CHAPTER XVIII
PENAL MATTERS
15International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear TerrorismNew York, 13 April 20057 July 2007, in accordance with article 25(1).7 July 2007, No. 44004Signatories115Parties118United Nations, <i>Treaty Series</i>, vol. 2445, p. 89; <a href="/doc/source/docs/A_RES_59_290-E.pdf" target="_blank">A/RES/59/290</a>.The above Convention was adopted on 13 April 2005 during the 91st plenary meeting of the General Assembly by resolution <a href="/doc/source/docs/A_RES_59_290-E.pdf" target="_blank">A/RES/59/290</a>. In accordance with its article 24, the Convention shall be open for signature by all States from 14 September 2005 until 31 December 2006 at United Nations Headquarters in New York.
ParticipantSignature, Succession to signature(d)Approval(AA), Acceptance(A), Accession(a), RatificationAfghanistan29 Dec 2005 25 Mar 2013 Albania23 Nov 2005 Algeria 3 Mar 2011 aAndorra11 May 2006 Antigua and Barbuda 1 Dec 2009 aArgentina14 Sep 2005 8 Apr 2016 Armenia15 Sep 2005 22 Sep 2010 Australia14 Sep 2005 16 Mar 2012 Austria15 Sep 2005 14 Sep 2006 Azerbaijan15 Sep 2005 28 Jan 2009 Bahrain 4 May 2010 aBangladesh 7 Jun 2007 aBelarus15 Sep 2005 13 Mar 2007 Belgium14 Sep 2005 2 Oct 2009 Benin15 Sep 2005 2 Nov 2017 Bosnia and Herzegovina 7 Dec 2005 29 Jun 2017 Botswana12 Jul 2021 aBrazil16 Sep 2005 25 Sep 2009 Bulgaria14 Sep 2005 Burkina Faso21 Sep 2005 Burundi29 Mar 2006 24 Sep 2008 Cambodia 7 Dec 2006 Canada14 Sep 2005 21 Nov 2013 Central African Republic19 Feb 2008 aChile22 Sep 2005 27 Sep 2010 China<superscript>1</superscript>14 Sep 2005 8 Nov 2010 Colombia 1 Nov 2006 Comoros12 Mar 2007 aCosta Rica15 Sep 2005 21 Feb 2013 Côte d'Ivoire12 Mar 2012 aCroatia16 Sep 2005 30 May 2007 Cuba17 Jun 2009 aCyprus15 Sep 2005 28 Jan 2008 Czech Republic15 Sep 2005 25 Jul 2006 Democratic Republic of the Congo23 Sep 2010 aDenmark<superscript>2</superscript>14 Sep 2005 20 Mar 2007 Djibouti14 Jun 2006 25 Apr 2014 Dominican Republic11 Jun 2008 aEcuador15 Sep 2005 Egypt20 Sep 2005 El Salvador16 Sep 2005 27 Nov 2006 Estonia14 Sep 2005 Eswatini15 Sep 2005 Fiji15 May 2008 aFinland14 Sep 2005 13 Jan 2009 AFrance14 Sep 2005 11 Sep 2013 Gabon15 Sep 2005 1 Oct 2007 Georgia23 Apr 2010 aGermany15 Sep 2005 8 Feb 2008 Ghana 6 Nov 2006 Greece15 Sep 2005 Guatemala20 Sep 2005 26 Sep 2018 Guinea16 Sep 2005 Guinea-Bissau 6 Aug 2008 aGuyana15 Sep 2005 Hungary14 Sep 2005 12 Apr 2007 Iceland16 Sep 2005 India24 Jul 2006 1 Dec 2006 Indonesia30 Sep 2014 aIraq13 May 2013 aIreland15 Sep 2005 Israel27 Dec 2006 Italy14 Sep 2005 21 Oct 2016 Jamaica 5 Dec 2006 27 Dec 2013 Japan15 Sep 2005 3 Aug 2007 AJordan16 Nov 2005 29 Jan 2016 Kazakhstan16 Sep 2005 31 Jul 2008 Kenya15 Sep 2005 13 Apr 2006 Kiribati15 Sep 2005 26 Sep 2008 Kuwait16 Sep 2005 5 Sep 2013 Kyrgyzstan 5 May 2006 2 Oct 2007 Latvia16 Sep 2005 25 Jul 2006 Lebanon23 Sep 2005 13 Nov 2006 Lesotho16 Sep 2005 22 Sep 2010 Liberia16 Sep 2005 Libya16 Sep 2005 22 Dec 2008 Liechtenstein16 Sep 2005 25 Sep 2009 Lithuania16 Sep 2005 19 Jul 2007 Luxembourg15 Sep 2005 2 Oct 2008 Madagascar15 Sep 2005 15 Feb 2017 Malawi 7 Oct 2009 aMalaysia16 Sep 2005 Mali 5 Nov 2009 aMalta15 Sep 2005 26 Sep 2012 Mauritania28 Apr 2008 aMauritius14 Sep 2005 Mexico12 Jan 2006 27 Jun 2006 Monaco14 Sep 2005 Mongolia 3 Nov 2005 6 Oct 2006 Montenegro<superscript>3</superscript>23 Oct 2006 d13 Feb 2019 Morocco19 Apr 2006 31 Mar 2010 Mozambique 1 May 2006 Namibia 2 Sep 2016 aNauru24 Aug 2010 aNetherlands16 Sep 2005 30 Jun 2010 ANew Zealand<superscript>4</superscript>14 Sep 2005 18 Mar 2016 Nicaragua15 Sep 2005 25 Feb 2009 Niger 2 Jul 2008 aNigeria25 Sep 2012 aNorth Macedonia16 Sep 2005 19 Mar 2007 Norway16 Sep 2005 20 Feb 2014 Palau15 Sep 2005 Panama21 Feb 2006 21 Jun 2007 Paraguay16 Sep 2005 29 Jan 2009 Peru14 Sep 2005 29 May 2009 Philippines15 Sep 2005 Poland14 Sep 2005 8 Apr 2010 Portugal21 Sep 2005 25 Sep 2014 Qatar16 Feb 2006 15 Jan 2014 Republic of Korea16 Sep 2005 29 May 2014 Republic of Moldova16 Sep 2005 18 Apr 2008 Romania14 Sep 2005 24 Jan 2007 Russian Federation14 Sep 2005 29 Jan 2007 Rwanda 6 Mar 2006 San Marino16 Dec 2014 aSao Tome and Principe19 Dec 2005 Saudi Arabia26 Dec 2006 7 Dec 2007 Senegal21 Sep 2005 Serbia15 Sep 2005 26 Sep 2006 Seychelles 7 Oct 2005 Sierra Leone14 Sep 2005 Singapore 1 Dec 2006 2 Aug 2017 Slovakia15 Sep 2005 23 Mar 2006 Slovenia14 Sep 2005 17 Dec 2009 Solomon Islands24 Sep 2009 aSouth Africa14 Sep 2005 9 May 2007 Spain14 Sep 2005 22 Feb 2007 Sri Lanka14 Sep 2005 27 Sep 2007 St. Kitts and Nevis13 Aug 2020 aSt. Lucia12 Nov 2012 aSt. Vincent and the Grenadines 8 Jul 2010 aState of Palestine29 Dec 2017 aSweden14 Sep 2005 18 Aug 2014 Switzerland14 Sep 2005 15 Oct 2008 Syrian Arab Republic14 Sep 2005 Tajikistan14 Sep 2005 Thailand14 Sep 2005 2 May 2019 Timor-Leste16 Sep 2005 Togo15 Sep 2005 Tunisia28 Sep 2010 aTurkey14 Sep 2005 24 Sep 2012 Turkmenistan28 Mar 2008 aUkraine<superscript>5</superscript>14 Sep 2005 25 Sep 2007 United Arab Emirates10 Jan 2008 aUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland14 Sep 2005 24 Sep 2009 United States of America14 Sep 2005 30 Sep 2015 Uruguay16 Sep 2005 4 Mar 2016 Uzbekistan29 Apr 2008 aViet Nam23 Sep 2016 aYemen13 Oct 2014 aZambia 7 Apr 2017 a
Declarations and Reservations(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon ratification,acceptance, approval or accession.)AlgeriaReservation:The Government of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 23, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.The Government of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria declares that it deems it essential in all cases that all parties to any dispute are in agreement over referring the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.ArgentinaReservation made upon signature:Pursuant to article 23, paragraph 2, the Republic of Argentina declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 23 and, as a consequence, does not recognize either the compulsory arbitration or the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.Declaration:Pursuant to article 23, paragraph 2, the Republic of Argentina declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 23 and, as a consequence, does not recognize either the compulsory arbitration or the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.With regard to article 9, paragraph 3, the Argentine Republic declares that the jurisdictional scope of its criminal law is set out in article 1 of the Argentine Criminal Code (Act No. 11.729), which provides as follows:‘This Code shall apply in respect of:1. Offences committed or whose effects may be produced in the territory of the Argentine Nation or in places subject to its jurisdiction;2. Offences committed abroad by agents or employees of the Argentine authorities in the performance of their duties.’Accordingly, the Argentine Republic shall exercise jurisdiction over the offences covered by article 9, paragraph 2, subparagraph (d), and over the offences covered by paragraph 2, subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c), whenever they produce effects in the territory of the Argentine Republic or in places subject to its jurisdiction, or when committed abroad by agents or employees of the Argentine authorities in the performance of their duties.With respect to the offences mentioned in article 9, paragraph 2, subparagraph (e), jurisdiction over them shall be exercised in accordance with the legal provisions in force in the Argentine Republic. Account shall be taken in this regard of article 199 of the Argentine Aviation Code, which provides as follows:‘Incidents caused, acts performed and offences committed in an Argentine private aircraft over Argentine territory, its jurisdictional waters or where no State exercises sovereignty, shall be governed by thelaws of the Argentine Nation and shall be tried by its courts.The Argentine courts shall also have jurisdiction and the laws of the Argentine Nation shall also apply in the case of incidents caused, acts performed or offences committed on board an Argentine private aircraft over foreign territory, where a legitimate interest of the Argentine State or persons resident therein is harmed or where the first landing subsequent to the incident, act or offence is made in the Argentine Republic.’AzerbaijanReservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:"In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 23, the Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Convention."Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:"The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it will be unable to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Convention in its territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia until these territories are liberated from that occupation."BahrainReservation: The Kingdom of Bahrain does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 23, paragraph 1, of the Convention.BelgiumDeclaration:The Kingdom of Belgium declares that only nuclear materials and facilities containing nuclear materials are covered by article 18, paragraph 1(b) and (c).CanadaDeclaration:“The Government of Canada considers the application of Article 2 (4) (c) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism to be limited to acts committed in furthering a conspiracy of two or more persons to commit a specific criminal offence contemplated in paragraph 1, 2, or 3 of Article 2.”ChinaDeclaration:The People's Republic of China does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 23 of the Convention.Costa RicaInterpretative Declarations:Article 2 of the Act approving the Convention stipulates that "The Government of the Republic of Costa Rica declares that it shall interpret, in respect of article 11, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, that if extradition is not appropriate and the case is found to be time-barred, the acts cannot be tried in national territory."Article 3 of the Act approving the Convention establishes that "The Government of Costa Rica affirms that article 15 of the Convention, in accordance with article 31 of the Political Constitution, shall be interpreted to mean that the State does not relinquish its power to classify [an offence] in the specific case when a request for extradition is reviewed."CubaReservation:The Republic of Cuba declares, pursuant to article 23, paragraph 2, that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article with respect to the settlement of disputes arising between States Parties which, in its view, should be resolved through amicable negotiations, and it also declares that it does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.Declarations:The Republic of Cuba declares that nothing in article 4, paragraph 2, can be construed as encouraging or condoning the use or threat of use of force in international relations which should, in all circumstances, be strictly governed by the principles of international law and the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.Cuba also holds the view that the relations between States should be based on the provisions of General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV).Furthermore, State terrorism has historically been a fundamental concern for Cuba, which believes that its total eradication through mutual respect, friendly relations and cooperation among States, and full respect for the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, self-determination and non-interference in internal affairs should constitute a priority for the international community.Therefore, Cuba is firmly of the view that the improper use of the armed forces of a State to commit aggression against another State is not countenanced by this Convention, the purpose of which is specifically to combat one of the most deleterious scourges facing the modern world.To condone acts of aggression would effectively mean to condone breaches of international law and the Charter, and to set off conflicts with unpredicatable consequences that would undermine the necessary cohesion of the international community in the fight against the real scourges afflicting the world.Moreover, it is the understanding of the Republic of Cuba that the full extent of the provisions of this Convention will apply to the activities conducted by the armed forces of a state against another in the absence of an armed conflict between the two.Lastly, Cuba wishes to place on record that a United States naval base is located, against the will of the Cuban people and Government, in the province of Guantanamo, a portion of Cuban territory over which the Cuban State does not exercise its rightful jurisdiction because of the unlawful occupation of such portion of its territory by the United States of America. Consequently, the Government of Cuba assumes no responsibility for that portion of its territory for the purposes of the Treaty, since it does not know whether the United States of America has installed, possesses, maintains or intends to install nuclear material, including nuclear weapons, on that portion of unlawfully occupied Cuban territory.Egypt<superscript>6</superscript>Reservation made upon signature:1. The Arab Republic of Egypt declares its commitment to article 4 of the Convention provided that the armed forces of a State do not violate the rules and principles of international law in the exercise of their duties under that article, and also provided that the article is not interpreted as excluding the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict from the scope of application of this Convention on the grounds that the activities of States - under certain legal circumstances - are not considered terrorist activities.2. The Arab Republic of Egypt declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 23 of the Convention.GeorgiaReservation:“… the Government of Georgia makes reservation that it does not consider itself bound by article 23, paragraph 1 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism to submit to arbitration disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention at the request of one of the State Party. ... "IndiaReservation:"India does not consider itself bound by the provision of Paragraph (1) of Article 23."IndonesiaDeclaration:“The Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that Article 4 of this Convention shall not be construed as supporting, encouraging, condoning, justifying or legitimizing the use or the threat of use of nuclear weapons for any means or purposes.”Reservation:“The Government of the Republic of Indonesia does not consider itself bound by the provision of Article 23 paragraph (1) of the Convention and takes the position that any dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention may only be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice with the consent of all the Parties to the dispute.”Jamaica<superscript>7</superscript><right>6 February 2015</right>Reservation:“The Government of Jamaica does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.”JordanReservation"The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 23, paragraph 1, of the Convention."KuwaitReservation:Kuwait shall not be bound by the provisions set out in article 23, paragraph 1, concerning submission of disputes to arbitration or to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.MaltaDeclaration and reservation:“In terms of article 9, Malta will exercise jurisdiction in terms of paragraph 2 (a), (b), (d) and (e).The Government of Malta shall not be bound by the provision of paragraph 1 of article 23 of this Convention.”MoroccoReservationThe Kingdom of Morocco does not consider itself bound by article 23, paragraph 1, which provides that any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation or by other means may be referred to the International Court of Justice by application of one of the concerned parties.The Kingdom of Morocco declares that a dispute may be referred to the International Court of Justice only by agreement of all concerned parties on a case-by-case basis.QatarUpon signature:<i>Rerservation :</i>“... with reservation on the provisions of paragraph (1) of article 23 of the Convention.”Reservation:The State of Qatar does not consider itself bound by article 23, paragraph 1 of the Convention concerning referral to the International Court of Justice.Republic of MoldovaUpon ratification<i>Declaration:</i>“Until the full re-establishment of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova, the provisions of the Convention will be applied only on the territory controlled effectively by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova.”Russian FederationDeclaration:The position of the Russian Federation is that the provisions of article 16 of the Convention should be implemented in such a way as to ensure the inevitability of responsibility for the commission of offences falling within the scope of the Convention, without detriment to the effectiveness of international cooperation on the questions of extradition and legal assistance.Saudi ArabiaReservation:The Kingdom hereby declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 23, paragraph 1 of the Convention.SingaporeReservation:"Pursuant to Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Republic of Singapore declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 23, paragraph 1 of the Convention."Declarations:"1. The Republic of Singapore understands that the term 'armed conflict' in Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention does not include internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature.2. The Republic of Singapore understands that, under Article 4 and Article 1, paragraph 6, the Convention does not apply to:a. the military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties;b. civilians who direct or organise the official activities of military forces of a state; orc. civilians acting in support of the official activities of the military forces of a state, if the civilians are under the formal command, control, and responsibility of those forces.3. The Republic of Singapore understands Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Convention to include the right of competent authorities to decide not to submit any particular case for prosecution before the judicial authorities if the alleged offender is dealt with under national security and preventive detention laws.”St. LuciaDeclarations:“1. In accordance with Article 23 paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Government of Saint Lucia does not consider itself bound by the arbitration procedures established under Article 13 paragraph 1 of the Convention.2. That the explicit expressed consent of the Government of Saint Lucia would be necessary for any submission of any dispute to arbitration o[r] to the International Court of Justice.”St. Vincent and the GrenadinesReservation: “…, in accordance with Article 23, paragraph 2 of that Convention, the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines declares that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines does not consider itself bound by Article 23, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines considers that for the submission of any dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice in terms of Article 23, paragraph 1, the consent of all parties to the dispute is required in each case.”ThailandDeclaration made upon ratification:“The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand […] declares that, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Convention, the Kingdom of Thailand does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the same Article.”Turkey<superscript>8</superscript>Upon signature:<i>Declaration:</i>"It is the understanding of the Republic of Turkey that the term international humanitarian law in Article 4(2) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, refers to the legal instruments to which Turkey is already party to. The Article should not be interpreted as giving a different status to the armed forces and groups other than the armed forces of a state as currently understood and applied in international law and thereby creating new obligations for the Republic of Turkey."<i>Reservation:</i>"Pursuant to Article 23 (2) of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Turkey declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 23(1) of the Convention."Upon ratification:Declaration:It is the understanding of the Republic of Turkey that the term international humanitarian law in article 4(2) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, refers to the legal instruments to which Turkey is already party to. The Article should not be interpreted as giving a different status to the armed forces and groups other than the armed forces of a state as currently understood and applied in international law and thereby creating new obligations for Turkey.Reservation:Pursuant to Article 23(2) of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Turkey declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 23(1) of the Convention.United Arab EmiratesReservation:… the United Arab Emirates, having considered the text of the aforementioned Convention and approved the contents thereof, formally declares its accession to the Convention, subject to a reservation with regard to Article 23, paragraph 1 in respect of arbitration. The United Arab Emirates therefore does not consider itself bound by Article 23, paragraph 1 of the Convention.United States of AmericaReservation“Pursuant to Article 23(2) of the Convention, the United States of America declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 23(1) of the Convention.”Understandings“(1) The United States of America understands that the term “armed conflict” in Article 4 of the Convention does not include situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature.(2) The United States of America understands that the term “international humanitarian law” in Article 4 of the Convention has the same substantive meaning as the law of war.(3) The United States of America understands that, pursuant to Article 4 and Article 1(6), the Convention does not apply to: a) the military forces of a State, which are the armed forces of a State organized, trained, and equipped under its internal law for the primary purpose of national defense or security, in the exercise of their official duties; (b) civilians who direct or organize the official activities of military forces of a State; or (c) civilians acting in support of the official activities of the military forces of a State, if the civilians are under the formal command, control, and responsibility of those forces.(4) The United States of America understands that current United States law with respect to the rights of persons in custody and persons charged with crimes fulfills the requirement in Article 12 of the Convention and, accordingly, the United States does not intend to enact new legislation to fulfill its obligations under this Article.”UzbekistanDeclaration:<i>"Article 16 of the Convention:</i>The Republic of Uzbekistan proceeds from the fact that the provisions of Article 16 of the Convention should be applied in such a way as to ensure the inevitability of responsibility for the crimes falling within the scope of the Convention, without prejudice to the effectiveness of international cooperation on extradition and legal assistance;<i>Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Convention:</i>The Republic of Uzbekistan declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 23 of the Convention.”Viet NamDeclaration:“1. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam shall not take this Convention as the direct legal basis for extradition. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam shall carry out extradition in accordance with the provisions of its domestic laws and regulations, on the basis of treaties on extradition and the principle of reciprocity.2. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Convention;”YemenReservation:… We declare our final approval and ratification of the abovementioned Convention, as well as the full compliance with all its provisions; with the reservation to paragraph (1) of Article (23) of the convention…Objections (Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were made upon ratification,acceptance, approval or accession.)ArmeniaObjection to the declaration made by Azerbaijan upon ratification:“The Republic of Azerbaijan made a declaration on September 15, 2005 with regard to the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism at the time of signature and confirmed when depositing the instrument of ratification. Given that the Republic of Armenia declares:The Republic of Azerbaijan deliberately misrepresents the essence of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, with respect to cause and effect of the conflict. The conflict arose due to the policy of ethnic cleansing by the Republic of Azerbaijan followed by the massive military aggression against the self-determined Nagorno-Karabakh Republic - with the aim to repress the free will of the Nagorno-Karabakh population. As a result, the Republic of Azerbaijan has occupied several territories of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.”Czech Republic<right>23 September 2013</right>With regard to the declaration made by Turkey upon ratification:“The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, in which the Republic of Turkey declares its understanding that the term international humanitarian law in article 4(2) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism refers to the legal instruments to which Turkey is already party to.In reaction to this declaration, the Czech Republic would like to express its understanding that the term international humanitarian law in article 4(2) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism refers to the relevant legal instruments binding on the States Parties to the Convention, as well as to the customary international humanitarian law, which shall continue to apply as such among all States Parties to the Convention.”Finland<right>20 September 2013</right>With regard to the declaration made by Turkey upon ratification:“The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the declaration and is of the view that this declaration amounts to a reservation as it seems to modify the obligations of the Republic of Turkey under article 4(2) of the Convention. According to the declaration, the term international humanitarian law is interpreted as only referring to the legal instruments which Turkey is already party to. This interpretation unilaterally alters the definition of international humanitarian law by excluding customary international law from the scope of international humanitarian law. The declaration also contradicts article 4(1) of the Convention.The Government of Finland wishes 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 the treaty is not permitted. In its present formulation, the reservation relating to article 4(2) is in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention.Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to the reservation relating to article 4(2) made by the Republic of Turkey. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and the Republic of Turkey. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without the Republic of Turkey benefitting from its reservation.”Netherlands<right>28 February 2014</right>With regard to the reservation made by Costa Rica upon ratification“The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by Costa Rica upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the interpretative declaration made by Costa Rica regarding Article 15 of the Convention in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention.The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of the Convention is made subject to national legislation in force in Costa Rica.The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that reservations of this kind must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention 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 a treaty shall not be permitted.The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation of Costa Rica to Article 15 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Costa Rica.”Notifications made pursuant to article 9 (3) (Unless otherwise indicated, the notifications were made upon ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.) BelarusThe Republic of Belarus establishes its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 in cases envisaged in paragraph 2 of article 9 of the Convention.ChinaIn accordance with paragraph 3 of article 9 of the Convention, the People's Republic of China has established the jurisdiction specified in paragraph 2 of article 9 of the Convention.Côte d'Ivoire<right>25 October 2012</right>Article 9 (3) :The State of Côte d’Ivoire establishes its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 9 (2).Czech Republic"In accordance with article 9, paragraph 3 of the Convention, the Czech Republic notifies that it has established its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 of the Convention in cases referred to in article 9, subparagraph 2 (c) and 2 (d) of the Convention."FranceArticle 9 (3)Competence, as referred to in Article 9 of the Convention, is established under the ratification Act No. 2013-327 of the Convention of 19 April 2013.Georgia"... In accordance with article 9, paragraph 3 of the Convention, Georgia establishes its jurisdiction over offences provided in article 9, paragraph 2, subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Convention ..."Germany"… with reference to Article 9, paragraph 3 of the Convention, … the Federal Republic of Germany [makes] the following declaration:German criminal law may be applicable in the situations specified in article 9, paragraph 2.1. Article 9, paragraph 2 (a)Whether German criminal law is applicable depends on the specific circumstances of the individual case.If offences under the Convention are committed against a German national abroad, German criminal law is applicable in accordance with section 7 (1) of the Criminal Code, provided the act is punishable at the place of its commission or the place of its commission is not subject to any criminal jurisdiction.If the objective or result of the offence is a relevant act within German territory, section 9 of the Criminal Code may be applicable in certain cases. Pursuant to subsection (1) of section 9, German criminal law is applicable if the perpetrator acted in Germany, or if the result of his action is an element of the offence and occurs on German territory or should occur there according to his understanding. Pursuant to subsection (2), acts committed abroad by an accessory may also be covered if the principal act was committed in Germany or should have been committed there according to the accessory’s understanding.2. Article 9, paragraph 2 (b)Here, too, whether German criminal law is applicable depends on the specific circumstances of the individual case. German law may be applicable if one of the special circumstances mentioned above with respect to subparagraph (a) or below with respect to subparagraph (c) or (d) is given. In addition to those cases, German criminal law may also be applicable pursuant to section 6, paragraph 9 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, of 14 December 1973.3. Article 9, paragraph 2 (c)German criminal law is applicable pursuant to section 7 (2) paragraph 2, regardless of the habitual residence of the stateless person, if he/she is found to be in Germany and the act is punishable at the place of its commission or is not subject to any criminal jurisdiction, if the perpetrator has not been extradited although the Extradition Act would permit extradition for such an act, because a request for extradition was not made within a reasonable period, has been rejected, or the extradition is not practicable. German criminal jurisdiction is thus excluded for various types of offences, in particular, minor offences, political offences and military offences (sections 3 (2) , 6 and 7 of the Act on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters respectively). Stateless persons are foreigners within the meaning of section 7 (2) 2 of the Criminal Code.4. Article 9, paragraph 2 (d)German criminal law is applicable pursuant to section 9 (1) of the Criminal Code, if the compulsion is part of the result of the act, and such result is an element of the crime.5. Article 9, paragraph 2 (e)Pursuant to section 4 of the Criminal Code, German criminal law is applicable to acts committed in an aircraft which is entitled to fly the federal flag or the national insignia of the Federal Republic of Germany (see also article 9, paragraph 1 (b), of the Convention)."Hungary"... the Republic of Hungary establishes its jurisdiction in cases mentioned in Article 9 (2) (b) and (e) of the Convention."KuwaitNotification:In accordance with article 9, paragraph 3, the State of Kuwait declares that it has jurisdiction over the offences set out in article 9, paragraph 2 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).Latvia"In accordance with paragraph 3 of the Article 9 of the Convention, the Republic of Latvia notifies that it has established its jurisdiction over all the offences enumerated in the paragraph 2 of the Article 9 of the Convention."Netherlands" ...Declaration in respect of article 9, paragraph 3 and paragraph 2, under a, of the Convention:In accordance with Article 9, paragraph 3, and with reference to Article 9, paragraph 2, under a, of the Convention, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for the Kingdom of Europe, has established jurisdiction over the offences under the Convention when the offence is committed against a Dutch national.”Nigeria“The Federal Republic of Nigeria establishes its jurisdiction in cases mentioned in Article 9 (3).”Republic of Moldova“According to the Article 9 paragraph (3) of the Convention: the Republic of Moldova declares that the offences specified in the Article 2 of the Convention are going to be under its own jurisdiction in cases mentioned in the Article 9 paragraph (2) of this Convention.”Romania"In accordance with Article 9, paragraph 3 of the Convention, Romania declares that it establishes its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in Article 2, in all cases referred to in Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the domestic law."Russian FederationThe Russian Federation declares that in accordance with paragraph 3 of article 9 of the Convention it has established its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 of the Convention in cases envisaged in paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 9 of the Convention.Saudi ArabiaThe Secretary-General of the United Nations is hereby notified that the Kingdom has decided to establish the jurisdiction provided for in article 9, paragraph 2 of the Convention.Slovakia"Pursuant to article 9, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, the Slovak Republic notifies that it has established its jurisdiction in accordance with article 9, paragraph 2, subparagraphs (c), (d) and (e) of the Convention."Slovenia<right>17 February 2010</right>"In accordance with Article 9 (3) of the Convention, the Republic of Slovenia hereby declares, that it has jurisdiction over all cases, defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 9 of the Convention.”SwedenIn accordance with article 9.3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism […], the jurisdiction established under article 9.2 follows from Chapter 2 of the Swedish Penal Code.Chapter 2 of the Swedish Penal Code – On the Applicability of Swedish Law(extract, unofficial translation)Section 1Crimes committed in this Realm shall be adjudged in accordance with Swedish law and by a Swedish court. The same applies when it is uncertain where the crime was committed but grounds exist for assuming that it was committed within the Realm.Section 2Crimes committed outside the Realm shall be adjudged according to Swedish law and by a Swedish court where the crime has been committed:1. by a Swedish citizen or an alien domiciled in Sweden,2. by an alien not domiciled in Sweden who, after having committed the crime, has become a Swedish citizen or has acquired domicile in the Realm or who is a Danish, Finnish, Icelandic, or Norwegian citizen and is present in the Realm, or3. by any other alien, who is present in the Realm, and the crime under Swedish Law can result in imprisonment for more than six months.The first paragraph shall not apply if the act is not subject to criminal responsibility under the law of the place where it was committed or if it was committed within an area not belonging to any state and, under Swedish law, the punishment for the act cannot be more severe than a fine.In cases mentioned in this Section, a sanction may not be imposed which is more severe than the severest punishment provided for the crime under the law in the place where it was committed.[…]Section 3Even in cases other than those listed in Section 2, crimes committed outside the Realm shall be adjudged according to Swedish law and by a Swedish court:1. if the crime was committed on board a Swedish vessel or aircraft or was committed in the course of duty by the officer in charge or a member of its crew,2. if the crime was committed by a member of the Swedish Armed Forces in an area in which a detachment of the Swedish Armed Forces was present, or if it was committed by some other person in such an area and the detachment was present for a purpose other than an exercise,3. if the crime was committed in the course of duty outside the Realm by a person employed in the Swedish Armed Forces and serving in an international military operation or who belongs to the Swedish Police Peace Support Operations,3 a. if the crime was committed in the line of duty outside the Realm and by a police officer, a customs officer or an officer of the Swedish Coast Guard, who has transnational assignments under an international agreement to which Sweden has adhered,4. if the crime committed was a crime against the Swedish nation, a Swedish municipal authority or other assembly, or against a Swedish public institution,5. if the crime was committed in an area not belonging to any state and was directed against a Swedish citizen, a Swedish association or private institution, or against an alien domiciled in Sweden,6. if the crime is hijacking, maritime or aircraft sabotage, airport sabotage, counterfeiting currency, an attempt to commit such crimes, unlawful dealings with chemical weapons, unlawful dealings with mines, false or careless statement before an international court, terrorist offences in accordance with Section 2 of the Act on Criminal Responsibility for Terrorist Offences (2003:148), an attempt to commit such crime, crimes mentioned in Section 5 of the same act, an offence in accordance with the Act on criminal responsibility for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (2014:406), inciting rebellion committed through direct and public incitement to commit genocide or if the crime was directed against the administration of justice of the International Criminal Court, or7. if the least severe punishment prescribed for the crime in Swedish law is imprisonment for four years or more.Section 3 aBesides the cases described in Sections 1-3, crimes shall be adjudged according to Swedish law and by a Swedish court in accordance with the provisions of the Act on International Collaboration concerning Proceedings in Criminal Matters (1976:19).Section 4A crime is deemed to have been committed where the criminal act was perpetrated and also where the crime was completed or, in the case of an attempt, where the intended crime would have been completed.Section 5Prosecution for a crime committed within the Realm on a foreign vessel or aircraft by an alien, who was the officer in charge or member of its crew or otherwise travelled in it, against another alien or a foreign interest shall not be instituted without the authority of the Government or a person designated by the Government.Prosecution for a crime committed outside the Realm may be instituted only following the authorization referred to in the first paragraph. However, prosecution may be instituted without such an order if the crime consists of a false or careless statement before an international court or if the crime was committed:1. on a Swedish vessel or aircraft or by the officer in charge or some member of its crew in the course of duty,2. by a member of the Swedish Armed Forces in an area in which a detachment of the Swedish Armed Forces was present,3. in the course of duty outside the Realm by a person employed in the Swedish Armed Forces and serving in an international military operation or who belongs to the Swedish Police Peace Support Operations,4. in the line of duty outside the Realm by a police officer, a customs officer or an officer of the Swedish Coast Guard, who has transnational assignments under an international agreement to which Sweden has adhered,5. in Denmark, Finland, Iceland or Norway or on a vessel or aircraft in regular commerce between places situated in Sweden or one of the said states, or6. by a Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Icelandic or Norwegian citizen against a Swedish interest.SwitzerlandIn accordance with article 9, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, Switzerland hereby declares that it establishes its criminal jurisdiction in respect of the offences set forth in article 2 of the Convention in the cases specified in article 9, paragraph 2 (a), (b), (d) and (e) thereof. With respect to article 9, paragraph 2 (c), jurisdiction is established where the offender is present in Switzerland or is extradited to Switzerland … .UzbekistanParagraph 3 of Article 9 of the Convention:The Republic of Uzbekistan notifies that it has established jurisdiction over criminal acts recognized under Article 2 of the Convention, in the cases described in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 9 of the Convention.13Notifications of designation of administrative or judicial authority in accordance with article 7 paragraph 4 of the Convention (Unless otherwise indicated, the notifications were made upon ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.)ParticipantSending and Receiving agency</TableHeader><Rows><Row><Column>Austria</Column><Column>Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz und Terrorismusbekämpfung (BTV)(Federal Agency for State Protection and Counter Terrorism), c/o Federal Ministry of the Interior, Herrengasse 7 A-1014 Vienna, Austria</Column><Column>2 March 2007</Column></Row><Row><Column>Belarus</Column><Column>State Security Agency of the Republic of Belarus, 17, Nezavisimosti av., 220050 Minsk, Republic of Belarus, tel: (+375 17) 219 92 21, fax: (+375 17) 226 00 38 Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Belarus, 22, Internacionalnaya str., 220050. Minsk, Republic of Belarus, tel: (+375 17) 227 31, fax: (+375 17) 226 42 52 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Belarus, 4, Gorodskoy val str., 220050, Minsk, Republic of Belarus, tel: (+375 17) 218 78 95, fax: (+375 17) 229 78 40, Ministry for Emergency Situations of the Republic of Belarus, 5, Revolucionnaya str., 220050, Minsk, Republic of Belarus, tel: (+375 17) 203 88 00, fax: (+375 17) 203 77 81, State Border Guard Committee of the Republic of Belarus, 24, Volodarski str.,220050, Minsk, Republic of Belarus, tel: (+375 17) 206 54 06, fax: (+375 17) 227 70 03, State Customs Committee of the Republic of Belarus, 45/1 Mogilevskaya str., 220007, Minsk, Republic of Belarus, tel: 218-90-00, fax: 218-91-97. <p>9 February 2012, the Investigation Committee of the Republic of Belarus was designated as a competent authority and liaison point responsible for sending and receiving the information referred to in the Article 7 of the International Convention in addition to prior designated competent authorities of the Republic of Belarus.</p></Column><Column>13 March 2007</Column></Row><Row><Column>Belgium</Column><Column>Agence fédérale de contrôle nucléaire/Federaal agentschap voor nucleaire controle (Federal Agency for Nuclear Control) Rue Ravenstein 36 B-1000 Brussels Tel: +32 (02) 289.21.11 Fax: +32 (02) 289.21.12 Organe de coordination pour l'analyse de la menace/Coördinatieorgaan voor de dreigingsanalyse/Coordination Unit for Threat Analysis Rue de la Loi 62 B-1040 Brussels Tel: +32 (02) 238.56.11 Fax: +32 (02) 217.57.29 Service Public Fédéral Interieur - Direction générale Centre de crise/Federale Overheidsdienst Binnenlandse Zaken - Algemene Directie Crisiscentrum (Ministry of the Interior - Crisis Centre) Rue Ducale 53 B-1000 Brussels Tel: +32 (02) 506.47.11 Fax: +32 (02) 506.47.09.</Column><Column/></Row><Row><Column>Chile</Column><Column><i>La Comisión Chilena de Energía Nuclear, Dirección Ejecutiva, Amunátegui No 95, (56-2) 470 2500; luis.ormazabal@cchen.cl, Santiago, Chile</i></Column><Column/></Row><Row><Column>Côte d'Ivoire</Column><Column>The competent authorities and liaison points responsible for sending information are: 1. Le Commandements Supérieur de la Gendarmerie; 2. La Direction Générale de la Police Nationale; 3. La Cellule Nationale de Traitement des Informations Financières (CENTIF).</Column><Column>25 October 2012</Column></Row><Row><Column>Czech Republic</Column><Column>POLICE OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC, Organized Crime Detection UnitArms Traffic Division, P.O. Box 41 - V215680 Praha 5 - Zbraslav, Czech Republic, Tel.: +420974842420, Fax: +420974842596, e-mail: v2uuoz@mvcr.cz(24-hour phone service: - Operations Center: +420974842690, +420974842694- Cpt. Pavel Osvald: +420603191064- Lt.Col. Jan Svoboda: +420603190355)</Column><Column>25 July 2006</Column></Row><Row><Column>Czech Republic</Column><Column>Police of the Czech Republic Organised Crime Detection Unit Arms Traffic Division P.O. Box 41 – V2 156 80 Praha 5 – Zbraslav Czech Republic Tel.: +420974842420 Fax: +420974842596 e-mail: v2uooz@mvcr.cz Operations Center (24-hour phone service): tel.: +420974842689, +420974842690, +420974842694 fax: +420974842586.”</Column><Column>20 April 2009</Column></Row><Row><Column>France</Column><Column>Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable, des Transports et du Logement</Column><Column>17 September 2013</Column></Row><Row><Column>Georgia</Column><Column>Special Operations Center, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia Vazha-Pshavela Ave N 72, Tbilissi, Georgia 0186 Tel. +(995 32) 412382 Fax: +(995 32) 301029</Column><Column/></Row><Row><Column>Germany</Column><Column>Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) (Federal Criminal Police Office) Referat ST 23 (Division ST 23) Paul-Dickopf-Str.2 D-53340 Meckenheim Federal Republic of Germany Contactability during working hours (from 7.30 hrs to 16.00 hrs on working days): Referat ST 23phone: +49 2225 89 22588/-23951; fax: +49 2225 89 45455 email: st23@bka.bund.de Contactability outside working hours: Kriminaldauerdienst (Permanent Criminal Police Service) Phone: +49 2225 89 22042/-22043; fax: +49 611 5545424/-5545425 email: zd11kddmeckenheim@bka.bund.de.”</Column><Column>1 August 2008</Column></Row><Row><Column>Hungary</Column><Column>"International Law Enforcement Cooperation Centre, Message Response and International Telecommunication Division, Tel: + 36-1-443-5557, Fax: + 36-1-443-5815, email: intercom@orfk.police.hu"</Column><Column>13 June 2007</Column></Row><Row><Column>Italy</Column><Column>Ministero della Giustizia, Dipartimento degli Affari di Giustizia (Ministry of Justice, Department of Justice Affairs), Via Arenula 70 - 00186 Rome, Tel. +39 0668852320, Fax +39 0668852299, Email: segrpart.dag@giustizia.it, segreteria.vicecapo.dag@giustizia.it, prot.dag@giustiziacert.it (certified email/postacertificata)</Column><Column>24 October 2016</Column></Row><Row><Column>Jamaica</Column><Column>“In accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 7 of the Convention, the competent authorities and liaison points responsible for sending and receiving the information referred to in Article 7 on behalf of Jamaica are: 1. The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of National Security, North Towers, NCB Towers, 2 Oxford Road, Kingston 5, Jamaica W.I, Phone: (876) 906-4908, Fax: (876) 754-3601; 2. The Director General, The International Centre for Environmental and Nuclear Sciences, 2 Anguilla Close, University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, Kingston 7, Jamaica W.I, Phone: (876) 935-8533; (876) 927-1777”</Column><Column>6 February 2014</Column></Row><Row><Column>Japan</Column><Column>"Counter International Terrorism Division, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Department, Security Bureau, National Police Agency, tel: +81-3-3581-0141 (ext. 5961), fax:: +81-3-3591-6919, Public Security Division, Criminal Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice tel: +81-3-3592-7059, fax:: +81-3-3592-7066, International Nuclear Cooperation Division, Disarmament, Non-Proliferation and Science Department, Foreign Policy Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs tel: +81-3-5501-8227 fax:: +81-3-5501-8230, Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry tel: +81-3-3501-1087 fax: +81-3-3580-8460Technology and Safety Division, Policy Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, tel: +81-3-5253-8308, fax: + 81-3-5223-1560"</Column><Column>3 August 2007</Column></Row><Row><Column>Kuwait</Column><Column>The Ministry of Justice of the State of Kuwait is the central authority in respect of the provisions of article 7, paragraph 4 of the Convention</Column><Column/></Row><Row><Column>Latvia</Column><Column>Security Police, Kr. Barona Str. 99a, Rïga, LV-1012, Latvia, Phone: +371 7208964, Fax: +371 7273373, E-mail: dp@dp.gov.lv</Column><Column>25 July 2006</Column></Row><Row><Column>Lithuania</Column><Column>"State Security Department (SSD) of the Republic of Lithuania Vytenio St. 1, LT-2009 Vilnius, Republic of Lithuania Phone/Fax: (+370 5) 2312602 E-mail: vsd@vsd.lt."</Column><Column>19 July 2007</Column></Row><Row><Column>Netherlands</Column><Column>The National Public Prosecutor on Counter Terrorism/National Public Prosecutor's Service, P.O. Box 395, 3000 AJ Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Telephone: +31 (0) 10-4966966</Column><Column>30 June 2010</Column></Row><Row><Column>Nigeria</Column><Column>Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority Telephone Number: +234-705-571-7882 Fax:+234-805-210-0758 E-Mail: officialmail@nnra.gov.ng</Column><Column>25 September 2012</Column></Row><Row><Column>Poland</Column><Column> (Anti-Terrorism Center of the Internal Security Agency), 00-993 Warszawa, ul. Rakowiecka 2a, Phone: +48 22 58 57 178, E-mail: cat@abw.gov.pl</Column><Column>6 May 2010</Column></Row><Row><Column>Saudi Arabia</Column><Column>"Ministry of the Interior and The City of King Abdulaziz for Science and Technology."</Column><Column/></Row><Row><Column>Slovenia</Column><Column>The Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Slovenia, General Police Directorate, Criminal Police Directorate, International Police Cooperation Division</Column><Column>13 January 2010</Column></Row><Row><Column>Sweden</Column><Column>National Bureau of Investigation, Interrnational Police Cooperation Division (IPO), Box 12256, SE-102 26 Stockholm, Sweden, Phone: + 46-10-563 70 00, Fax: + 46-8-651 42 03, E-mail: ipo.rkp@pofisen.se</Column><Column>18 August 2014</Column></Row><Row><Column>Switzerland</Column><Column>Central Engagement Department of the Federal Police Office, Nussbaumstrasse 29, CH – 3003 Berne, telephone no. +41 31 322 44 50, fax no. +41 31 322 53 04</Column><Column>15 October 2008</Column></Row><Row><Column>Uzbekistan</Column><Column>National Security Service of the Republic of Uzbekistan</Column><Column>29 April 2008</Column></Row></Rows></Table></SpecialTables><EndNotes><Note><index>1</index><text> The Convention shall apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and, unless otherwise notified, shall not apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.</text></Note><Note><index>2</index><text> By a commmunication received on 15 July 2016, the Government of Denmark informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the declaration, made upon ratification, regarding the territorial exclusion in respect of Greenland. </text><text> </text><text>Upon ratification on 21 March 2007, Denmark had notified the Secretary-General of the following: With a territorial exclusion in regard to the Faroe Islands and Greenland.</text></Note><Note><index>3</index><text> See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.</text></Note><Note><index>4</index><text> With a territorial exclusion. See C.N.102.2016.TREATIES-XVIII.15 of 18 March 2016.</text></Note><Note><index>5</index><text>On 20 October 2015, the Government of Ukraine made a communication. The text can be found here: C.N.615.2015.TREATIES-XVIII.15 of 20 October 2015.</text></Note><Note><index>6</index><text> The Secretary-General received from the following States, on the date indicated hereinafter, a communication with regard to the reservation made by Egypt upon signature: </text><text><i>Latvia (6 December 2006): </i> </text><text>"The Government of the Republic of Latvia has examined the reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention on the Suppression of the Acts of Nuclear Terrorism upon signature to the Convention regarding Article 4. </text><text>The Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that this reservation contradicts to the objectives and purposes of the International Convention to suppress the acts of nuclear terrorism wherever and by whomsoever they may be carried out. </text><text>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. </text><text>The Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. </text><text>However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and the Arab Republic of Egypt. Thus, the International Convention will become operative without the Arab Republic of Egypt benefiting from its reservation. </text><text><i>Italy (27 March 2007): </i> </text><text>"The Permanent Mission of Italy has the honor to refer to the reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to article 4 of the Convention, which would extend the application of the Convention to include the armed forces of a State when they "violate the rules and principles of international law in the exercise of their duties." Such activities would otherwise be excluded from the Convention by article 4. It is the opinion of Italy that Egypt cannot unilaterally extend the obligations of the other StatesParties under the Convention, without their express consent, beyond those set out in the Convention. </text><text>Italy wishes to make clear that it does not consent to this expansion of the scope of application of the Convention, and that it does not consider the Egyptian declaration to have any effect on the obligations of Italy under the Convention or on the application of the Convention to the armed forces of Italy. </text><text>Italy thus regards the unilateral declaration made by the Government of Egypt as applying only to the obligations of Egypt under the Convention and only to the armed forces of Egypt." </text><text><i>Germany (8 February 2008): </i> </text><text>“… [the Federal Republic of Germany makes] the following declaration … with regard to the reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt upon signature: </text><text>The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration, described as a reservation, relating to article 4 [“paragraph 2 and paragraph 3”] of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention. </text><text>In this declaration the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares its commitment to article 4 of the Convention provided that the armed forces of a State do not violate the rules and principles of international law in the exercise of their duties under that article, and also provided that the article is not interpreted as excluding the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict from the scope of application of this Convention on the grounds that the activities of States – under certain legal circumstances – are not considered terrorist activities. </text><text>However, article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention states that the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, as well as the activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law, are not governed by this Convention. Moreover, and according to article 4, paragraph 3, the provisions of article 4, paragraph 2, shall not be interpreted as condoning or making lawful otherwise unlawful acts, or precluding prosecution under other laws. The declaration by the Arab Republic of Egypt thus aims to broaden the scope of the Convention. </text><text>The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt is only entitled to make such a declaration unilaterally for its own armed forces, and it interprets the declaration as having binding effect only on armed forces of the Arab Republic of Egypt. In the view of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, such a unilateral declaration cannot apply to the armed forces of other States Parties without their express consent. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore declares that it does not consent to the Egyptian declaration as so interpreted with regard to any armed forces other than those of the Arab Republic of Egypt, and in particular does not recognize any applicability of the Convention to the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany. </text><text>The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany also emphasizes that the declaration by the Arab Republic of Egypt has no effect whatsoever on the Federal Republic of Germany’s obligations as State Party to the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism or on the Convention’s applicability to armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany. </text><text>The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany regards the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism as entering into force between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Arab Republic of Egypt subject to a unilateral declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt, which relates exclusively to the obligations of the Arab Republic of Egypt and to the armed forces of the Arab Republic of Egypt.”</text></Note><Note><index>7</index><text> By 6 February 2015, i.e., within a period of one year from the date of depositary notification C.N.51.2014.TREATIES-XVIII-15 of 6 February 2014, no objection had been notified to the Secretary-General. Consequently, in keeping with the depositary practice followed in similar cases, the Secretary-General received the reservation in question for deposit.</text></Note><Note><index>8</index><text> The Secretary-General received from the following State, on the date indicated hereinafter, a communication with regard to the declaration and reservation made by Turkey upon signature : </text><text><i>Latvia (22 December 2006): </i> </text><text>"The Government of the Republic of Latvia has examined the reservation and declaration made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Convention on the Suppression of the Acts of Nuclear Terrorism upon signature to the Convention regarding Article 4 (2). </text><text>The Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that this declaration is in fact unilateral act that is deemed to limit the scope of the Convention and therefore should be regarded as reservation. Thus, this reservation contradicts to the objectives and purposes of the Convention on the suppression the commitment of the acts of nuclear terrorism wherever and by whomsoever they may be carried out. </text><text>Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the reservation named as a declaration conflicts with the terms of Article 4 (1). </text><text>Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that this declaration reservation contradicts to the objectives and purposes of the International Convention to suppress the acts of nuclear terrorism wherever and by whomsoever they might be carried out. </text><text>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. </text><text>The Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation named as declaration made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Convention on the Suppression of the Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. </text><text>However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Turkey. Thus, the International Convention will become operative without the Republic of Turkey benefiting from its reservation."</text></Note></EndNotes><Footer>XVIII 15. Penal Matters</Footer></Treaty></Document>