unless renewed by Parliament. Thereafter, it is subject to annual renewal by Parliament. If, at any time, in the Government’s assessment, the public emergencyer exists or the extended power is no longer strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, then the Secretary of State will, by Order, repeal the provision.
Domestic law powers of detention (other than under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) The Government has powers under the Immigration Act 1971 (‘the 1971 Act’) to remove or deport persons on the ground that their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good on national security grounds. Persons can also be arrested and detained under Schedules 2 and 3 to the 1971 Act pending their removal or deportation. The courts in the United Kingdom have ruled that this power of detention can only be exercised during the period necessary, in all the circumstances of the particular case, to effect removal and that, if it becomes clear that removal is not going to be possible within a reasonable time, detention will be unlawful (Rv Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Singh[1984] All ER 983).
Article 9 of the Covenant In some cases, where the intention remains to remove or deport a person on national security grounds, continued detention may not be consistent with Article 9 of the Covenant. This may be the case, for example, if the person has established that removal to their own country might result in treatment contrary to Article 7 of the Covenant. In such circumstances, irrespective of the gravity of the threat to national security posed by the person concerned, it is well established that the international obligations of the United Kingdom prevent removal or deportation to a place where there is a real risk that the person will suffer treatment contrary to that article. If no alternative destination is immediately available then removal or deportation may not, for the time being, be possible even though the ultimate intention remains to remove or deport the person once satisfactory arrangements can be made. In addition, it may not be possto prosecute the person for a criminal offence given the strict rules on the admissibility of evidence in the criminal justice system of the United Kingdom and the high standard of proof required.
Derogation under Article 4 of the Covenant The Government has considered whether the exercise of the extended power to detain contained in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 may be inconsistent with the obligations under Article 9 of the Covenant. To the extent that the exercise of the extended power may be inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 9, the Government has decided to avail itself of the right of derogation conferred by Article 4(1) of the Covenant and will continue to do so until further notice.]15 March 2005 (Dated 15 March 2005) "The provisions referred to in the 18 December 2001 notification, namely the extended power of arrest and detention in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, ceased to operate on 14 March 2005. Accordingly, the notification is withdrawn as from that date, and the Government of the United Kingdom confirm that the relevant provisions of the Covenant will again be executed as from then."
15 March 2005
30 July 1979
12 April 1989
5 February 1992
24 February 1992
6 May 1992
2 December 1992
5 March 1993
7 July 1994
1 September 1995
22 March 1999
The former Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the Convenant on 8 August 1967 and 2 June 1971, respectively. It will be recalled that the former Yugoslavia had deposited the following notifications under article 4(3) of the Covenant (Derogations), on the dates indicated hereinafter:
17 April 1989 (Dated 14 April 1989)
Derogation from articles 12 and 21 of the Covenant in the Autonomous Province of Kosovo as from 28 March 1989. The measure became necessary because of disorders which led to the loss of human lives and which had threatened the established social system. This situation which represented a general danger was a threat to the rights, freedoms and security of all the citizens of the Province regardless of nationality.
30 May 1989 (Dated 29 May 1989)
Termination of the derogation from the provisions of article 12 of the Covenant in the Autonomous Province of Kosovo as from 21 May 1989. The right of public assembly [article 21] continues to be temporarily suspended but only as concerns demonstrations. This is aimed at protecting public order, peace and the rights of citizens, regardless of nationality.
20 March 1990 (Dated 19 March 1990)
As of 21 February 1990 and owing to the escalation of disorders which had led to the loss of human lives, the movement of persons in Kosovo was prohibited from 9 PM to 4 AM, thereby derogating from article 12; and that public assembly was prohibited for the purpose of demonstration, thereby derogating from article 21. The Government of Yugoslavia further indicated that the measure derogating from article 12 had been terminated as of 10 March 1990.
26 April 1990 (Dated 24 April 1990)
Termination of the state of emergency with effect from 18 April 1990.
See also note 1 under "Bosnia and Herzegovina", "Croatia", "former Yugoslavia", "Slovenia", "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "Yugoslavia" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.
Although Democratic Kampuchea had signed both [the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] on 17 October 1980, the Government of Cambodia deposited an instrument of accession to the said Covenants.
The signature was effected by Democratic Kampuchea. In this regard the Secretary-General received, on 5 November 1980, the following communication from the Government of Mongolia:
"The Government of the Mongolian People's Republic considers that only the People's Revolutionary Council of Kampuchea as the sole authentic and lawful representative of the Kampuchean people has the right to assume international obligations on behalf of the Kampuchean people. Therefore the Government of the Mongolian People's Republic considers that the signature of the Human Rights Covenants by the representative of the so-called Democratic Kampuchea, a régime that ceased to exist as a result of the people's revolution in Kampuchea, is null and void.
"The signing of the Human Rights Covenants by an individual, whose régime during its short period of reign in Kampuchea had exterminated about 3 million people and had thus grossly violated the elementary norms of human rights, each and every provision of the Human Rights Covenants is a regrettable precedence, which discredits the noble aims and lofty principles of the United Nations Charter, the very spirit of the above-mentioned Covenants, gravely impairs the prestige of the United Nations."
Thereafter, similar communications were received from the Government of the following States on the dates indicated and their texts were circulated as depositary notifications or, at the request of the States concerned, as official documents of the General Assembly (A/33/781 and A/35/784):
On 3 December 1999, the Government of China notified the Secretary-General that:
1. The application of the Covenant, and its article 1 in particular, to the Macao Special Administrative Region shall not affect the status of Macao as defined in the Joint Declaration and in the Basic Law.
2. The provisions of the Covenant which are applicable to the Macao Special Administrative Region shall be implemented in Macao through legislation of the Macao Special Administrative Region.
The residents of Macao shall not be restricted in the rights and freedoms that they are entitled to, unless otherwise provided for by law. In case of restrictions, they shall not contravene the provisions of the Covenant that are applicable to the Macao Special Administrative Region.
Within the above ambit, the Government of the People's Republic of China will assume the responsibility for the international rights and obligations that place on a Party to the Covenant.
Subsequently, the Secretary-General received communications concerning the status of Macao from China and Portugal (see note 3 under “China” and note 1 under “Portugal” regarding Macao in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Macao, China notified the Secretary-General that the Covenant with the statement made by China will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region.
Signed on behalf of the Republic of China on 5 October 1967. See note 1 under “China” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
With reference to the above-mentioned signature, communications have been addressed to the Secretary-General by the Permanent Representatives of Permanent Missions to the United Nations of Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Mongolia, Romania, the Ukrainian SSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Yugoslavia, stating that their Governments did not recognize the said signature as valid since the only Government authorized to represent China and to assume obligations on its behalf was the Government of the People's Republic of China.
In letters addressed to the Secretary-General in regard to the above-mentioned communications, the Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations stated that the Republic of China, a sovereign State and Member of the United Nations, had attended the twenty-first regular session of the General Assembly of the United Nations and contributed to the formulation of, and signed the Covenants and the Optional Protocol concerned, and that "any statements or reservations relating to the above-mentioned Covenants and Optional Protocol that are incompatible with or derogatory to the legitimate position of the Government of the Republic of China shall in no way affect the rights and obligations of the Republic of China under these Covenants and Optional Protocol".
With regard to the application of the Covenant to Hong Kong, the Secretary-General received communications concerning the status of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom and China (see note 2 under “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” and note 2 under “China” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, China notified the Secretary-General that the Covenant will also apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Czechoslovakia had signed and ratified the Convention on 7 October 1968 and 23 December 1975, respectively, with reservations and declarations. For the texts of the reservations and declarations made upon signature and ratification, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 999, pp. 283 and 289.
Subsequently, on 12 March 1991, the Government of Czechoslovakia had declared the following:
[The Czech and Slovak Federal Republic] recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established on the basis of article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
Further, on 7 June 1991, the Government of Czechoslovakia had made the following objection:
"The Government of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic considers the reservations entered by the Government of the Republic of Korea to the provisions of paragraphs 5 and 7 of article 14 and article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. In the opinion of the Czechoslovak Government these reservations are in contradiction to the generally recognized principle of international law according to which a state cannot invoke the provisions of its own internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
"Therefore, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic does not recognize these reservations as valid. Nevertheless the present declaration will not be deemed to be an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Republic of Korea."
See also note 1 under “Czech Republic” and note 1 under “Slovakia” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
On 25 August 1997, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea a notification of withdrawal from the Covenant, dated 23 August 1997.
As the Covenant does not contain a withdrawal provision, the Secretariat of the United Nations forwarded on 23 September 1997 an aide-mémoire to the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea explaining the legal position arising from the above notification.
As elaborated in this aide-mémoire, the Secretary-General is of the opinion that a withdrawal from the Covenant would not appear possible unless all States Parties to the Covenant agree with such a withdrawal.
The above notification of withdrawal and the aide-mémoire were duly circulated to all States Parties under cover of C.N.467.1997.TREATIES-10 of 12 November 1997.
See note 1 under “Germany” regarding Berlin (West) in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
The German Democratic Republic had signed and ratified the Covenant with reservations and declarations, on 23 March 1973 and 8 November 1973, respectively (See, C.N.88.1973.TREATIES-3 of 20 April 1973). For the text of the reservations and declarations, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 999, p. 294. See also note 2 under “Germany” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.
See note 1 under “New Zealand” regarding Tokelau in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
With respect to the interpretative declarations made by Algeria the Secretary-General received, on 25 October 1990, from the Government of Germany the following declaration:
[The Federal Republic of Germany] interprets the declaration under paragraph 2 to mean that the latter is not intended to eliminate the obligation of Algeria to ensure that the rights guaranteed in article 8, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may be restricted only for the reasons mentioned in the said articles and that such restrictions shall be prescribed by law.
It interprets the declaration under paragraph 4 to mean that Algeria, by referring to its domestic legal system, does not intend to restrict its obligation to ensure through appropriate steps equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
By a communication received on 6 November 1984, the Government of Australia notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservations and declarations made upon ratification with regard to articles 2 and 50, 17, 19, 25 and to partially withdraw its reservations to articles 10 and 14. For the text of the reservations and declarations, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1197, p. 411.
The reservation was lodged with the Secretary-General on 4 December 2006 by Bahrain, following its accession to the Covenant on 20 September 2006.
In keeping with the depositary practice followed in similar cases, the Secretary-General proposed to receive the reservation in question for deposit in the absence of any objection on the part of any of the Contracting States, either to the deposit itself or to the procedure envisaged, within a period of 12 months from the date of the relevant depositary notification. In the absence of any such objection, the above reservation would be accepted in deposit upon the expiration of the above-stipulated 12 month period, that is on 28 December 2007.
In view of the below objections, the Secretary-General did not accept the reservation made by Bahrain in deposit. The Secretary-General received the following objections on the dates indicated hereinafter:
Netherlands (27 July 2007):
"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 Governmnt 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 the reservations 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."
Latvia (13 August 2007):
"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."
Portugal (29 August 2007):
"The Government of the Portuguese Republic has carefully examined the reservations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Government of the Portuguese Republic notes that the reservations were made after the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant and is of the view that the practice of late reservations should be discouraged.
According to the first part of the reservation, the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain interprets the provisions of articles 3, 18 and 23 as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah. These provisions deal namely with the questions of equality between men and women, freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the protection of family and marriage.
Portugal considers that these articles are fundamental provisions of the Covenant and the first reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Kingdom of Bahrain considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant, raises concerns as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Bahrain 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 Kingdom of Bahrain to the ICCPR.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Bahrain."
Czech Republic (12 September 2007):
"The Government of the Czech Republic has carefully examined the contents of reservation made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, in respect of Articles 3, 18 and 23 thereof. Since the reservation was made after the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant, the Government of the Czech Republic considers that the reservation was too late and therefore inconsistent with article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Furthermore 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 Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Czech Republic and the Kingdom of Bahrain, without the Kingdom of Bahrain benefiting from its reservation."
Estonia (12 September 2007):
"The Government of Estonia has carefully 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 Estonia considers that the reservations were late and therefore inconsistent with international customary law as codified into Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Furthermore, the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to Articles 3, 18 and 23 of the Covenant make a general reference to the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah. The Government of Estonia is of the view that in the absence of any further clarification, the reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Kingdom of Bahrain considers itself bound by the obligations of the Convention and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
Therefore, the Government of Estonia objects to all of the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since they were made after the accession, and specifically objects to the content of the reservations to Articles 3, 18 and 23.
Nevertheless, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as between Estonia and the Kingdom of Bahrain."
Canada (18 September 2007):
"The Government of Canada has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain upon acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with which 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'.
The Government of Canada notes that these declarations constitute in reality reservations and that they should have been lodged at the time of accession by Bahrain to the Covenant.
The Government of Canada considers that by making the interpretation of articles 3, 18 and 23 of the Covenant subject to the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah, the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain is 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 and they do not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State haaccepted the obligations of the Convention.
The Government of Canada notes that the reservations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain, 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. 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 Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Canada and the Kingdom of Bahrain."
Australia (18 September 2007):
"The Government of Australia has examined the reservation made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As the reservations were made after the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant, the Government of Australia considers that the reservations were late and therefore inconsistent with article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
The Government of Australia considers that 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 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.
The Government of Australia considers that the Kingdom of Bahrain is, through this reservation, purporting to make the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights subject to Islamic Shariah law. As a result, it is 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 Australia recalls the general principle of treaty interpretation, codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal lawas justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
Further, as regards the reservation with respect to article 18, the Government of Australia recalls that according to article 4 (2) of the Covenant, no derogation of article 18 is permitted.
The Government of Australia objects to all of the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain as they were made after accession, and specifically objects to the content of the reservation on article 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 Australia and the Kingdom of Bahrain."
Ireland (27 September 2007):
"The Government of Ireland has examined the reservations made on 4 December 2006 by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of Ireland notes that the reservation was not made by the Kingdom of Bahrain at the time of its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 20 September 2006.
The Government of Ireland further notes that the Kingdom of Bahrain subjects application of Articles 3, 18 and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah. The Government of Ireland is of the view that a reservation which consists of a general reference to religious law 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 general reservation may undermine the basis of international treaty law and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Ireland also notes that the Kingdom of Bahrain does not consider that Article 9 (5) detracts from its right to layout the basis and rules of obtaining the compensation mentioned therein. The Government of Ireland is of the view that a reservation which is vague and general in nature as to the basis and rules referred to may similarly make it unclear to what extent the reserving State considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant.
The Government of Ireland further notes that the Kingdom of Bahrain considers that no obligation arises from Article 14 (7) beyond those contained in Article 10 of its national Criminal Law. The Government of Ireland is of the view that such a reservation may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant and may undermine the basis of international treaty law.
The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of 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 Ireland and the Kingdom of Bahrain."
Italy (1 November 2007):
"The Government of Italy has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain to Articles 3, 18 and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of Italy considers that the reservation of the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain, whereby it excludes any interpretation of the provisions of Articles 3, 18 and 23, which would affect the prescription of the Islamic Shariah, does not clearly define the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligation under these Articles.
This reservation raises serious doubts about the real extent of the commitment undertaken by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain and is capable of contravening the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Italy therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain. This objection, however, shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Government of Italy and the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain."
Poland (3 December 2007)
“The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain after its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966, hereinafter called the Covenant, in respect of article 3, article 9 paragraph 5, article 14 paragraph 7, article 18 and article 23.
The Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain are so called late reservations, since they were made after the date of accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant. Therefore the reservations are inconsistent with article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which provides for the possibility of formulation of reservations only when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty.
Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers that as a result of reservations with respect to articles 3, 18 and 23 of the Covenant, the implementation of provisions of these articles by the Kingdom of Bahrain is made subject to the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah, with the result that the extent to which the Kingdom of Bahrain has accepted the obligations of the said articles of the Covenant is not defined precisely enough for the other State Parties. The Republic of Poland considers that these reservations lead to differentiation in enjoyment of the rights warranted in the Covenant, which is incompatible with the purpose and object of the Covenant and therefore not permitted (article 19 c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).
The Government of the Republic of Poland therefore objects to the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain.
However this objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Poland and the Kingdom of Bahrain.”
Sweden (3 December 2007)
“The Government of Sweden notes that the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain were made after its accession to the Covenant. Since these reservations were formulated late they are to be considered inconsistent with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda as well as customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Furthermore the Government of Sweden notes that the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain has made a reservation with respect to articles 3, 18 and 23 giving precedence to the provisions of Islamic Shariah and national legislation over the application of the provisions of the Covenant. This reservation does not, in the opinion of the Government of Sweden, clearly specify the extent of the derogation by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain from the provisions in question and raises serious doubts as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Sweden would like to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations 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 a 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 Sweden therefore objects to all of the reservations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as they were made after accession, and specifically objects to the content of the reservations on articles 3, 18 and 23 made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant, and considers them null and void.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant [in] its entirety between the Kingdom of Bahrain and Sweden, without the Kingdom of Bahrain benefiting from its reservations.”
Hungary (4 December 2007)
“The Government of the Republic of Hungary has carefully examined the contents of the reservation made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, in respect of Articles 3, 18 and 23 thereof. Since the reservation was made after the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant, the Government of the Republic of Hungary considers that the reservation was too late and therefore inconsistent with article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Furthermore the Government of the Republic of Hungary 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 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 reservation made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Hungary and the Kingdom of Bahrain.”
Mexico (13 December 2007)
The Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs and has the honour to refer to the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 20 December 2006 and to the reservations that it made to various provisions, including articles 3, 18 and 23.
In that regard, the Permanent Mission of Mexico would like to state that the Government of Mexico has studied the content of Bahrain’s reservation and is of the view that it should be considered invalid because it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The reserve formulated, if applied, would have the unavoidable result of making implementation of the articles mentioned subject to the provisions of Islamic Shariah, which would constitute discrimination in the enjoyment and exercise of the rights enshrined in the Covenant; this is contrary to all the articles of this international instrument. The principles of the equality of men and women and non-discrimination are enshrined in the preamble and article 2, paragraph 1 of the Covenant and in the preamble and Article 1, paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations.
The objection of the Government of Mexico to the reservation in question should not be interpreted as an impediment to the entry into force of the Covenant between Mexico and the Kingdom of Bahrain.
Slovakia (18 December 2007):
“The Government of Slovakia has carefully examined the content of the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain upon its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of Slovakia is of the opinion that the reservation of the Kingdom of Bahrain, whereby it excludes any interpretation of the provisions of Articles 3, 18 and 23, which would affect the prescription of the Islamic Shariah, does not clearly define the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligation under these Articles. This reservation is too general and raises serious doubts as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the object and the purpose of the Covenant.
For these reasons, the Government of Slovakia objects to the above mentioned reservations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain upon its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Slovakia and the Kingdom of Bahrain. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between Slovakia and the Kingdom of Bahrain without the Kingdom of Bahrain benefiting from its reservations.”
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (27 December 2007):
“The United Kingdom objects to Bahrain’s reservations as they were made after the date of Bahrain’s accession to the Covenant.
The United Kingdom further objects to the substance of Bahrain’s first reservation, to Articles 3, 18 and 23. 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 system of law without specifying its contents does not do so.
These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Bahrain. However on account of their lateness the reservations shall have no effect as between Bahrain and the United Kingdom.”
On 30 September 1992, the Government of Belarus notified the Secretary-General its decision to withdraw the reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification. For the text of the declaration regarding article 48 (1) so withdrawn, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 999, p. 282.
In a notification received on 14 September 1998, the Government of Belgium informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation with regard to articles 2, 3 and 25 made upon ratification. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1312, p. 328.
With regard to the reservation made by Botswana upon signature and confirmed upon ratification, the Secretary-General received, from the following States, communications on the dates indicated hereinafter:
Austria (17 October 2001):
"Austria has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana upon signature of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and confirmed upon ratification, regarding Articles 7 and 12 para. 3 of the Covenant.
The fact that Botswana is making the said articles subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing national legislation, in the absence of further clarification raises doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to the object and purpose of the Covenant. 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. In Austria's view the reservation in question is therefore inadmissible to the extent that its application could negatively affect the compliance by Botswana with its obligations under Articles 7 and 12 para. 3 of the Covenant.
For these reasons, Austria objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant in its entirety between Botswana and Austria, without Botswana benefiting from its reservation."
Italy (20 December 2001):
“The Government of the Italian Republic has examined the reservations made by the Republic of Botswana upn 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 Italian Republic notes that the aforesaid articles of the Covenant are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of exsing legislation in Botswana. The Government of the Italian Republic is of the view that, in the absence of further clarification, these reservations referring to international legislation raise doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to fulfill its obligation under the Covenant.
The Government of the Italian Republic considers these reservations to be incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Covenant according to article 19 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. These reservations do not fall within the rule of article 20, paragraph 5, and can be objected at any time.
Therefore, the Italian Government objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Republic of Botswana to the Covenant.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Italy and Botswana”.
On 2 April 2014, Denmark modified the reservation made upon ratification which reads as follows:
"1. The Government of Denmark makes a reservation in respect of Article 10, paragraph 3, second sentence. In Danish practice, considerable efforts are made to ensure appropriate age distribution of convicts serving sentences of imprisonment, but it is considered valuable to maintain possibilities of flexible arrangements.
2. (a). Article 14, paragraph 1, shall not be binding on Denmark in respect of public hearings. In Danish law, the right to exclude the press and the public from trials may go beyond what is permissible under this Covenant, and the Government of Denmark finds that this right should not be restricted.
(b). Article 14, paragraphs 5 and 7, shall not be binding on Denmark.
The Danish Administration of Justice Act contains detailed provisions regulating the matters dealt with in these two paragraphs. In some cases, Danish legislation is less restrictive than the Covenant (e.g. a verdict returned by a jury on the question of guilt cannot be reviewed by a higher tribunal, cf. paragraph 5); in other cases, Danish legislation is more restrictive than the Coven ant (e.g. with respect to resumption of a criminal case in which the accused party was acquitted, cf. paragraph 7).
3. Reservation is further made to Article 20, paragraph 1. This reservation is in accordance with the vote cast by Denmark in the XVI General Assembly of the United Nations in 1961 when the Danish Delegation, referring to the preceding article concerning freedom of expression, voted against the prohibition against propaganda for war."
In communications received on 29 March 1985 and 26 July 1990, the Government of Finland notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservations made upon ratification with respect to articles 13 and 14 (1) (the notification indicates that the withdrawal was effected because the relevant provisions of the Finnish legislation have been amended as to correspond fully to articles 13 and 14 (1) of the Covenant), and with respect to articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (d), respectively. For the text of the reservations, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 999, p. 291.
In a communication received on 22 March 1988, the Government of France notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw, with effect from that date, its reservation with regard to article 19 made upon accession to the said Covenant. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1202, p. 395.
In a communication received on 26 July 2012, the Government of France notified the Secretary-General of its decision to partially withdraw, its reservation with regard to article 14, paragraph 5 made upon accession. The reservation upon accession read as follows:
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 of- fences subjct to the initial and final adjudication of a police court and of criminal offences. However, an appeal against a final decision may be made to the Court of Cassation which rules on the legality of the decision concerned.
In a communication received on that same date, the Government of Germany indicated that it wishes to call attention to the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Germany upon ratification of the Covenant with regard to articles 19, 21 and 22 in conjunction with articles 2 (1), 14 (3), 14 (5) and 15 (1).
On 18 October 1993, the Government of Iceland notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw as of 18 October 1993, the reservation to paragraph 3(a) of article 8, made upon ratification. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1144, p. 386.
On 19 October 2009, the Government of Iceland notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation concerning article 13 (3), made upon ratification to the Covenant. The text of the reservation withdrawn reads as follows:
Article 13, to the extent that it is inconsistent with the Icelandic legal provisions in force relating to the right of aliens to object to a decision on their expulsion.
On 12 April 1994 and 24 August 1998, respectively, the Government of Ireland notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the declaration with respect to article 6 (5), on the one hand, and the reservations made to articles 14 (6) and 23 (4), on the other, made upon ratification. For the text of the declaration and reservations, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1551, p. 352.
On 26 January 2009, the Government of Ireland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation with respect to article 14 made upon ratification, which read as follows: “Ireland reserves the right to have minor offences against military law dealt with summarily in accordance with current procedures, which may not, in all respects, conform to the requirements of article 14 of the Covenant.”
On 15 December 2011, the Government of Ireland informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation concerning article 19 paragraph 2 of the Covenant made upon ratification. The text of the reservation withdrawn reads as follows:
“Ireland reserves the right to confer a monopoly on or require the licensing of broadcasting enterprises.”
With reference to the ratification of the above Covenant by Italy, the Government of Italy informed the Secretary-General, by a notification received on 20 December 2005, of its decision to withdraw the following reservations in respect of articles 9 (5), 12 (4) and 14 (5), made upon ratification of the Covenant:
Article 9, paragraph 5
The Italian Republic, considering that the expression "unlawful arrest or detention" contained in article 9, paragraph 5, could give rise to differences of interpretation, declares that it interprets the aforementioned expression as referring exclusively to cases of arrest or detention contrary to the provisions of article 9, paragraph 1.
Article 12, paragraph 4
Article 12, paragraph 4, shall be without prejudice to the application of transitional provision XIII of the Italian Constitution, respecting prohibition of the entry into and sojourn in the national territory of certain members of the House of Savoy.
Article 14, paragraph 5
Article 14, paragraph 5, shall be without prejudice to the application of existing Italian provisions which, in accordance with the Constitution of the Italian Republic, govern the conduct, at one level only, of proceedings instituted before the Constitutional Court in respect of charges brought against the President of the Republic and its Ministers.
On 20 May 2016, the Government of the State of Kuwait notified the Secretary-General of its decision to partially withdraw the reservation to article 25 (b) made upon its accession to the Covenant. The reservation made upon acession read as follows:
"The Government of Kuwait wishes to formulate a reservation with regard to article 25(b). The provisions of this paragraph conflict with the Kuwaiti electoral law, which restricts the right to stand and vote in elections to males.
It further declares that the provisions of the article shall not apply to members of the armed forces or the police."
With regard to the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification, the Secretary-General received, from the following States, communications on the dates indicated hereinafter:
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (21 October 2010):
"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 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 United Kingdom 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 United Kingdom considers that 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 law without specifying its implications does not do so.
The United Kingdom therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 22 of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Lao People's Democratic Republic."
Sweden (18 October 2010):
“The Government of Sweden notes that the Lao People’s Democratic Republic has reserved the right to interpret Article 22 in accordance with Article 1, and to apply to Article 22 as to be in conformity with the Constitution and relevant national laws of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. The Government of Sweden is of the belief that this reservation, which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation, raises serious doubt as to the commitment of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
According to international customary law, as codified in Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a Convention 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 obligation under the treaties.
Furthermore, the Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is modified or excluded does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. It is the understanding of the Government of Sweden that the declaration of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic concerning articles 1 and 18 of the Covenant modifies the legal effect of the provisions of the Covenant in their application to Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Hence the Government of Sweden considers that these interpretative declarations in substance constitute reservations.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and considers the reservations null and void.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Lao People’s Democratic Republic benefiting from its reservations.”
On 28 April 2000, the Government of Liechtenstein informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation to article 20 paragraph 2 of the Covenant made upon accession. The text of the reservation reads as follows:
“The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right not to adopt further measures to ban propaganda for war, which is prohibited by article 20, paragraph 1 of the Covenant. The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to adopt a criminal provision which will take into account the requirements of article 20, paragraph 2, on the occasion of its possible accession to the Convention of 21 December 1965 on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.”
On 13 October 2009, the Government of Liechtenstein informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation concerning article 24 paragraph 3 of the Covenant made upon accession. The text of the reservation withdrawn reads as follows:
“The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to apply the Liechtenstein legislation according to which Liechtenstein nationality is granted under certain conditions.”
With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession, the Secretary-General received, from the following States, communications on the dates indicated hereinafter:
"The Government of Italy has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives with respect to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of Italy considers that, by providing that the application of Article 18 is without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives, the reservation does not clearly define the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligation under that Article. This reservation raises serious doubts about the real extent of the commitment undertaken by the Republic of Maldives and is capable of contravening the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Italy therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Republic of Maldives.
This objection, however, shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Government of Italy and the Republic of Maldives."
Slovakia (21 December 2007):
“The Government of Slovakia has carefully examined the content of the reservations made by the Republic of Maldives upon its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of Slovakia is of the view that general reservation made by the Republic of Maldives 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(is too general and does not clearly specify the extent of the obligations under the Covenant for the Republic of Maldives.
According to the Maldivian legal system, mainly based on the principles of Islamic law, the reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of of the Republic of Maldives to its obligations under the Covenant, essential for the fulfillment of its object and purpose.
The Government of Slovakia objects for these reasons to the above mentioned reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Maldives upon its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
On 15 March 2002, the Government of Mexico notified the Secretary-General of a partial withdrawal of its reservation to article 25 (b) made upon accession. The reservation made upon accession read as follows:
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 an active nor a passive vote, nor the right to form associations for political purposes.
On 11 July 2014, the Government of Mexico notified the Secretary-General of the Partial withdrawal of the reservation made upon accession. The portion of the reservation which has been withdrawn read as follows:
Article 13. The Government of Mexico makes a reservation to this article, in view of the present text of article 33 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States.
In a communication received on 20 December 1983, the Government of the Netherlands notified the Secretary-General that it was withdrawing its reservation with regard to article 25 (c). The text of the reservation read as follows:
"The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept this provision in the case of the Netherlands Antilles."
See notes 1 and 2 under “Netherlands” regarding Aruba/Netherlands Antilles in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
In a notification received by the Secretary-General on 12 December 1979, the Government of Norway withdrew the reservation formulated simultaneously in respect of article 6 (4).
The Secretary-General received the following communication(s) related to the reservations made by Pakistan, on the date(s) indicated hereinafter:
The Netherlands (30 June 2011)
“The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands 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 the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with its reservations to the Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13,18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has made the application of essential obligations under the Covenant concerning, amongst others, equality between men and women, the right to life, including restrictions on the imposition of the death penalty, the prohibition of torture, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression, the right to liberty of movement and freedom in the choice of residence, restrictions on the expulsion of aliens lawfully in the territory of a State Party, 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 subject to the Sharia laws and/or the constitutional and/or national laws in force in Pakistan.
This makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty and raises concerns as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Governement of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that reservations of this kind must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and would recall that, according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on theLaw of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has also examined the reservation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with respect to Article 40 of the Covenant.
The Government of the Netherlands considers that the supervisory machinery established under the Covenant, including the system of periodic reporting to the Human Rights Committee established pursuant to Article 40 forms an essential part of the treaty. Accordingly, a reservation such as the reservation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in which a State Party declares not to recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee to review and comment State periodic reports must be considered contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant and shall therefore not be permitted.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservations of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to th aforesaid Articles of the Covenant.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”
Subsequently, in a communication received on 20 September 2011, the Government of Pakistan notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to partially withdraw the reservations, made upon ratification, to articles 3 and 25 of the Convention.
These reservations read as follows:
Article 3
‘"The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Article 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall be so applied as to be in conformity with Personal Law of the citizens and Qanoon-e-Shahadat".
Article 25
‘"The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan states that the application of Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall be subject to the principle laid down in Article 41 (2) and Article 91 (3) of the Constitution of Pakistan".
Subsequently, in a communication received on 20 September 2011, the Government of Pakistan notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to partially withdraw the reservations, made upon ratification, to articles 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 40 of the Convention.
“Article 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19
‘[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’.
Article 12
‘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’.
Article 13
‘With respect to Article 13, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners’.
Article 40
‘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’.”
On 15 March 1991, 19 January 1993 and 2 April 2007, respectively, the Government of the Republic of Korea notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservations made in respect of article 23 (4) (with effect from 15 March 1991), of article 14 (7) (with effect from 21 January 1993) and of article 14 (5) (with effect from 2 April 2007) made upon accession.
On 16 October 1995, the Government of Switzerland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation to article 20, paragraph 2 made upon accession, which reads as follows:
Switzerland reserves the right to adopt a criminal provision which will take into account the requirements of article 20, paragraph 2, on the occasion of its forthcoming accession to the 1966 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Further, on 12 January 2004, the Government of Switzerland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation to article 14, paragraph 3, sub-paragraphs (d) and (f) made upon accession, which reads as follows:
The guarantee of free legal assistance assigned by the court and of the free assistance of an interpreter does not definitively exempt the beneficiary from defraying the resulting costs.
Further, on 1 May 2007, the Government of Switzerland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservations to article 10, paragraph 2 (b) and article 14, paragraph 1 and 5 made upon accession, which reads as follows:
(a) Reservation concerning article 10, paragraph 2 (b):
The separation of accused juvenile persons from adults is not unconditionally guaranteed.
(b) Reservations concerning article 14, paragraph 1:
The principle of a public hearing is not applicable to proceedings which involve a dispute relating to civil rights and obligations or to the merits of the prosecution's case in a criminal matter; these, in accordance with cantonal laws, are held before an administrative authority. The principle that any judgement rendered shall be made public is adhered to without prejudice to the cantonal laws on civil and criminal procedure, which provide that a judgement shall not be rendered at a public hearing, but shall be transmitted to the parties in writing.
The guarantee of a fair trial has as its sole purpose, where disputes relating to civil right and obligations are concerned, to ensure final judicial review of the acts or decisions of public authorities which have a bearing on such rights or obligations. The Term "final judicial review" means a judicial examination which is limited to the application of the law, such as a review by a Court of Cassation.
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 establishment permits shall be valid only for the canton which issues them.
(c) Reservation concerning article 14, paragraph 5:
The reservation applies to the federal laws on the organization of criminal justice, which provide for an exception to the right of anyone convicted of a crime to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal, where the person concerned is tried in the first instance by the highest tribunal.
On 6 July 2012, the Government of the Thailand notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its declarations made upon accession with respect to articles 6 (5) and 9 (3) of the Covenant. The text of the withdrawn declarations read as follows:
“2. With respect to article 6, paragraph 5 of the Covenant, the Thai Penal Code enjoins, or in some cases allows much latitude for, the Court to take into account the offender's youth as a mitigating factor in handing down sentences. Whereas Section 74 of the Code does not allow any kind of punishment levied upon any person below fourteen years of age, Section 75 of the same Code provides that whenever any person over fourteen years but not yet over seventeen years of age commits any act provided by the law to be an offence, the Court shall take into account the sense of responsibility and all other things concerning him in order to come to decision as to whether it is appropriate to pass judgment inflicting punishment on him or not. If the court does not deem it appropriate to pass judgment inflicting punishment, it shall proceed according to Section 74 (viz . to adopt other correction measures short of punishment), or if the Court deems it appropriate to pass judgment inflicting punishment, it shall reduce the scale of punishment provided for such offence by one half. Section 76 of the same Code also states that whenever any person over seventeen years but not yet over twenty years of age, commits any act provided by the law to be an offence, the Court may, if it thinks fit, reduce the scale of the punishment provided for such offence by one third or one half. The reduction of the said scale will prevent the Court from passing any sentence of death. As a result, though in theory, sentence of death may be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years, but not below seventeen years of age, the Court always exercises its discretion under Section 75 to reduce the said scale of punishment, and in practice the death penalty has not been imposed upon any persons below eighteen years of age. Consequently, Thailand considers that in real terms it has already complied with the principles enshrined herein.
3. With respect to article 9, paragraph 3 of the Covenant, Section 87, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Thailand provides that the arrested person shall not be kept in custody for more than forty-eight hours from the time of his arrival at the office of the administrative or police official, but the time for bringing the arrested person to the Court shall not be included in the said period of forty-eight hours. In case it is necessary for the purpose of conducting the inquiry, or there arises any other necessity, the period of forty-eight hours may be extended as long as such necessity persists, but in no case shall it be longer than seven days.”
The instrument of withdrawal included an annex which read as follows:
The Government of Kingdom of Thailand declares that:
1. With respect to Article 6 paragraph 5 of the Covenant, Section 18 of the Thai Criminal Code has been amended to include provisions stipulating that the death and life sentences shall not be imposed on an offender who is below the age of 18 and in which case, the sentence shall be reduced to a sentence of 50 years imprisonment.
2. As with regard to Article 9 paragraph 3 of the Covenant, Section 40 paragraph 7 of the 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand stipulates that in criminal cases, the accused or defendant shall have the right to proper, prompt and fair investigations or trial and Section 87 of the Thai Criminal Procedural Code has been amended to stipulate that an arrested person shall not be held in custody
beyond the necessity of the circumstances of the case. In the case of a petty offence, the arrested person shall be in custody only until such time as that person has given his/her pleadings, and that the identity and the location of that person have been sought. In the case where the arrested person has not been temporarily released and it is necessary to investigate or try the person, the arrested person shall be arraigned before the Court within 48 hours from the time the person was taken to the offices of the inquiry officer in accordance with Section 83 of the same Code unless for reasons of force majeure or other unavoidable necessity.
3. Such amendments are fully in compliance with Article 6 paragraph 5 and Article 9 paragraph 3 of the Covenant.
In a communication received by the Secretary-General on 31 January 1979, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago confirmed that paragraph (vi) constituted an interpretative declaration which did not aim to exclude nor modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Covenant.
In a communication received on 2 February 1993, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation to sub-paragraph c) of article 25 made upon ratification. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1007, p. 394.
In a communication received on 4 February 2015, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the following reservation:
"The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply article 11 in Jersey."
The formality was effected by Democratic Yemen. See also note 1 under “Yemen” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
See "ENTRY INTO FORCE:" at the beginning of this chapter.
Previous declarations, received 22 April 1976, 28 March 1981, 24 March 1986, 10 May 1991 and 22 January 1997 expired on 28 March 1981, 28 March 1986, 28 March 1991, 10 May 1996 and 22 January 2002.
A note verbal, dated 28 January 1998, transmitting the text of the declaration made by the Government of Spain recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee under article 41 of the Covenant was deposited on 30 January 1998. Subsequently, in order to correct an error contained in that decalration, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Spain a note verbal dated 9 March 1998, transmitting a corrected and signed text of the declaration which was deposited on 11 March 1998.
Previous declarations were received on 25 January 1985 and 21 December 1988, and expired on 25 January 1988 and 21 December 1993, respectively.
On 3 October 1983, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Argentina the following declaration in respect of the territorial application of the Covenant to the Falkland Islands:
[The Government of Argentina makes a] formal objection to the [declaration] of territorial extension issued by the United Kingdom with regard to the Malvinas Islands (and dependencies), which that country is illegally occupying and refers to as the "Falkland Islands".
The Argentine Republic rejects and considers null and void the [said declaration] of territorial extension.
With reference to the above-mentioned objection the Secretary-General received on 28 February 1985 from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the following declaration:
"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to their right, by notification to the Depositary under the relevant provisions of the above-mentioned Convention, to extend the application of the Convention in question to the Falkland Islands or to the Falkland Islands Dependencies, as the case may be.
For this reason alone, the Government of the United Kingdom are unable to regard the Argentine [communication] under reference as having any legal effect."
With reference to the above-mentioned declaration by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Argentina the following declaration made upon ratification:
The Argentine Republic rejects the extension, notified to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 20 May 1976 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the application of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 16 December 1966, to the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and reaffirms its sovereign rights to those archipelagos, whichrm anntegral part of its national territory.
The General Assembly of the United Nations had adopted resol- utions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6 and 40/21 in which it recognizes the existence of a sovereignty dispute regarding the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and urges the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pursue negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute, through the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall inform the General Assembly of the progress made."
With reference to the above-mentioned declaration by the Govern- ment of Argentina, the Secretary-General received on 13 January 1988 from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the following communication:
"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irelan d rejects the statements made by the Argentine Republic, regarding the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, when ratifying [the said Covenants and acceding to the said Protocol].
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has no doubt as to British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and its consequent right to extend treaties to those territories."
Subsequently, on 5 October 2000, the Secretary-General recieved the from the Government of Argentina the following communication:
[The Argentine Republic] wishes to refer to the report submitted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Human Rights Committee concerning its overseas territories (CCPR/C/UKOT/99/5).
In that connection, the Argentine Republic wishes to recall that by its note of 3 October 1983 it rejected the extension of the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the Malvinas Islands, which waseffected bythe United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 20 May 1976.
The Government of Argentina rejects the designation of the Malvinas Islands as Overseas Dependent Territories of the United Kingdom or any other similar designation.
Consequently, the Argentine Republic does not recognize the section concerning the Malvinas Islands contained in the report which the United Kingdom has submitted to the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/UKOT/99/5) or any other document or instrument having a similar tenor that may derive from this alleged territorial extension.
The United Nations General Assembly has adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, in which it recognizes that a dispute exists concerning sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands and urges the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to continue negotiations with a view to resolving the dispute peacefully and definitively as soon as possible, assisted by the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who is to report to the General Assembly on the progress made.
The Argentine Republic reaffirms its rights of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime spaces, which are an integral part of its national territory.
Further, on 20 December 2000, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the following communcation:
“The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rejects as unfounded the claims made by the Argentine Republic in its communication to the depositary of 5 [October] 2000. The Government of the United Kingdom recalls that in its declaration received by the depositary on 13 January 1988 it rejected the objection by the Argentine Republic to the extension by the United Kingdom of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the Falkland Islands and to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands and over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and its consequential rights to apply the Convention with respect to those territories."