United Nations - Treaty Collection on the Internet
Skip Navigation Links
    UNTS Document   
 
STATUS AS AT : 24-04-2014 08:09:28 EDT
CHAPTER XVIII
PENAL MATTERS
7 . Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents
New York, 14 December 1973
Entry into force
:
20 February 1977, in accordance with article 17(1).
Registration :
20 February 1977, No. 15410
Status :
Signatories : 25. Parties : 176
Text :
United Nations,  Treaty Series , vol. 1035, p. 167.
Note :
The Convention was opened for signature at New York on 14 December 1973 until 31 December 1974.
Participant
Signature
Ratification, Accession(a), Succession(d)
Afghanistan
  24 Sep 2003 a
Albania
  22 Jan 2002 a
Algeria
   7 Nov 2000 a
Andorra
  23 Sep 2004 a
Antigua and Barbuda
  19 Jul 1993 a
Argentina
  18 Mar 1982 a
Armenia
  18 May 1994 a
Australia
30 Dec 1974
20 Jun 1977
Austria
   3 Aug 1977 a
Azerbaijan
   2 Apr 2001 a
Bahamas
  22 Jul 1986 a
Bahrain
  16 Sep 2005 a
Bangladesh
  20 May 2005 a
Barbados
  26 Oct 1979 a
Belarus
11 Jun 1974
 5 Feb 1976
Belgium
  19 May 2004 a
Belize
  14 Nov 2001 a
Benin
  31 Jul 2003 a
Bhutan
  16 Jan 1989 a
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
  22 Jan 2002 a
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
   1 Sep 1993 d
Botswana
  25 Oct 2000 a
Brazil
   7 Jun 1999 a
Brunei Darussalam
  13 Nov 1997 a
Bulgaria
27 Jun 1974
18 Jul 1974
Burkina Faso
   1 Oct 2003 a
Burundi
  17 Dec 1980 a
Cabo Verde
  10 Sep 2002 a
Cambodia
  27 Jul 2006 a
Cameroon
   8 Jun 1992 a
Canada
26 Jun 1974
 4 Aug 1976
Central African Republic
  19 Feb 2008 a
Chile
  21 Jan 1977 a
China 2, 3
   5 Aug 1987 a
Colombia
  16 Jan 1996 a
Comoros
  25 Sep 2003 a
Costa Rica
   2 Nov 1977 a
Côte d'Ivoire
  13 Mar 2002 a
Croatia 1
  12 Oct 1992 d
Cuba
  10 Jun 1998 a
Cyprus
  24 Dec 1975 a
Czech Republic 4
  22 Feb 1993 d
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
   1 Dec 1982 a
Democratic Republic of the Congo
  25 Jul 1977 a
Denmark 5
10 May 1974
 1 Jul 1975
Djibouti
   1 Jun 2004 a
Dominica
  24 Sep 2004 a
Dominican Republic
   8 Jul 1977 a
Ecuador
27 Aug 1974
12 Mar 1975
Egypt
  25 Jun 1986 a
El Salvador
   8 Aug 1980 a
Equatorial Guinea
   7 Feb 2003 a
Estonia
  21 Oct 1991 a
Ethiopia
  16 Apr 2003 a
Fiji
  15 May 2008 a
Finland
10 May 1974
31 Oct 1978
France
  26 Aug 2003 a
Gabon
  14 Oct 1981 a
Georgia
  18 Feb 2004 a
Germany 6, 7
15 Aug 1974
25 Jan 1977
Ghana
  25 Apr 1975 a
Greece
   3 Jul 1984 a
Grenada
  13 Dec 2001 a
Guatemala
12 Dec 1974
18 Jan 1983
Guinea
  22 Dec 2004 a
Guinea-Bissau
   6 Aug 2008 a
Guyana
  12 Sep 2007 a
Haiti
  25 Aug 1980 a
Holy See
  26 Sep 2012 a
Honduras
  29 Jan 2003 a
Hungary
 6 Nov 1974
26 Mar 1975
Iceland
10 May 1974
 2 Aug 1977
India
  11 Apr 1978 a
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
  12 Jul 1978 a
Iraq
  28 Feb 1978 a
Ireland
  30 Jun 2005 a
Israel
  31 Jul 1980 a
Italy
30 Dec 1974
30 Aug 1985
Jamaica
  21 Sep 1978 a
Japan
   8 Jun 1987 a
Jordan
  18 Dec 1984 a
Kazakhstan
  21 Feb 1996 a
Kenya
  16 Nov 2001 a
Kiribati
  15 Sep 2005 a
Kuwait
   1 Mar 1989 a
Kyrgyzstan
   2 Oct 2003 a
Lao People's Democratic Republic
  22 Aug 2002 a
Latvia
  14 Apr 1992 a
Lebanon
   3 Jun 1997 a
Lesotho
   6 Nov 2009 a
Liberia
  30 Sep 1975 a
Libya
  25 Sep 2000 a
Liechtenstein
  28 Nov 1994 a
Lithuania
  23 Oct 2002 a
Luxembourg
  10 May 2006 a
Madagascar
  24 Sep 2003 a
Malawi
  14 Mar 1977 a
Malaysia
  24 Sep 2003 a
Maldives
  21 Aug 1990 a
Mali
  12 Apr 2002 a
Malta
  11 Nov 2001 a
Marshall Islands
  27 Jan 2003 a
Mauritania
   9 Feb 1998 a
Mauritius
  24 Sep 2003 a
Mexico
  22 Apr 1980 a
Micronesia (Federated States of)
   6 Jul 2004 a
Monaco
  27 Nov 2002 a
Mongolia
23 Aug 1974
 8 Aug 1975
Montenegro 8
  23 Oct 2006 d
Morocco
   9 Jan 2002 a
Mozambique
  14 Jan 2003 a
Myanmar
   4 Jun 2004 a
Nauru
   2 Aug 2005 a
Nepal
   9 Mar 1990 a
Netherlands 9
   6 Dec 1988 a
New Zealand 10
  12 Nov 1985 a
Nicaragua
29 Oct 1974
10 Mar 1975
Niger
  17 Jun 1985 a
Nigeria
  25 Sep 2012 a
Niue
  22 Jun 2009 a
Norway
10 May 1974
28 Apr 1980
Oman
  22 Mar 1988 a
Pakistan
  29 Mar 1976 a
Palau
  14 Nov 2001 a
Panama
  17 Jun 1980 a
Papua New Guinea
  30 Sep 2003 a
Paraguay
25 Oct 1974
24 Nov 1975
Peru
  25 Apr 1978 a
Philippines
  26 Nov 1976 a
Poland
 7 Jun 1974
14 Dec 1982
Portugal
  11 Sep 1995 a
Qatar
   3 Mar 1997 a
Republic of Korea
  25 May 1983 a
Republic of Moldova
   8 Sep 1997 a
Romania
27 Dec 1974
15 Aug 1978
Russian Federation
 7 Jun 1974
15 Jan 1976
Rwanda
15 Oct 1974
29 Nov 1977
Sao Tome and Principe
  12 Apr 2006 a
Saudi Arabia
   1 Mar 2004 a
Senegal
   7 Apr 2006 a
Serbia 1
  12 Mar 2001 d
Seychelles
  29 May 1980 a
Sierra Leone
  26 Sep 2003 a
Singapore
   2 May 2008 a
Slovakia 4
  28 May 1993 d
Slovenia 1
   6 Jul 1992 d
South Africa
  23 Sep 2003 a
Spain
   8 Aug 1985 a
Sri Lanka
  27 Feb 1991 a
St. Kitts and Nevis
  28 Jul 2008 a
St. Lucia
  12 Nov 2012 a
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
  12 Sep 2000 a
Sudan
  10 Oct 1994 a
Swaziland
   4 Apr 2003 a
Sweden
10 May 1974
 1 Jul 1975
Switzerland
   5 Mar 1985 a
Syrian Arab Republic
  25 Apr 1988 a
Tajikistan
  19 Oct 2001 a
Thailand
  23 Feb 2007 a
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 1
  12 Mar 1998 d
Togo
  30 Dec 1980 a
Tonga
   9 Dec 2002 a
Trinidad and Tobago
  15 Jun 1979 a
Tunisia
15 May 1974
21 Jan 1977
Turkey
  11 Jun 1981 a
Turkmenistan
  25 Jun 1999 a
Uganda
   5 Nov 2003 a
Ukraine
18 Jun 1974
20 Jan 1976
United Arab Emirates
  25 Feb 2003 a
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
13 Dec 1974
 2 May 1979
United States of America
28 Dec 1973
26 Oct 1976
Uruguay
  13 Jun 1978 a
Uzbekistan
  19 Jan 1998 a
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
  19 Apr 2005 a
Viet Nam
   2 May 2002 a
Yemen 11
   9 Feb 1987 a
Declarations and Reservations
(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made
upon ratification, accession or succession. For objections thereto see hereinafter.)
Algeria

Reservation:
       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.

Andorra

Declaration:
       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.

Argentina
       In 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.

Belarus

Reservation 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.

Brazil

Reservation:
       With the reservation provided for in paragraph 2 of article 13.

Bulgaria 12

Burundi 13
       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 14

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".

Cuba

Declaration:
       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 3

Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Reservation:
       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 Congo
       The 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.

Ecuador

Upon 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 Salvador
       The State of El Salvador does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention.

Ethiopia

Reservation 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."

Finland

Reservation 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."

France

Déclarations:
       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 6

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 15
       "(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 See

Declarations:
       “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 16

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 13, 17
       (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 18

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 17

Reservation:
       The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan de- clares that its accession [. . .] cannot give rise to relations with "Israel".

Kuwait 17

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 Republic

Reservation:
       "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."

Liechtenstein

Interpretative 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.

Lithuania

Reservation:
       “... 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.”

Luxembourg

Declaration:
       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."

Malaysia

Declarations:
       "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."

Mauritius

Reservation:
       "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."

Mongolia

Declaration 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."

Mozambique

Declaration:
       "... 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."

Myanmar

Reservation:
       “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.”

Netherlands

Declaration:
       "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."

31 January 2012


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 9

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".

Peru
       With reservation as to article 13 (1).

Poland 19

Romania 20

Russian Federation 21

Saudi Arabia

Reservation:
       .....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

Declaration
       “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."

Reservation
       "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 3

St. Lucia

Declarations:
       “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 Grenadines

Declaration:
       “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.”

Switzerland

Declaration:
       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 17

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.

Thailand

Reservations:
       "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."

Tunisia

Reservation 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.

Ukraine

Reservation 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 Nam

Reservation:
       "Acceding to this Convention, the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam makes its reservation to paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention."

Yemen 11, 17

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.

Declaration
       The 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 made
upon ratification, accession or succession.)
Germany 6

30 November 1979

       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.

25 March 1981

       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.

3 November 2004

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.”

28 June 1982

       "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

2 November 2004

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."

15 January 1982

       "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
Participant
Date of receipt of the notification
Territories
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 2, 22, 23, 24 2 May 1979 United 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
End Note
1.The 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.
2.The 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.
3.On 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.
4.Czechoslovakia 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,  Treaty Series ,  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.
5.In 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.
6.The German Democratic Republic had signed and ratified the Convention, with reservation, on 23 May 1974 and 30 November 1976, respectively. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations,  Treaty Series , vol. 1035, p. 230. See note 2 under “Germany” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
7.See  note 1 under “Germany” regarding Berlin (West) in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
8.See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.
9.For the Kingdom in Europe, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.
10.The 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.
11.The formality was effected by Democratic Yemen.  See also note 1 under “Yemen” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
12.On 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,  Treaty Series , vol. 1035, p. 228.
13.Upon depositing its instrument of accession, the Government of France made the following declaration with regard to declarations made by the following States:

Burundi upon accession:

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.

Iraq upon accession:

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.

14.On 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.

15.In 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,  Treaty Series , vol. 1035, p. 235.
16.In 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,  Treaty Series , vol. 1035, p. 235.
17.The 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,  mutatis mutandis 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.

18.The 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.
19.On 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,  Treaty Series , vol. 1295, p. 394.
20.In 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.

21.In 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.

22.The Government of the United Kingdom specified that the application of the Convention had been extended to Anguilla as from 26 March 1987.
23.The 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."

24.On 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."