CHAPTER XVIII
PENAL MATTERS
7Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic AgentsNew York, 14 December 197320 February 1977, in accordance with article 17(1).20 February 1977, No. 15410Signatories25Parties180United Nations, <i>Treaty Series </i>, vol. 1035, p. 167.The Convention was opened for signature at New York on 14 December 1973 until 31 December 1974.
ParticipantSignatureRatification, Accession(a), Succession(d)Afghanistan24 Sep 2003 aAlbania22 Jan 2002 aAlgeria 7 Nov 2000 aAndorra23 Sep 2004 aAntigua and Barbuda19 Jul 1993 aArgentina18 Mar 1982 aArmenia18 May 1994 aAustralia30 Dec 1974 20 Jun 1977 Austria 3 Aug 1977 aAzerbaijan 2 Apr 2001 aBahamas22 Jul 1986 aBahrain16 Sep 2005 aBangladesh20 May 2005 aBarbados26 Oct 1979 aBelarus11 Jun 1974 5 Feb 1976 Belgium19 May 2004 aBelize14 Nov 2001 aBenin31 Jul 2003 aBhutan16 Jan 1989 aBolivia (Plurinational State of)22 Jan 2002 aBosnia and Herzegovina<superscript>1</superscript> 1 Sep 1993 dBotswana25 Oct 2000 aBrazil 7 Jun 1999 aBrunei Darussalam13 Nov 1997 aBulgaria27 Jun 1974 18 Jul 1974 Burkina Faso 1 Oct 2003 aBurundi17 Dec 1980 aCabo Verde10 Sep 2002 aCambodia27 Jul 2006 aCameroon 8 Jun 1992 aCanada26 Jun 1974 4 Aug 1976 Central African Republic19 Feb 2008 aChile21 Jan 1977 aChina<superscript>2,3</superscript> 5 Aug 1987 aColombia16 Jan 1996 aComoros25 Sep 2003 aCosta Rica 2 Nov 1977 aCôte d'Ivoire13 Mar 2002 aCroatia<superscript>1</superscript>12 Oct 1992 dCuba10 Jun 1998 aCyprus24 Dec 1975 aCzech Republic<superscript>4</superscript>22 Feb 1993 dDemocratic People's Republic of Korea 1 Dec 1982 aDemocratic Republic of the Congo25 Jul 1977 aDenmark<superscript>5</superscript>10 May 1974 1 Jul 1975 Djibouti 1 Jun 2004 aDominica24 Sep 2004 aDominican Republic 8 Jul 1977 aEcuador27 Aug 1974 12 Mar 1975 Egypt25 Jun 1986 aEl Salvador 8 Aug 1980 aEquatorial Guinea 7 Feb 2003 aEstonia21 Oct 1991 aEswatini 4 Apr 2003 aEthiopia16 Apr 2003 aFiji15 May 2008 aFinland10 May 1974 31 Oct 1978 France26 Aug 2003 aGabon14 Oct 1981 aGeorgia18 Feb 2004 aGermany<superscript>6,7</superscript>15 Aug 1974 25 Jan 1977 Ghana25 Apr 1975 aGreece 3 Jul 1984 aGrenada13 Dec 2001 aGuatemala12 Dec 1974 18 Jan 1983 Guinea22 Dec 2004 aGuinea-Bissau 6 Aug 2008 aGuyana12 Sep 2007 aHaiti25 Aug 1980 aHoly See26 Sep 2012 aHonduras29 Jan 2003 aHungary 6 Nov 1974 26 Mar 1975 Iceland10 May 1974 2 Aug 1977 India11 Apr 1978 aIran (Islamic Republic of)12 Jul 1978 aIraq28 Feb 1978 aIreland30 Jun 2005 aIsrael31 Jul 1980 aItaly30 Dec 1974 30 Aug 1985 Jamaica21 Sep 1978 aJapan 8 Jun 1987 aJordan18 Dec 1984 aKazakhstan21 Feb 1996 aKenya16 Nov 2001 aKiribati15 Sep 2005 aKuwait 1 Mar 1989 aKyrgyzstan 2 Oct 2003 aLao People's Democratic Republic22 Aug 2002 aLatvia14 Apr 1992 aLebanon 3 Jun 1997 aLesotho 6 Nov 2009 aLiberia30 Sep 1975 aLibya25 Sep 2000 aLiechtenstein28 Nov 1994 aLithuania23 Oct 2002 aLuxembourg10 May 2006 aMadagascar24 Sep 2003 aMalawi14 Mar 1977 aMalaysia24 Sep 2003 aMaldives21 Aug 1990 aMali12 Apr 2002 aMalta11 Nov 2001 aMarshall Islands27 Jan 2003 aMauritania 9 Feb 1998 aMauritius<superscript>8</superscript>24 Sep 2003 aMexico22 Apr 1980 aMicronesia (Federated States of) 6 Jul 2004 aMonaco27 Nov 2002 aMongolia23 Aug 1974 8 Aug 1975 Montenegro<superscript>9</superscript>23 Oct 2006 dMorocco 9 Jan 2002 aMozambique14 Jan 2003 aMyanmar 4 Jun 2004 aNamibia 2 Sep 2016 aNauru 2 Aug 2005 aNepal 9 Mar 1990 aNetherlands<superscript>10</superscript> 6 Dec 1988 aNew Zealand<superscript>11</superscript>12 Nov 1985 aNicaragua29 Oct 1974 10 Mar 1975 Niger17 Jun 1985 aNigeria25 Sep 2012 aNiue22 Jun 2009 aNorth Macedonia<superscript>1</superscript>12 Mar 1998 dNorway10 May 1974 28 Apr 1980 Oman22 Mar 1988 aPakistan29 Mar 1976 aPalau14 Nov 2001 aPanama17 Jun 1980 aPapua New Guinea30 Sep 2003 aParaguay25 Oct 1974 24 Nov 1975 Peru25 Apr 1978 aPhilippines26 Nov 1976 aPoland 7 Jun 1974 14 Dec 1982 Portugal11 Sep 1995 aQatar 3 Mar 1997 aRepublic of Korea25 May 1983 aRepublic of Moldova 8 Sep 1997 aRomania27 Dec 1974 15 Aug 1978 Russian Federation 7 Jun 1974 15 Jan 1976 Rwanda15 Oct 1974 29 Nov 1977 San Marino16 Dec 2014 aSao Tome and Principe12 Apr 2006 aSaudi Arabia 1 Mar 2004 aSenegal 7 Apr 2006 aSerbia<superscript>1</superscript>12 Mar 2001 dSeychelles29 May 1980 aSierra Leone26 Sep 2003 aSingapore 2 May 2008 aSlovakia<superscript>4</superscript>28 May 1993 dSlovenia<superscript>1</superscript> 6 Jul 1992 dSouth Africa23 Sep 2003 aSpain 8 Aug 1985 aSri Lanka27 Feb 1991 aSt. Kitts and Nevis28 Jul 2008 aSt. Lucia12 Nov 2012 aSt. Vincent and the Grenadines12 Sep 2000 aState of Palestine 2 Jan 2015 aSudan10 Oct 1994 aSweden10 May 1974 1 Jul 1975 Switzerland 5 Mar 1985 aSyrian Arab Republic25 Apr 1988 aTajikistan19 Oct 2001 aThailand23 Feb 2007 aTogo30 Dec 1980 aTonga 9 Dec 2002 aTrinidad and Tobago15 Jun 1979 aTunisia15 May 1974 21 Jan 1977 Türkiye11 Jun 1981 aTurkmenistan25 Jun 1999 aUganda 5 Nov 2003 aUkraine<superscript>12</superscript>18 Jun 1974 20 Jan 1976 United Arab Emirates25 Feb 2003 aUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland13 Dec 1974 2 May 1979 United States of America28 Dec 1973 26 Oct 1976 Uruguay13 Jun 1978 aUzbekistan19 Jan 1998 aVenezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)19 Apr 2005 aViet Nam 2 May 2002 aYemen<superscript>13</superscript> 9 Feb 1987 aZambia17 Oct 2016 a
Declarations and Reservations(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were madeupon ratification, accession or succession. For objections thereto see hereinafter.)AlgeriaReservation:The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents.The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria states that in each individual case, a dispute may be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of all parties to the dispute.AndorraDeclaration:In view of article 1, paragraph 1 (a) of this Convention, the Principality of Andorra declares that, in accordance with article 43 of the Constitution of Andorra, and the tradition dating from the Pareatges of 1278, the Heads of State of Andorra are jointly and indivisbly the Coprinceps. These Coprinceps, in their personal and exclusive right, are the Bishop of Urgell and the President of the French Republic.ArgentinaIn accordance with article 13, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Argentine Republic declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention.BelarusReservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratifica tion:The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, and states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.BrazilReservation:With the reservation provided for in paragraph 2 of article 13.Bulgaria<superscript>14</superscript>Burundi<superscript>15</superscript>In respect of cases where the alleged offenders belong to a national liberation movement recognized by Burundi or by an international organization of which Burundi is a member, and their actions are part of their struggle for liberation, the Government of the Republic of Burundi reserves the right not to apply to them the provisions of article 2, paragraph 2, and article 6, paragraph 1.China[The People's Republic of China] declares that, in accordance with paragraph 2 of article 13 of the Convention, the People's Republic of China has reservations on paragraph l of article 13 of the Convention and does not consider itself bound by the provisions of the said paragraph.Colombia<superscript>16</superscript>Reservations:...3. Colombia enters a reservation to those provisions of the Convention, which are contrary to the guiding principles of the Colombian Penal Code and to article 29 of the Political Constitution of Colombia, the fourth paragraph of which states that:Everyone shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. Anyone who is charged with an offence shall be entitled to defence and the assistance of counsel of his own choosing, or one appointed by the court, during the investigation and trial; to be tried properly, in public without undue delay; to present evidence and to refute evidence brought against him; to contest the sentence; and not to be tried twice for the same act.Consequently, the expression "Alleged offender" shall be taken to mean "the accused".CubaDeclaration:In accordance with article 13, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Republic of Cuba declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention.Czech Republic<superscript>3</superscript>Democratic People's Republic of KoreaReservation:The Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, recognizing that any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention should not, without consent of both parties, be submitted to international arbitration and to the International Court of Justice.Democratic Republic of the CongoThe Republic of Zaire does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice. In the light of its policy based on respect for the sovereignty of States, the Republic of Zaire is opposed to any form of compulsory arbitration and hopes that such disputes may be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice not at the request of one of the parties but with the consent of all the interested parties.EcuadorUpon signature:Ecuador wishes to avail itself of the provisions of article 13, paragraph 2, of the Convention, declaring that it does not consider itself bound to refer disputes concerning the application of the Convention to the International Court of Justice.El SalvadorThe State of El Salvador does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention.EthiopiaReservation pursuant to article 13 (2) :"The Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia does not consider itself bound by the aforementioned provision of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, and states that disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention would be submitted to arbitration or to the Court only with the prior consent of all the parties concerned."FinlandReservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratifica tion:"Finland reserves the right to apply the provision of article 8, paragraph 3, in such a way that extradition shall be restricted to offences which, under Finnish Law, are punishable by a penalty more severe than imprisonment for one year and, provided also that other conditions in the Finnish Legislation for extradition are fulfilled."Declaration made upon signature:"Finland also reserves the right to make such other reserva- tions as it may deem appropriate if and when ratifying this Con- vention."FranceDéclarations:France understands that only acts which may be defined as acts of terrorism constitute crimes within the meaning of article 2 of the Convention.The application of the Convention shall be without prejudice to the Convention adopted at New York on 9 December 1994 on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel.Germany<superscript>6</superscript>Upon signature:"The Federal Republic of Germany reserves the right, upon ratifying this Convention, to state its views on the explanations of vote and declarations made by other States upon signing or ratifying or acceding to that Convention and to make reservations regarding certain provisions of the said Convention."Ghana<superscript>17</superscript>"(i) Paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention provides that disputes may be submitted to arbitration, failing which any of the parties to the dispute may refer it to the International Court of Justice by request. Since Ghana is opposed to any form of compulsory arbitration, she wishes to exercise her option under article 13 (2) to make a reservation on article 13 (1). It is noted that such a reservation can be withdrawn later under article 13 (3)."Holy SeeDeclarations:“By acceding to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, the Holy See intends to contribute and to give its moral support to the global prevention, repression and prosecution of such crimes and to the protection of their victims.In conformity with its own nature, its Mission, and the particular character of Vatican City State, the Holy See upholds the values of brotherhood, justice and peace between persons and peoples, whose protection and strengthening require the primacy of the rule of law and respect for human rights, and it reaffirms that instruments of criminal and judicial cooperation constitute effective safeguards in the face of criminal activities that jeopardize human dignity and peace. […]Pursuant to articles 8.2 and 8.3 of the Convention, the Holy See declares that it takes the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other Parties to the Convention, subject to the limitations to the extradition of persons provided for by its domestic law.With regard to articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the Holy See declares that, in light of its legal doctrine and the sources of its law (Vatican City State Law LXXI, 1 October 2008), nothing in the Convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to extradite or provide mutual legal assistance if there are substantial grounds for believing that the request is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or political opinion; that compliance with the request would cause prejudice to that person’s position for any of these reasons; or that the person would be subject to the death penalty or to torture.Pursuant to the last sentence of article 2.2(a) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the financing of Terrorism, of 9 December 1999, the Holy See, acting also in the name and on behalf of Vatican City State, declares that, from the moment the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, enters into force for the Holy See, it shall be deemed to be included within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism pursuant to its article 2.1(a). ”Reservation:“Pursuant to article 13.2 of the Convention, the Holy See, acting also in the name and on behalf of Vatican City State, declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 13.1 of the Convention. The Holy See, acting also in the name and on behalf of Vatican City State, specifically reserves the right to agree in a particular case, on an ad hoc basis, to any convenient means to settle any dispute arising out of this Convention.”Hungary<superscript>18</superscript>India"The Government of the Republic of India does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 13 which establishes com- pulsory arbitration or adjudication by the International Court of Justice concerning disputes between two or more States Parties relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention."Iraq<superscript>15,19</superscript>(1) The resolution of the United Nations General Assembly with which the above-mentioned Convention is enclosed shall be considered to be an integral part of the above-mentioned Convention.(2) Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (1) of article 1 of the Convention shall cover the representatives of the national liber- ation movements recognized by the League of Arab States or the Organization of African Unity.(3) The Republic of Iraq shall not bind itself by paragraph (1) of article 13 of the Convention.(4) The accession of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to the Convention shall in no way constitute a recognition of Israel or a cause for the establishment of any relations of any kind therewith.Israel<superscript>20</superscript>Declarations:"The Government of the State of Israel declares that its accession to the Convention does not constitute acceptance by it as binding of the provisions of any other international instrument, or acceptance by it of any other international instrument as being an instrument related to the Convention.The Government of Israel reaffirms the contents of its com- munication of 11 May 1979 to the Secretary-General of the United Nations."Reservation:"The State of Israel does not consider itself bound by para- graph 1 of article 13 of the Convention."Jamaica"Jamaica avails itself of the provisions of article 13, para- graph 2, and declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice, and states that in each individual case, the con sent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for the submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice."Jordan<superscript>19</superscript>Reservation:The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan de- clares that its accession [. . .] cannot give rise to relations with "Israel".Kuwait<superscript>19</superscript>Declaration:[The Government of Kuwait] wishes to reiterate Kuwait's complete reservation on paragraph 1 of article 13 in the Convention, for its accession to it does not mean in any way a recognition of Israel by the Government of the State of Kuwait and does not engage them into any treaty relations as a result.Lao People's Democratic RepublicReservation:"In accordance with paragraph 2, Article 13 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, the Lao People's Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1, article 13 of the present Convention. The Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that to refer to a dispute relating to interpretation and application of the present Convention to arbitration or International Court of Justice, the agreement of all parties concerned in the dispute is necessary."LiechtensteinInterpretative declaration:The Principality of Liechtenstein construes articles 4 and 5, paragraph 1 of the Convention, to mean that the Principality of Liechtenstein undertakes to fulfil the obligations contained therein under the conditions laid down in its domestic legislation.LithuaniaReservation:“... Whereas it is provided in paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the said Convention, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania declares that the Republic of Lithuania does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 13 of the said Convention, providing that any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall be referred to the International Court of Justice.”LuxembourgDeclaration:Luxembourg courts are competent to apply the Convention, and Luxembourg criminal law applies to the crimes referred to in article 2 of the Convention when the alleged offender is in Luxembourg territory and has not been extradited to another State, regardless of the nationality of the alleged offender and the place where the crime was perpetrated.Malawi"The Government of the Republic of Malawi [declares], in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 13, that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention."MalaysiaDeclarations:"1. The Government of Malaysia understands the phrase "alleged offender" in Article 1(2) of the Convention to mean the accused.2. The Government of Malaysia understands the phrase "or other attack" in Article 2(1)(a) of the Convention to mean acts that are recognized as offences under its domestic laws.3. The Government of Malaysia understands Article 7 of the Convention to include the right of the 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.4. (a) Pursuant to Article 13(2) of the Convention, the Government of Malaysia declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 13(l) of the Convention; and(b) the Government of Malaysia reserves the right specifically to agree in a particular case to follow the arbitration procedure set forth in Article 13(l) of the Convention or any other procedure for arbitration."MauritiusReservation:"In accordance with Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, the Republic of Mauritius hereby declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and states that it considers that a dispute may be submitted or referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of all parties to the dispute.”Declaration:"The Republic of Mauritius rejects the extension of the Convention by the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland to the Chagos Archipelago (so-called British Indian Ocean Territory) and reaffirms its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago which forms part of its national territory."MongoliaDeclaration made upon signature and renewed upon ratification:"The Mongolian People's Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties of the Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, and states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice."MozambiqueDeclaration:"... with the following declaration in accordance with its article 13, paragraph 2:“The Republic of Mozambique does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1 of the Convention.In this connection, the Republic of Mozambique states that, in each individual case, the consent of all Parties to such a dispute is necessary for the submission of the dispute to arbitration or to [the] International Court of Justice.” Furthermore, the Republic of Mozambique declares that: The Republic of Mozambique, in accordance with its Constitution and domestic laws, can not extradite Mozambique citizens.Therefore, Mozambique citizens will be tried and sentenced in national courts."MyanmarReservation:“The Government of Myanmar does not consider itself bound by the article 13 (1) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents adopted on 14 December 1973.”NetherlandsDeclaration:"In view of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands article 12 of the Convention, and in particular the second sentence of that Article, in no way affects the applicability of article 33 of the Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees".Reservation:"In cases where the judicial authorities of either the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba cannot exercise jurisdiction pursuant to one of the principles mentioned in article 3, para. 1, the Kingdom accepts the aforesaid obligation [laid down in article 7] subject to the condition that it has received and rejected a request for extradition from another State party to the Convention."<right>31 January 2012</right>Partial withdrawal of reservation with regard to article 7 “In cases where the judicial authorities of either the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba cannot exercise jurisdiction pursuant to one of the principles mentioned in Article 3, paragraph 1, the Kingdom accepts the aforesaid obligation [laid down in article 7] subject to the condition that it has received and rejected a request for extradition from another State Party to the Convention."New Zealand<superscript>10</superscript>Reservation:The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply the provisions of the Convention to Tokelau pending the enactment of the necessary implementing legislation in Tokelau law.Pakistan"Pakistan shall not be bound by paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention".PeruWith reservation as to article 13 (1).Poland<superscript>21</superscript>Romania<superscript>22</superscript>Russian Federation<superscript>23</superscript>Saudi ArabiaReservation:.....the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not consider itself obligated to observe paragraph 1 of Article 13 which deals with resolving any dispute arising from interpretation or implementation of the Convention .Singapore<i>Declaration</i>“The Republic of Singapore understands Article 7, 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."<i>Reservation</i>"Pursuant to Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Republic of Singapore declares that it will no be bound by the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 1 of the Convention.”Slovakia<superscript>3</superscript>St. LuciaDeclarations:“1. In accordance with Article 13 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 GrenadinesDeclaration:“Saint Vincent and the Grenadines avails itself of the provisions of article 13, paragraph 2 of the aforesaid Convention and declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of that article under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice, and states that in each individual case, the consent of all Parties to such a dispute is necessary for the submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.”SwitzerlandDeclaration:The Swiss Federal Council interprets article 4 and article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention to mean that Switzerland undertakes to fulfil the obligations contained therein in the conditions specified by its domestic legislation.Syrian Arab Republic<superscript>19</superscript>Declaration:1. The Syrian Arab Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, concerning arbitration and the results thereof.2. Accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to this Conven- tion in no way implies recognition of Israel or entry into any relations with Israel concerning any question regulated by this Convention.ThailandReservations:"1. In applying the provision of article 8, paragraph 3 of the Convention, extraditable offences shall be restricted to offences which, under Thai law, are punishable with imprisonment of not less than one year and are subject to the procedural provisions and other conditions of the Thai legislation for extradition.2. The Kingdom of Thailand does not consider itself bound by article 13, paragraph 1 of the Convention."Trinidad and Tobago"The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago avails itself of the provisions of article 13, paragraph 2, and declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of that article under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Con- vention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to ar- bitration or referred to the International Court of Justice, and states that in each individual case, the consent of all Parties to such a dispute is necessary for the submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice."TunisiaReservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:No dispute may be brought before the International Court of Justice unless by agreement between all parties to the dispute.UkraineReservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic does not consider it self bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, and states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)Reservation:The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in accordance with the provision of article 13 (2) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents formulates a reservation with respect to the provision established under paragraph 1 of the said article. Consequently, it does not consider itself obligated to refer to arbitration as a means of settlement of disputes, nor does it recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.Viet NamReservation:"Acceding to this Convention, the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam makes its reservation to paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention."Yemen<superscript>13,19</superscript>Reservation:In acceding to this Convention, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen does not consider itself bound by article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, which states that disputes be- tween States parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention may, at the request of anyone of the parties to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice. It declares that the competence of the International Court of Justice with respect to disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall in each case be subject to the express consent of all parties to the dispute.DeclarationThe People's Democratic Republic of Yemen declares that its accession to this Convention shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or serve as grounds for the establishment of relations of any sort with Israel.Objections(Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were madeupon ratification, accession or succession.)Germany<superscript>6</superscript>Germany<superscript>6</superscript><right>30 November 1979</right>The statement by the Republic of Iraq on sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (1) of article 1 of the Convention does not have any legal effects for the Federal Republic of Germany.<right>25 March 1981</right>The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany con- siders the reservation made by the Government of Burundi con- cerning article 2, paragraph 2, and article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.<right>3 November 2004</right>With regard to the declaration made by Malaysia upon accession:"The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the declaration relating to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against internationally protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents made by the Government of Malaysia at the time of its accession to the Convention.The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that in making the interpretation and application of Article 7 of the Convention subject to the national legislation of Malaysia, the Government of Malaysia introduces a general and indefinite reservation that makes it impossible to clearly identify in which way the Government of Malaysia intends to change the obligations arising from the Convention. Therefore the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany hereby objects to this declaration which is considered to be a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Malaysia."Israel“The Government of the State of Israel does not regard as valid the reservation made by Iraq in respect of paragraph (1) (b) of article 1 of the said Convention.”<right>28 June 1982</right>"The Government of the State of Israel regards the reservation entered by the Government of Burundi as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and is unable to consider Burundi as having validly acceded to the Convention until such time as the reservation is withdrawn.“In the view of the Government of Israel, the purpose of this Convention was to secure the world-wide repression of crimes against internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents, and to deny the perpetrators of such crimes a safe haven."Italy(a) The Italian Government does not consider as valid the reservation made by Iraq on 28 February 1978 with regard to article 1, paragraph 1(b), of the said Convention;(b) With regard to the reservation expressed by Burundi on 17 December 1980, [the Italian Government considers that] the purpose of the Convention is to ensure the punishment, world-wide, of crimes against internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents, and to deny a safe haven to the perpetrators of such crimes. Considering therefore that the reservation expressed by the Government of Burundi is incompatible with the aim and purpose of the Convention, the Italian Government can not consider Burundi's accession to the Convention as valid as long as it does not withdraw that reservation.Netherlands<right>2 November 2004</right>With regard to the declaration made by Malaysia upon accession:"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the declaration relating to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents made by the Government of Malaysia at the time of its accession to the Convention.The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that in making the interpretation and application of Article 7 of the Convention subject to the national legislation of Malaysia, the Government of Malaysia is formulating a general and indefinite reservation that makes it impossible to identify the changes to the obligations arising from the Convention that it is intended to introduce. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore considers that a reservation formulated in this way is likely to contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.For these reasons, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby objects to this declaration which it considers to be a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Malaysia. "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland do not regard as valid the reservation made by Iraq in respect of paragraph (1) (b) of article 1 of the said Convention."<right>15 January 1982</right>"The purpose of this Convention was to secure the world-wide repression of crimes against internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents, and to deny the perpetrators of such crimes a safe haven. Accordingly the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland regard the reservation entered by the Government of Burundi as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and are unable to consider Burundi as having validly acceded to the Convention until such time as the reservation is withdrawn."Territorial Application
ParticipantDate of receipt of the notificationTerritories
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland<superscript>2,24,25,26</superscript> 2 May 1979United Kingdom Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in the Island of Cyprus, Belize, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and Dependencies, Gibraltar, Gilbert Islands, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Bailiwick of Jersey, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, St. Helena and Dependencies and Turks and Caicos Islands
1The former Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the Convention on 17 December 1974 and 29 December 1976, respectively. See also note 1 under “Bosnia and Herzegovina”, “Croatia”, “former Yugoslavia”, “The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and “Yugoslavia” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.2The Secretary-General received, on 6 and 10 June 1999, communications concerning the status of Hong Kong from China and the United Kingdom (see also note 2 under “China” and note 2 under “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” regarding Hong Kong in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, China notified the Secretary-General that the Convention with reservation will also apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.3On 11 August 1999, the Government of Portugal informed the Secretary-General that the Convention will apply to Macao. Subsequently, the Secretary-General received, on 18 November 1999 and 13 December 1999, communications concerning the status of Macao from Portgual and China (see also note 3 under “China” and note 1 under “Portugal” regarding Macao in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Macao, China notified the Secretary-General that the Convention with reservation will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region.4Czechoslovakia had signed and ratified the Convention on 11 October 1974 and 30 June 1975, respectively, with a reservation. Subsequently, by a notification received on 26 April 1991, the Government of Czechoslovakia notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation to article 13 (1) made upon ratification. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, <i>Treaty Series </i>, vol. 1035, p. 234. See also note 1 under “Czech Republic” and note 1 under “Slovakia” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.5In a notification received on 12 March 1980, the Government of Denmark informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation made upon ratification of the Convention, which specified that until further decision, the Convention would not apply to the Faeroe Islands or to Greenland. The notification indicates 1 April 1980 as the effective date of withdrawal.6The German Democratic Republic had signed and ratified the Convention, with reservation, on 23 May 1974 and 30 November 1976, respectively (See, <a href='http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/1974/CN.56.1974-Eng.pdf' target='_blank'>C.N.56.1974</a>.TREATIES-1 of 7 June 1974). For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, <i>Treaty Series </i>, vol. 1035, p. 230. See note 2 under “Germany” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.7See note 1 under “Germany” regarding Berlin (West) in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.8On 9 January 2020, the Secretary-General received a communication from the Government of Mauritius regarding the Chagos Archipelago. See C.N.44.2020.TREATIES-XVIII.7 of 31 January 2020 for the text of the above-mentioned communication. 9See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.10For the Kingdom in Europe, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.11The instrument of accession specifies that the Convention will also apply to the Cook Islands and Niue. See also note 1 under “New Zealand” regarding Tokelau in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.12On 20 October 2015, the Government of Ukraine made a communication. The text can be found here: C.N.604.2015.TREATIES-XVIII.7 of 20 October 2015.13The formality was effected by Democratic Yemen. See also note 1 under “Yemen” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.14On 24 June 1992, the Government of Bulgaria notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation to article 13 (1) of the Convention, made upon signature and renewed upon ratification. For the text of the declaration, see United Nations, <i>Treaty Series </i>, vol. 1035, p. 228.15Upon depositing its instrument of accession, the Government of France made the following declaration with regard to declarations made by the following States:<i>Burundi upon accession: </i>France objects to the declaration made by Burundi on 17 December 1980 limiting the application of the provisions of article 2, paragraph 2 and article 6, paragraph 1.<i>Iraq upon accession: </i>France contests the interpretation made by Iraq on 28 February 1978 that the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly with which the above-mentioned Convention is enclosed should be considered to be an integral part of the Convention, and objects to Iraq's reservation relating to article 1, paragraph 1 (b) of the Convention.16On 1 March 2002, the Government of Colombia informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the following reservations made upon accession: 1. Colombia enters a reservation to those provisions of the Convention, and particularly to article 8 (1), (2), (3) and (4) thereof, which are inconsistent with article 35 of the Basic Law in force which states that: Native-born Colombians may not be extradited. Aliens will not be extradited for political crimes or for their opinions. Any Colombian who has committed, abroad, crimes that are considered as such under national legislation, shall be tried and sentenced in Colombia. 2. Colombia enters a reservation to article 13 (1) of the Convention, inasmuch as it is contrary to the provisions of article 35 of its Political Constitution.17In a notification received on 18 November 1976, the Government of Ghana informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation contained in its instrument of accession, concerning article 3 (1)(c) of the Convention. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, <i>Treaty Series </i>, vol. 1035, p. 235.18In a communication received on 8 December 1989, the Government of Hungary notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation in respect to article 13 (1) of the Convention made upon ratification. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, <i>Treaty Series </i>, vol. 1035, p. 235.19The Secretary-General received on 11 May 1979 from the Government of Israel the following communication:"The instrument deposited by the Government of Iraq contains a statement of a political character in respect to Israel. In the view of the Government of Israel, this is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements, which are, moreover, in flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of the Organization. That pronouncement by the Government of Iraq cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon it under general international law or under particular treaties.“The Government of Israel will, insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Iraq an attitude of complete reciprocity.”Identical communications, in essence, <i>mutatis mutandis </i> have been received by the Secretary-General from the Government of Israel on 11 March 1985 in respect of the reservation made by Jordan; on 21 August 1987 in respect of the declaration by Democratic Yemen; on 26 July 1988 in respect of the declaration made by the Syrian Arab Republic; and on 17 May 1989 in respect of the declaration made by Kuwait.20The communication of 11 May 1979 referred to in the second paragraph of the declaration made by Israel upon accession to the Convention, refers to the communication made with respect to the reservation made by Iraq upon its accession to the Convention. See note 14 in this chapter.21On 16 October 1997, the Government of Poland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation with regard to article 13, paragraph 1 of the Convention made upon ratification. For the text of the reservation see United Nations, <i>Treaty Series </i>, vol. 1295, p. 394.22In a communication received on 19 September 2007, the Government of Romania notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratifica tion to the Convention. The text of the reservation read as follows:The Socialist Republic of Romania declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice.The Socialist Republic of Romania considers that such disputes may be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of all parties to the dispute in each individual case.23In a communication received on 1 May 2007, the Government of the Russian Federation informed the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the following reservation made by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics upon signature to the Convention and confirmed upon ratification thereof:The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, and states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.24The Government of the United Kingdom specified that the application of the Convention had been extended to Anguilla as from 26 March 1987.25The Secretary-General received, on 25 May 1979 from the Government of Guatemala,the following communication: The Government of Guatemala [does] not accept [the extension by the United Kingdom of the Convention to the Territory of Belize] in view of the fact the said Territory is a territory concerning which a dispute exists and to which [Guatemala] maintains a claim that is the subject, by mutual agreement, of procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes between the two Governments concerned. In this respect, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in a communication received by the Secretary-General on 12 November 1979, stated the following: "The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to their sovereignty over Belize and do not accept the reservation submitted by the Government of Guatemala."26On 3 October 1983, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Argentina the following objection: [The Government of Argentina makes a] formal objection to the [declaration] of territorial extension issued by the United Kingdom with regard to the Malvinas Islands [and dependencies], which that country is illegally occupying and refers to as the "Falkland Islands". The Argentine Republic rejects and considers null and void the [said declaration] of territorial extension. With reference to the above-mentioned objection, the Secretary-General received, on 28 February 1985, from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the following declaration: "The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to their right, by notification to the Depositary under the relevant provisions of the above-mentioned Convention, to extend the application of the Convention in question to the Falkland Islands or to the Falkland Islands Dependencies, as the case may be. For this reason alone, the Government of the United Kingdom are unable to regard the Argentine [communication] under reference as having any legal effect."