Home Page

Cuba

Declaration:

       The Republic of Cuba hereby declares, in accordance with article 42, paragraph 2, that it does not consider itself obliged to refer its disputes to the International Court of Justice, as provided for in paragraph 1 of the same article.

Fiji

Reservation:

       “The Government of the Republic of Fiji declares that it does not consider itself bound by provisions of Article 42(1).”

Finland

Reservation:

       “Emphasizing the importance of prior verification of the conditions for adoption, in the best interests of the child, and thus having reservations about a separate procedure for annulling adoption but recognizing, however, the possibility of reviewing adoption in exceptional cases, the Republic of Finland considers that it is not bound by the provisions of Article 25, paragraph 4 of the Convention in respect of annulling the adoption of the children referred to in Article 25, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) of the Convention.”

Germany

Declarations:

       “Article 16

       The prohibition of return shall only apply if the person concerned faces a real risk of being subjected to enforced disappearance.

       Regarding Art. 17 (2) (f)

       Under German law it is guaranteed that deprivation of liberty is only lawful if it has been ordered by a court or – in exceptional cases – subsequently authorized by a court. Article 104 para. 2 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) expressly provides: ‘Only a judge may rule upon the permissibility or continuation of any deprivation of liberty. If such a deprivation is not based on a judicial order, a judicial decision shall be obtained without delay’. Article 104 para. 3 of the Basic Law provides that a person who has been provisionally arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence ‘shall be brought before a judge no later than the day following the arrest’.

       In the event that a person is being held arbitrarily in contravention of Article 104 of the Basic Law, anyone can bring about a judicial decision leading to that person’s release by applying to the competent Local Court for his/her immediate release. If the person concerned has been detained beyond the time limit permissible under the Basic Law, the court has to order that person’s release pursuant to section 128 (2), first sentence, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung, StPO).

       Article 17 para. 3

       In the case of an involuntary placement of sick persons by a custodian or a person having power of attorney, the information required under letters (a) to (h) is known to the court which authorizes the placement. The court can ascertain the information required under letters (a) to (h) at any time through the custodian or person having power of attorney; the information is then included in the

       case-file. This information is also to be regarded as records within the meaning of article 17 para. 3.

       Regarding Article 18

       Under German law, all persons with a legitimate interest are entitled to obtain information from the court files. The restrictions provided for in German law for the protection of the interests of the person concerned or for safeguarding the criminal proceedings are permissible pursuant to Article 20 para. 1 of the Convention.

       Regarding Article 24 para. 4

       It is clarified that the envisaged provision on reparation and compensation does not abrogate the principle of state immunity.”

Morocco

Declaration:

       Pursuant to 42 (2) of the Convention, the Kingdom of Morocco does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article and declares that for any dispute between two or more States to be brought before the International Court of Justice, it is necessary to have, in each case, the agreement of all States parties to the dispute.

Norway

Declaration and reservation concerning Article 17 (2) made upon ratification

       “The Kingdom of Norway declares its understanding that whether and to what extent the various provisions of the Convention apply in situations of armed conflict will depend on an interpretation of the provision in question in the light of international humanitarian law, having regard to general principles of interpretation that apply where several regimes of international law are relevant, such as the principle of harmonisation and the principle of lex specialis.

       To the extent that Article 17 (2) of the Convention may be interpreted as requiring each State Party to establish ‘in its legislation’ conditions for and guarantees related to deprivation of liberty that apply in situations of armed conflict, the Kingdom of Norway reserves the right not to apply this provision in such situations. Deprivation of liberty during armed conflict is not currently regulated in formal Norwegian law. In Norway, the rules concerning deprivation of liberty during armed conflict are set out in the Norwegian Armed Forces’ Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict and in the rules adopted for each specific operation, including the rules of engagement.”

Declaration concerning Article 20 (1), in conjunction with Article 18 made upon ratification

       “The Kingdom of Norway declares its understanding that Article 20 (1) of the Convention, which permits restrictions on the right to information referred to in Article 18 on an exceptional basis, where ‘strictly necessary’ and ‘if the transmission of the information would adversely affect the privacy’ of the person deprived of liberty, allows for weight to be given to an assessment by the person concerned of whether these conditions are met.

       This applies provided that the information, viewed objectively, is of a sensitive personal nature, that the person concerned is under the protection of the law and that the deprivation of liberty is subject to judicial control.

       Thus, it is the understanding of the Kingdom of Norway that, depending on the circumstances, access to information may be denied if the person deprived of liberty does not consent to the disclosure of sensitive personal information on grounds of privacy.”

Oman

Reservations:

       Firstly, the Government of the Sultanate of Oman does not recognize the competence of the Committee in cases of enforced disappearances provided in article 33 of the aforementioned Convention.

       Secondly, the Government of the Sultanate of Oman does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 42, paragraph 1 of the aforementioned Convention.

Poland

30 December 2024

Reservation to Article 25, paragraph 4 made at the time of ratification

       “Emphasizing the importance of prior verification of the conditions for adoption, in the best interests of the child, and thus having reservations about a separate procedure for annulment of adoption, while recognizing the possibility of reviewing or dissolving adoption in exceptional cases, the Republic of Poland considers that it is not bound by the provisions of Article 25, paragraph 4 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted in New York on 20 December 2006, in respect of the annulment of adoptions of children referred to in its Article 25, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a).”

Sudan

Declaration:

       “… the Government of the Republic of the Sudan, in accordance with article (42) paragraph (2) doesn’t consider itself bound by the provisions of the article (42) paragraph (1) of this Convention.”

Thailand

Reservation :

       “… the Kingdom of Thailand does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 42 of the Convention.”

Ukraine

Declaration made upon accession:

       “Regarding Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, Ukraine empowers the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine (concerning request during the pre-trial investigation) and Ministry of Justice of Ukraine (concerning request during the court proceedings or execution of judgments) to consider requests according to Articles 10-14 of Convention”.

       […]

       Regarding Article 42 of the Convention, Ukraine does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 42 concerning additional procedures of settlement of disputes by arbitration or the International Court of Justice.”

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

       Reservation made upon signature:

       The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in accordance with article 42, paragraph 2, of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, hereby formulates a specific reservation concerning the provisions of paragraph 1 of that article. Therefore, it does not consider itself to be obliged to resort to arbitration as a dispute settlement mechanism, nor does it recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

Belgium

14 June 2021

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

       The Kingdom of Belgium has carefully examined the reservation made by the Sultanate of Oman on 12 June 2020 to Article 33 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, done at New York on 20 December 2006 (hereinafter “the Convention”).

       The Kingdom of Belgium notes that the reservation aims to exclude any visits by the Committee on Enforced Disappearances (hereinafter “the Committee”) pursuant to Article 33. However, visits which the Committee intends to make under Article 33 of the Convention are not subject to prior recognition of the competence of the Committee by the State concerned. Under Article 33, the Committee is competent to consider allegations, based on credible information, of serious violations of the Convention by a State Party. Paragraphs 2 and 4 specify that the Committee may only implement the measures provided for in paragraph 1 if it reaches agreement with the State Party concerned. While States Parties may request the postponement or cancellation of a visit, they cannot exclude as a matter of principle any visit by the Committee under Article 33.

       Committee visits of the kind provided for in Article 33 are an integral part of the system established by the Convention and an essential element of its implementation. By not recognizing the competence which Article 33 confers on the Committee, the Sultanate of Oman is unduly limiting the Committee's competence, which is inherent in the Convention.

       The Kingdom of Belgium therefore considers that this reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Kingdom of Belgium wishes to recall that, under the terms of Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State cannot formulate a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty.

       Consequently, the Kingdom of Belgium objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Sultanate of Oman to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between Belgium and Oman.

France

15 June 2021

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

       ... the Government of the French Republic has carefully examined the reservation made by the Sultanate of Oman upon its accession to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, expressed as follows: “the Government of the Sultanate of Oman does not recognize the competence of the Committee in cases of enforced disappearances provided in article 33 of the aforementioned Convention.”

       The object and purpose of the Convention is to prevent enforced disappearances and to combat impunity for the crime of enforced disappearance. By virtue of article 26 of the Convention, a Committee on Enforced Disappearances, consisting of 10 experts elected by the States Parties, is established to implement the provisions of the Convention. The Committee is a core mechanism of the Convention.

       The reservation made by the Sultanate of Oman thus relates to a core function of the Committee – indeed, one that is operational and practical in nature– in preventing and combatting impunity for the crime of enforced disappearance. Moreover, States Parties that are to be visited by the Committee retain the option of asking the Committee to postpone or cancel the visit. There are therefore no grounds for rejecting, by means of the reservation, a cooperation mechanism intended to fulfil the purposes of the Convention.

       The Government of the French Republic recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

       The Government of the French Republic therefore objects to the reservation made by the Sultanate of Oman. The present objection does not, however, prevent the entry into force of the Convention between the French Republic and the Sultanate of Oman.

Netherlands (Kingdom of the)

9 June 2021

With regard to the reservation made by Oman upon accession:

       “The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman upon accession to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance on 12 June 2020, relating to article 33 thereof.

       The competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances under article 33 – as opposed to its competence under articles 31 and 32 – is not conditional upon general recognition by individual State Parties. A visit under article 33 requires prior consultation with the State Party concerned and notification in writing (paragraphs 1-2); moreover, upon a substantiated request by the State Party, the Committee may decide to postpone or cancel its visit (paragraph 3). Therefore, article 33 only refers to visits and the involvement of the State Party concerned on a case-by-case basis. The competence of the Committee under article 33 cannot be excluded as a matter of principle.

       The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers a general exclusion of the Committee’s competence under article 33 of the Convention, as conveyed in the reservation of the Sultanate of Oman, an unduly restriction of the Committee’s competence under the Convention. Such reservation unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention, contrary to its object and purpose of preventing enforced disappearances and combatting impunity for the crime of enforced disappearance, and the competence of the Committee under article 33 to verify reliable information on serious violations of the Convention to these ends.

       The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a Convention are not permissible.

       The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation of the Sultanate of Oman relating to article 33 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Sultanate of Oman.”

Portugal

14 June 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Albania

8 November 2007

Article 31

       In accordance with Article 31 of …..[the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance], the Republic of Albania declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of this Convention by Albanian State.

Article 32

       In accordance with Article 32 of …..[the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance], the Republic of Albania declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

Declaration under article 32:

       Pursuant to Article 32 of the Convention, the Republic of Austria recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.

Declaration under article 31:

       Pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, the Republic of Austria recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of this Convention by Austria.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

13 December 2012

Article 32

       “Bosnia and Herzegovina hereby declares, in accordance with article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted in New York, December 20, 2006, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.”

13 December 2012

Article 31

       “Bosnia and Herzegovina hereby declares that in accordance with article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted in New York, December 20, 2006, Bosnia and Herzegovina recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of this Convention by Bosnia and Herzegovina.”

Colombia

7 September 2022

Declaration under article 31:

       … the Republic of Colombian declares that, in accordance with article 31 of the Convention, it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Colombia, claiming to be victims of a violation of any of the provisions of the Convention by the Republic of Colombia.

Czech Republic

Declaration under article 31

       … pursuant to Article 31 (1) of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Czech Republic declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by the Czech Republic of provisions of this Convention.

Declaration under article 32

       … pursuant to Article 32 of the of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Czech Republic declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

Declaration under article 31 :

       “In accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 of the Convention, the Republic of Finland declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by Finland of provisions of the Convention.”

Declaration under article 32 :

       “In accordance with Article 32 of the Convention, the Republic of Finland declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that Finland is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.”

Germany

Article 31

       In accordance with Article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CED) of 20 December 2006, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Republic of Germany claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of this Convention by the Federal Republic of Germany.

Article 32

       In accordance with Article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CED) of 20 December 2006, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that the Federal Republic of Germany is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

Lithuania

14 August 2013

       Article 31

       “… in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania declares that the Republic of Lithuania recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Lithuania claiming to be victims of a violation by the Republic of Lithuania of provisions of this Convention.”

       Article 32

       “… in accordance with Article 32 of the Convention, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania declares that the Republic of Lithuania recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State Party to this Convention claims that the Republic of Lithuania is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.”

Mali

2 February 2010

Declaration under articles 31 and 32:

       The Government of the Republic of Mali declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive communications from individuals or any other State Party in accordance with the provisions of articles 31 and 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearance, adopted on December 20, 2006.

Montenegro

Article 31

       “In accordance with Article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection al All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted in New York, December 20, 2006, the Government of Montenegro declares that Montenegro recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by Montenegro of provisions of this Convention.”

Article 32

       “In accordance with Article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection al All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted in New York, 20 December 2006, the Government of Montenegro declares that Montenegro recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.”

Peru

22 July 2016

Declaration under article 31:

       In accordance with article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, the Republic of Peru declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction, claiming to be victims of a violation of the provisions of the Convention by the Republic of Peru.

Portugal

27 January 2014

Article 31

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

27 January 2014

Article 32

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

Declaration under article 31 (1):

       “The Republic of Serbia recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by the Republic of Serbia of provisions of this Convention.”

Declaration under article 32:

       “The Republic of Serbia recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.”

Declaration under article 31:

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

Declaration under article 32:

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

Sri Lanka

Declaration under article 32

       “… the Government [of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka] wishes to declare as per Article 32 of the Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention”.

Ukraine

14 August 2015

       Article 31

       “Regarding Article 31 of the Convention, Ukraine recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of violation of provisions of the Convention by Ukraine.”

14 August 2015

       Article 32

       “Regarding Article 32 of the Convention, Ukraine recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.”