convention: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

Entry into force: March 23, 1976

Signed by 74 countries, ratified by 173 countries

Country	Signature date	Ratification date *	Reservation / Declaration	Comments
Afghanistan	-	January 24, 1983	Reservation Declaration: The presiding body of the Revolutionary Council of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan declares that the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, according to which some countries cannot join the aforesaid Covenants, contradicts the International character of the aforesaid Treaties. Therefore, according to the equal rights of all States to sovereignty, both Covenants should be left open for the purpose of the participation of all States.	-
Albania	-	October 4, 1991	-	-
Algeria	December 10, 1968	September 12, 1989	Reservation Interpretative declarations: 1. The Algerian Government interprets article 1, which is common to the two Covenants, as in no case impairing the inalienable right of all peoples to self-determination and to control over their natural wealth and resources. It further considers that the maintenance of the State of dependence of certain territories referred to in article 1, paragraph 3, of the two Covenants and in article 14 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, to the Charter of the Organization and to the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)]. 2. The Algerian Government interprets the provisions of article 8 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and article 22 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as making the law the framework for action by the State with respect to the organization and exercise of the right to organize. 3. The Algerian Government considers that the provisions of article 13, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights can in no case impair its right freely to organize its educational system. 4. The Algerian Government interprets the provisions of article 23, paragraph 4, of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights regarding the rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution as in no way impairing the essential foundations of the Algerian legal system. »	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: [The Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Algeria] recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
Andorra	August 5, 2002	September 22, 2006	-	-
Angola	-	January 10, 1992	-	-
Antigua and Barbuda	-	July 3, 2019	-	-
Argentina	February 19, 1968	August 8, 1986	Reservation Understanding: The Argentine Government states that the application of the second part of article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall be subject to the principle laid down in article 18 of the Argentine National Constitution.	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: The instrument contains a declaration under article 41 of the Covenant by which the Government of Argentina recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established by virtue of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Armenia	-	June 23, 1993	-	-
Australia	December 18, 1972	August 13, 1980	Reservation Reservations: Article 10 "In relation to paragraph 2 (a) the principle of segregation is accepted as an objective to be achieved progressively. In relation to paragraph 2 (b) and 3 (second sentence) the obligation to segregate is accepted only to the extent that such segregation is considered by the responsible authorities to be beneficial to the juveniles or adults concerned". Article 14 "Australia makes the reservation that the provision of compensation for miscarriage of justice in the circumstances contemplated in paragraph 6 of article 14 may be by administrative procedures rather than pursuant to specific legal provision." Article 20 "Australia interprets the rights provided for by articles 19, 21 and 22 as consistent with article 20; accordingly, the Common wealth and the constituent States, having legislated with respect to the subject matter of the article in matters of practical concern in the interest of public order (ordre public), the right is reserved not to introduce any further legislative provision on these matters." Declaration: "Australia has a federal constitutional system in which legislative, executive and judicial powers are shared or distributed between the Commonwealth and the constituent States. The implementation of the treaty throughout Australia will be effected by the Commonwealth, State and Territory authorities having regard to their respective constitutional powers and arrangements concerning their exercise." Objections: 18 September 2007 With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession : "The Government of Australia considers that the reservation with respect to article 18 of the Covenant is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Australia recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. Furthermore, the Government of Australia considers that the Republic of Maldives, through this reservation, is purporting to make the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights subject to the provisions of constitutional law in force in the Republic of Maldives. As a result, it is unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Republic of Maldives to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Australia considers that the reservation with respect to article 18 of the Covenant is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation, pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Further, the Government of Australia recalls that according to article 4 (2) of the Covenant, no derogation of article 18 is permitted. For the above reasons, the Government of Australia objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and expresses the hope that the Republic of Maldives will soon be able to withdraw its reservation in light of the ongoing process of a revision of the Maldivian Constitution. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Australia and the Republic of Maldives." 28 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of Australia has examined the reservation made by The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and now hereby objects to the same for and on behalf of Australia: The Government of Australia considers that the reservations by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are incompatible with the object and purpose of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant). The Government of Australia recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. Furthermore, the Government of Australia considers that The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, through its reservations, is purporting to make the application of the Covenant subject to the provisions of general domestic law in force in The Islamic Republic of Pakistan. As a result, it is unclear to what extent The Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Australia considers that the reservations to the Covenant are subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation, pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of the Lawof Treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Further, the Government of Australia recalls that according to article 4 (2) of the Covenant, no derogation of article 18 is permitted. For the above reasons, the Government of Australia objects to the aforesaid reservations made by The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Covenant and expresses the hope that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will withdraw its reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Australia and The Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 28 January 1993 "The Government of Australia declares that it recognizes, for and on behalf of Australia, the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the aforesaid Convention."
Austria	December 10, 1973	September 10, 1978	Reservation 1. Article 12, paragraph 4, of the Covenant will be applied provided that it will not affect the Act of April 3, 1919, State Law Gazette No. 209, concerning the Expulsion and the Transfer of Property of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine as amended by the Act of October 30, 1919, State Law Gazette No. 501, the Federal Constitutional Act of July 30, 1925, Federal Law Gazette No. 292, and the Federal Constitutional Act of January 26, 1928, Federal Law Gazette No. 30, read in conjunction with the Federal Constitutional Act of July 4, 1963, Federal Law Gazette No. 172. 2. Article 9 and article 14 of the Covenant will be applied provided that legal regulations governing the proceedings and measures of deprivation of liberty as provided for in the Administrative Procedure Acts and in the Financial Penal Act remain permissible within the framework of the judicial review by the Federal Administrative Court or the Federal Constitutional Court as provided by the Austrian Federal Constitution. 3. Article 10, paragraph 3, of the Covenant will be applied provided that legal regulations allowing for juvenile prisoners to be detained together with adults under 25 years of age who give no reason for concern as to their possible detrimental influence on the juvenile prisoner remain permissible. 4. Article 14 of the Covenant will be applied provided that the principles governing the publicity of trials as set forth in article 90 of the Federal Constitutional Law as amended in 1929 are in no way prejudiced and that (a) paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (d) is not in conflict with legal regulations which stipulate that an accused person who disturbs the orderly conduct of the trial or whose presence would impede the questioning of another accused person, of a witness or of an expert can be excluded from participation in the trial; (b) paragraph 5 is not in conflict with legal regulations which stipulate that after an acquittal or a lighter sentence passed by a court of the first instance, a higher tribunal may pronounce conviction or a heavier sentence for the same offence, while they exclude the convicted person's right to have such conviction or heavier sentence reviewed by a still higher tribunal; (c) paragraph 7 is not in conflict with legal regulations which allow proceedings that led up to a person's final conviction or acquittal to be reopened. 5. Articles 19, 21 and 22 in connection with article 2 (1) of the Covenant will be applied provided that they are not in conflict with legal restrictions as provided for in article 16 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 6. Article 26 is understood to mean that it does not exclude different treatment of Austrian nationals and aliens, as is also permissible under article 1, paragraph 2, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Objections: 18 September 2007 With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of Austria has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006 in respect of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Austria is of the opinion that reservations which consist in a general reference to a system of norms (like the constitution of the legal order of the reserving State) without specifying the contents thereof leave it uncertain to which extent that State accepts to be bound by the obligations under the treaty. Moreover, those norms may be subject to changes. The reservation made by the Republic of Maldives is therefore not sufficiently precise to make it possible to determine the restrictions that are introduced into the agreement. The Government of Austria is therefore of the opinion that the reservation is capable of contravening the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Austria therefore regards the above-mentioned reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Maldives." 13 October 2010 With regard to the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification: “The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights at the time of its ratification. In the view of Austria a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. A reservation which consists of a general reference to constitutional provisions without specifying its implications does not do so. The Government of Austria therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Austria and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.” 24 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of Austria has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Government of Austria considers that in aiming to exclude the application of those provisions of the Covenant which are deemed incompatible with the Constitution of Pakistan, Sharia laws and certain national laws, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has made reservations of general and indeterminate scope. These reservations do not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. The Government of Austria therefore considers the reservations of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19; further to Articles 12, 13 and 25 incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to them. Austria further considers that the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant has a pivotal role in the implementation of the Covenant. The exclusion of the competence of the Committee is not provided for in the Covenant and in Austria’s views incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Austria therefore objects to this reservation. These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Austria and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 10 September 1978 [The Government of the Republic of Austria] declares under article 41 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that Austria recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Azerbaijan	-	August 13, 1992	Reservation Notifications under Article 4 (3) of the Covenant (Derogations): 17 April 1995 (Dated 8 April 1995) Extension of the state of emergency in Baku fora period of 60 days, by Decree of the President of the Republic dated 2 April 1995 as from 2000 hours on 3 April 1995. The extension of the state of emergency in Baku has been declared, as indicated by the Government of Azerbaijan, due to an attempted coup d'état which took place on 13-17 March 1995 in the city of Baku and to the fact that notwithstanding the suppression of the rebellion, criminal elements in the city of Baku are continuing activities inconsistent with the will of the people and endeavouring to disrupt public order. The Government of Azerbaijan also confirmed that the extension was decided in order to protect the constitutional order of the country, to maintain public order in the city of Baku, to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens and to restore legality and law and order.	-
Bahamas	December 4, 2008	December 23, 2008	Reservation Reservation “The Government of The Bahamas recognizes and accepts the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment contained in paragraph 6 of article 14, but the problems of implementation are such that the right not to apply that principle is presently reserved.”	-
Bahrain	-	September 20, 2006	-	-
Bangladesh	-	September 6, 2000	Reservation Declarations: "Article 10: So far as the first part of paragraph 3 of Article 10 relating to reformation and social rehabilitation of prisoners is concerned, Bangladesh does not have any facility to this effect on account of financial constraints and for lack of proper logistics support. The last part of this paragraph relating to segregation of juvenile offenders from adults is a legal obligation under Bangladesh law and is followed accordingly. Article 11: Article 11 providing that "no one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation," is generally in conformity with the Constitutional and legal provisions in Bangladesh, except in some very exceptional circumstances, where the law provides for civil imprisonment in case of willful default in complying with a decree. The Government of People's Republic of Bangladesh will apply this article in accordance with its existing municipal law. Article 14: So far as the provision of legal assistance in paragraph 3(d) of Article 14 is concerned, a person charged with criminal offences is statutorily entitled to legal assistance if he does not have the means to procure such assistance. The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, notwithstanding its acceptance of the principle of compensation for miscarriage of justice, as stipulated in Article 14, paragraph 6, is not in a position to guarantee a comprehensive implementation of this provision for the time being. However, the aggrieved has the right to realise compensation for miscarriage of justice by separate proceedings and in some cases, the court suo moto grants compensation to victims of miscarriage of justice. Bangladesh, however, intends to ensure full implementation of this provision in the near future." Reservation: "Article 14 "The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh reserves the right not to apply paragraph 3 (d) of Article 14 in view of the fact, that, while the existing laws of Bangladesh provide that, in the ordinary course a person, shall be entitled to be tried in his presence, it also provides for a trial to be held in his absence if he is a fugitive offender, or is a person, who being required to appear before a court, fails to present himself or to explain the reasons for non-appearance to the satisfaction of the court."	-
Barbados	-	January 5, 1973	Reservation "The Government of Barbados states that it reserves the right not to apply in full, the guarantee of free legal assistance in accordance with paragraph 3 (d) of Article 14 of the Covenant, since, while accepting the principles contained in the same paragraph, the problems of implementation are such that full application cannot be guaranteed at present."	-
Belarus	March 19, 1968	November 12, 1973	-	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 30 September 1992 The Republic of Belarus declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Human Rights in accordance with article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
Belgium	December 10, 1968	April 21, 1983	Reservation Reservations: ... 2. The Belgian Government considers that the provision of article 10, paragraph 2 (a), under which accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons is to be interpreted in conformity with the principle, already embodied in the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners [resolution (73) 5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of 19 January 1973], that untried prisoners shall not be put in contact with convicted prisoners against their will [rules 7 (b) and 85 (1)]. If they so request, accused persons may be allowed to take part with convicted persons in certain communal activities. 3. The Belgian Government considers that the provisions of article 10, paragraph 3, under which juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status refers exclusively to the judicial measures provided for under the régime for the protection of minors established by the Belgian Act relating to the protection of young persons. As regards other juvenile ordinary-law of- fenders, the Belgian Government intends to reserve the option to adopt measures that may be more flexible and be designed precisely in the interest of the persons concerned. 4. With respect to article 14, the Belgian Government considers that the last part of paragraph 1 of the article appears to give States the option of providing or not providing for certain derogations from the principle that judgements shall be made public. Accordingly, the Belgian constitutional principle that there shall be no exceptions to the public pronouncements of judgements is in conformity with that provision. Paragraph 5 of the article shall not apply to persons who, under Belgian law, are convicted and sentenced at second instance following an appeal against their acquittal of first instance or who, under Belgian law, are brought directly before a higher tribunal such as the Court of Cassation, the Appeals Court or the Assize Court. 5. Articles 19, 21 and 22 shall be applied by the Belgian Government in the context of the provisions and restrictions set forth or authorized in articles 10 and 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, by the said Convention. Declarations: 6. The Belgian Government declares that it does not consider itself obligated to enact legislation in the field covered by article 20, paragraph 1, and that article 20 as a whole shall be applied taking into account the rights to freedom of thought and religion, freedom of opinion and freedom of assembly and association proclaimed in articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in articles 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant. 7. The Belgian Government declares that it interprets article 23, paragraph 2, as meaning that the right of persons of marriageable age to marry and to found a family presupposes not only that national law shall prescribe the marriageable age but that it may also regulate the exercise of that right. Objections: 6 November 1984 [The Belgian Government] wishes to observe that the sphere of application of article 11 is particularly restricted. In fact, article 11 prohibits imprisonment only when there is no reason for resorting to it other than the fact that the debtor is unable to fulfil a contractual obligation. Imprisonment is not incompatible with article 11 when there are other reasons for imposing this penalty, for example when the debtor, by acting in bad faith or through fraudulent manoeuvres, has placed himself in the position of being unable to fulfil his obligations. This interpretation of article 11 can be confirmed by reference to the travaux préparatoires (see document A/2929 of 1 July 1955). After studying the explanations provided by the Congo concerning its reservation, [the Belgian Government] has provisionally concluded that this reservation is unnecessary. It is its understanding that the Congolese legislation authorizes imprisonment for debt when other means of enforcement have failed when the amount due exceeds 20,000 CFA francs and when the debtor, between 18 and 60 years of age, makes himself insolvent in bad faith. The latter condition is sufficient to show that there is no contradiction between the Congolese legislation and the letter and the spirit of article 11 of the Covenant. By virtue of article 4, paragraph 2, of the aforementioned Covenant, article 11 is excluded from the sphere of application of the rule which states that in the event of an exceptional public emergency, the States Parties to the Covenant may, in certain conditions, take measures derogating from their obligations under the Covenant. Article 11 is one of the articles containing a provision from which no derogation is permitted in any circumstances. Any reservation concerning that article would destroy its effects and would therefore be in contradiction with the letter and the spirit of the Covenant. Consequently, and without prejudice to its firm beliefthat Congolese law is in complete conformity with the provisions of article 11 of the Covenant, [the Belgian Government] fears that the reservation made by the Congo may, by reason of its very principle, constitute a precedent which might have considerable effects at the international level. [The Belgian Government] therefore hopes that this reservation will be withdrawn and, as a precautionary measure, wishes to raise an objection to that reservation. 5 October 1993 The Government of Belgium wishes to raise an objection to the reservation made by the United States of America regarding article 6, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, which prohibits the imposition of the sentence of death for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age. The Government of Belgium considers the reservation to be incompatible with the provisions and intent of article 6 of the Covenant which, as is made clear by article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, establishes minimum measures to protect the right to life. The expression of this objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Belgium and the United States of America. 28 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: Belgium has carefully examined the reservations made by Pakistan upon accession on 23 June 2010 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The vagueness and general nature of the reservations made by Pakistan with respect to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may contribute to undermining the bases of international human rights treaties. The reservations make the implementation of the Covenant’s provisions contingent upon their compatibility with the Islamic Sharia and/or legislation in force in Pakistan. This creates uncertainty as to which of its obligations under the Covenant Pakistan intends to observe and raises doubts as to Pakistan’s respect for the object and purpose of the Covenant. As to the reservation made with respect to Article 40, Belgium emphasizes that the object and purpose of the Covenant are not only to confer rights upon individuals, thereby imposing corresponding obligations on States, but also to establish an effective mechanism for monitoring obligations under the Covenant. It is in the common interest for all parties to respect the treaties to which they have acceded and for States to be willing to enact such legislative amendments as may be necessary in order to fulfil their treaty obligations. Belgium also notes that the reservations concern a fundamental provision of the Covenant. Consequently, Belgium considers the reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Belgium notes that under customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted (article 19 (c)). Furthermore, under Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Consequently, Belgium objects to the reservations formulated by Pakistan with respect to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Belgium and Pakistan.	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 5 March 1987 The Kingdom of Belgium declares that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 18 June 1987 The Kingdom of Belgium declares, under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Belgium, made a declaration under article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself.
Belize	-	June 10, 1996	Reservation Reservations: "(a) The Government of Belize reserves the right not to apply paragraph 2 of article 12 in view of the statutory provisions requiring persons intending to travel abroad to furnish tax clearance certificates; (b) The Government of Belize reserves the right not to apply in full the guarantee of free legal assistance in accordance with paragraph 3 (d) of article 14, since, while it accepts the principle contained in that paragraph and at present applies it in certain defined cases, the problems of implementation are such that full application cannot be guaranteed at present; (c) The Government of Belize recognizes and accepts the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment contained in paragraph 6 of article 14, but the problems of implementation are such that the right not to apply that principle is presently reserved."	-
Benin	-	March 12, 1992	-	-
Bolivia	-	August 12, 1982	-	-
Bosnia and Herzegovina	-	September 1, 1993	-	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: "The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in accordance with article 41 of the said Covenant, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."
Botswana	September 8, 2000	September 8, 2000	Reservation Reservations made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: "The Government of the Republic of Botswana considers itself bound by: a) Article 7 of the Covenant to the extent that "torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" means torture inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment prohibited by Section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana. b) Article 12 paragraph 3 of the Covenant to the extent that the provisions are compatible with Section 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana relating to the imposition of restrictions reasonably required in certain exceptional instances.	-
Brazil	-	January 24, 1992	-	-
Bulgaria	October 8, 1968	September 21, 1970	Reservation "The People's Republic of Bulgaria deems it necessary to underline that the provisions of article 48, paragraphs l and 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and article 26, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, under which a number of States are deprived of the opportunity to become parties to the Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature. These provisions are inconsistent with the very nature of the Covenants, which are universal in character and should be open for accession by all States. In accordance with the principle of sovereign equality, no State has the right to bar other States from becoming parties to a covenant of this kind."	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 12 May 1993 "The Republic of Bulgaria declares that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."
Burkina Faso	-	January 4, 1999	-	-
Burundi	-	May 9, 1990	-	-
Cabo Verde	-	August 6, 1993	-	-
Cambodia	October 17, 1980	May 26, 1992	-	-
Cameroon	-	June 27, 1984	-	-
Canada	-	May 19, 1976	Reservation Objections: 18 September 2007 With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of Canada has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Maldives upon acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with which the "application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives". The Government of Canada considers that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law constitutes, in reality, a reservation with a general, indeterminate scope, such that it makes it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant, which it purports to introduce and it does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. The Government of Canada notes that the reservation made by the Government of the Maldives which addresses one of the most essential provisions of the Covenant, to which no derogation is allowed according to article 4 of the Covenant, is in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Maldives. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Canada and the Maldives." 27 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of Canada has carefully examined the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which declare that: “the provisions of Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws”; “the provisions of Article 12 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan”; “With respect to Article 13, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners”; “the provisions of Article 25 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan”; and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan “does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant”. The Government of Canada considers that reservations which consist of a general reference to national law or to the prescriptions of the Islamic Sharia constitute, in reality, reservations with a general, indeterminate scope. This makes it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant that each reservation purports to introduce and impossible for the other States Parties to the Covenant to know the extent to which Pakistan has accepted the obligations of the Covenant, an uncertainty which is unacceptable, especially in the context of treaties related to human rights. The Government of Canada further considers that the competence of the Committee to receive, study and comment on the reports submitted by States Parties as provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant is essential to the implementation of the Covenant. Through its function and its activity, the Human Rights Committee plays an essential role in monitoring the fulfillment of the obligations of the States Parties to the Convention. Participation in the reporting mechanism outlined in Article 40, which is aimed at encouraging more effective implementation by States Parties of their treaty obligations, is standard practice of States Parties to the Covenant. The Government of Canada notes that the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, addressing many of the most essential provisions of the Covenant, and aiming to exclude the obligations under those provisions, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and thus inadmissible under Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In addition, Articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant are among the provisions from which no derogation is allowed, according to Article 4 of the Covenant. The Government of Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Canada and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 29 October 1979 "The Government of Canada declares, under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the said Covenant to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Canada, made a declaration under article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself." Communication from may 14th 2014: "The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Secretary-General's communication of 9 April 2014, numbered C.N.181.2014.TREATIES-IV.4, relating to that treaty. The Permanent Mission of Canada notes that this communication was made pursuant to the Secretary General's capacity as Depositary for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Permanent Mission of Canada notes the technical and administrative role of the Depositary, and that it is for States Parties to a treaty, not the Depositary, to make their own determination with respect to any legal issues raised by instruments circulated by a depositary. In that context, the Permanent Mission of Canada notes that 'Palestine' does not meet the criteria of a state under international law and is not recognized by Canada as a state. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the Permanent Mission of Canada wishes to note its position that in the context of the purported Palestinian accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 'Palestine' is not able to accede to this convention, and that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not enter into force, or have an effect on Canada's treaty relations, with respect to the 'State of Palestine'."
Central African Republic	-	May 8, 1981	-	-
Chad	-	June 9, 1995	-	-
Chile	September 16, 1969	February 10, 1972	Reservation Notifications under Article 4 (3) of the Covenant (Derogations): 23 March 2010 Owing to the earthquake that took place in Chile on 27 February 2010, the Government of Chile decreed a 30-day constitutional state of disaster emergency in the regions of Maule and Bío Bío, by Supreme Decrees Nos. 152 and 153 of 28 February 2010, respectively. In addition, by Supreme Decree No. 173, a constitutional state of disaster emergency was declared by the Government of Chile in the Libertador Bernardo O'Higgins region. Under these measures, the President of the Republic may restrict fundamental freedoms. The freedoms that may be restricted are freedom and movement and of assembly. Goods may be requisitioned and property rights limited in accordance with article 43 of the Constitution.	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 7 September 1990 As from the date of this instrument, the Government of Chile recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with article 41 thereof, with regard to all actions which may have been initiated since 11 March 1990.
China	October 5, 1998	-	Reservation Statement: The signature that the Taiwain authorities affixed, by usurping the name of "China", to the [Convention] on 5 October 1967, is illegal and null and void.	-
Colombia	December 21, 1966	October 29, 1969	Reservation Notifications under Article 4 (3) of the Covenant (Derogations): 16 October 2008 ..., by Legislative Decree No. 3929 of 9 October 2008, a nationwide state of internal disturbance has been declared for 90 days. 31 August 2010 Pursuant to the provision of article 16 of Law No. 137 of 1994 and in keeping with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I [...] inform you of the issuance of Decree No. 2799 of 2010, "which partially amends Decrees Nos. 2693 and 2694 of 2010". By means of this measure, a special category of goods excluded from sales tax is temporarily created, with the aim of benefiting those people affected by the situation that led to teh declaration of a social emergency...	-
Comoros	September 25, 2008	-	-	-
Congo	-	October 5, 1983	Reservation Reservation: The Government of the People's Republic of Congo declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 11 [...] Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is quite incompatible with articles 386 et seq . of the Congolese Code of Civil, Commercial, Administrative and Financial Procedure, derived from Act 51/83 of 21 April 1983. Under those provisions, in matters of private law, decisions or orders emanating from conciliation proceedings may be enforced through imprisonment for debt when other means of enforcement have failed, when the amount due exceeds 20,000 CFA francs and when the debtor, between 18 and 60 years of age, makes himself insolvent in bad faith.	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 7 July 1989 Pursuant to article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Congolese Government recognizes, with effect from today's date, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the above-mentioned Covenant.
Costa Rica	December 19, 1966	November 29, 1968	-	-
Croatia	-	October 12, 1992	-	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 12 October 1995 The Government of the Republic of Croatia declares under article 41 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that the Republic of Croatia recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Cuba	February 28, 2008	-	Reservation Declaration: The Republic of Cuba hereby declares that it was the Revolution that enabled its people to enjoy the rights set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America and its policy of hostility and aggression against Cuba constitute the most serious obstacle to the Cuban people's enjoyment of the rights set out in the Covenant. The rights protected under this Covenant are enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic and in national legislation. The State's policies and programmes guarantee the effective exercise and protection of these rights for all Cubans. With respect to the scope and implementation of some of the provisions of this international instrument, Cuba will make such reservations or interpretative declarations as it may deem appropriate.	-
Cyprus	December 19, 1966	April 2, 1969	Reservation Objections: 26 November 2003 With regard to the declaration made by the Turkey upon ratification: ".....the Government of the Republic of Cyprus has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966) on 23 September 2003, in respect of the implementation of the provisions of the Convention only to the States Parties which it recognizes and with which it has diplomatic relations. In the view of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, this declaration amounts to a reservation. This reservation creates uncertainty as to the States Parties in respect of which Turkey is undertaking the obligations in the Covenant, and raises doubt as to the commitment of Turkey to the object and purpose of the said Covenant. The Government of the Republic of Cyprus therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This reservation or the objection to it shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Turkey."	-
Czech Republic	-	February 22, 1993	Reservation Objections: 12 September 2007 With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of the Czech Republic has carefully examined the contents of the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, in respect of Article 18 thereof. The Government of the Czech Republic is of the opinion that the aforementioned reservation is in contradiction with the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a State party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform according to the obligations set out by the treaty. Furthermore, the reservation consists of a general reference to the Constitution without specifying its content and as such does not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Covenant. The Government of the Czech Republic recalls that it is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. The Government of the Czech Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Czech Republic and the Republic of Maldives, without the Republic of Maldives benefiting from its reservation.". 20 June 2011 “The Czech Republic believes that the reservations of Pakistan made to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant, if put into practice, would result in weakening of the relevant human rights, which is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. Furthermore, Pakistan supports these reservations by references to its domestic law, which is, in the opinion of the Czech Republic, unacceptable under customary international law, as codified in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Finally, the reservations to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 that refer to the notions such as “Sharia law” and “Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan”; the reservations to Articles 12 and 25 that refer to the notions such as “law relating to foreigners” without specifying its contents, do not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations under the Covenant. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to Article 28 paragraph 2 of the Convention and according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. The Czech Republic, therefore, objects to the aforesaid reservations made by Pakistan to the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Czech Republic and Pakistan. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the Czech Republic and Pakistan, without Pakistan benefiting from its reservation.”	-
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea	-	September 14, 1981	-	-
Democratic Republic of the Congo	-	November 1, 1976	-	-
Denmark	March 20, 1968	January 6, 1972	Reservation "1. The Government of Denmark makes a reservation in respect of Article 10, paragraph 3, second sentence. In Danish practice, considerable efforts are made to ensure appropriate age distribution of convicts serving sentences of imprisonment, but it is considered valuable to maintain possibilities of flexible arrangements. "2. (a). Article 14, paragraph 1, shall not be binding on Denmark in respect of public hearings. In Danish law, the right to exclude the press and the public from trials may go beyond what is permissible under this Covenant, and the Government of Denmark finds that this right should not be restricted. (b). Article 14, paragraphs 5 and 7, shall not be binding on Denmark. The Danish Administration of Justice Act contains detailed provisions regulating the matters dealt with in these two paragraphs. In some cases, Danish legislation is less restrictive than the Covenant (e.g. a verdict returned by a jury on the question of guilt cannot be reviewed by a higher tribunal, cf. paragraph 5); in other cases, Danish legislation is more restrictive than the Coven ant (e.g. with respect to resumption of a criminal case in which the accused party was acquitted, cf. paragraph 7). "3. Reservation is further made to Article 20, paragraph 1. This reservation is in accordance with the vote cast by Denmark in the XVI General Assembly of the United Nations in 1961 when the Danish Delegation, referring to the preceding article concerning freedom of expression, voted against the prohibition against propaganda for war." Objections: 1 October 1993 With regard to the reservations made by the United States of America: "Having examined the contents of the reservations made by the United States of America, Denmark would like to recall article 4, para 2 of the Covenant according to which no derogation from a number of fundamental articles, inter alia 6 and 7, may be made by a State Party even in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation. In the opinion of Denmark, reservation (2) of the United States with respect to capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age as well as reservation (3) with respect to article 7 constitute general derogations from articles 6 and 7, while according to article 4, para 2 of the Covenant such derogations are not permitted. Therefore, and taking into account that articles 6 and 7 are protecting two of the most basic rights contained in the Covenant, the Government of Denmark regards the said reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and consequently Denmark objects to the reservations. These objections do not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Denmark and the United States. 4 October 2001 With regard to the reservations made by the Botswana upon ratification: "The Government of Denmark has examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of Botswana to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reservations refer to legislation in force in Botswana as regards the scope of application of two core provisions of the Covenant, Articles 7 and 12 para.3. The Government of Denmark considers that the reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to fulfill her obligations under the Covenant and are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. For these reasons, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations made by the Government of Botswana. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant in its entirety between Botswana and Denmark without Botswana benefiting from the reservations." 28 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Denmark considers that the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant, which make the applications of these essential obligations under the Covenant subject to Sharia and/or constitutional and/or national law in force in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, raise doubts as to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty and concern as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom on Denmark has also examined the reservation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with respect to Article 40 of the Covenant. The Government of Denmark considers, that the supervisory machinery established under the Covenant, including the system of periodic reporting to the human rights Committee is an essential part of the treaty. Accordingly a reservation to the effect that a State Party does not recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee to review and comment State reports must be considered contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Denmark wishes to recall that, according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted. Consequently, the Government of Denmark considers the said reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. The Government of Denmark therefore objects to the aforementioned reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant in its entirety between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Denmark. The Government of Denmark recommends the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to reconsider its reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 19 April 1983 "[The Government of Denmark] recognizes, in accordance with article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature in New York on December 19, 1966, the competence of the Committee referred to in article 41 to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."
Djibouti	-	November 5, 2002	-	-
Dominica	-	June 17, 1993	-	-
Dominican Republic	-	January 4, 1978	-	-
Ecuador	April 4, 1968	March 6, 1969	-	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 6 August 1984 The Government of Ecuador recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the aforementioned Covenant, as provided for in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of that article. This recognition of competence is effective for an indefinite period and is subject to the provisions of article 41, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Egypt	August 4, 1967	January 14, 1982	Reservation Declaration: ... Taking into consideration the provisions of the Islamic Sharia and the fact that they do not conflict with the text annexed to the instrument, we accept, support and ratifiy it ... .	-
El Salvador	September 21, 1967	November 30, 1979	-	-
Equatorial Guinea	-	September 25, 1987	-	-
Eritrea	-	January 22, 2002	-	-
Estonia	-	October 21, 1991	Reservation Objections: 12 septembre 2007 À l'égard de la réserve formulée par Maldives lors de l'adhésion : Le Gouvernement estonien a examiné attentivement la réserve faite par la République des Maldives à l'article 18 du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques. Le Gouvernement estonien considère cette réserve comme incompatible avec les objectifs et les buts du Pacte, du fait qu'elle soumet l'application du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques aux dispositions du droit constitutionnel. Il estime que cette réserve jette l'incertitude sur la mesure dans laquelle la République des Maldives se considère comme liée par les obligations énoncées dans le Pacte, et soulève des préoccupations quant à l'attachement de la République des Maldives aux objectifs et aux buts du Pacte. En conséquence, le Gouvernement estonien élève une objection à la réserve faite par la République des Maldives à l'article 18 du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, et exprime l'espoir qu'elle sera bientôt en mesure de retirer sa réserve, compte tenu de la révision en cours de la Constitution maldivienne. La présente objection ne fait pas obstacle à l'entrée en vigueur du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques entre l'Estonie et la République des Maldives. Le 21 juin 2011 À l'égard des réserves formulées par le Pakistan lors de la ratification : Le Gouvernement de la République d’Estonie a examiné attentivement les réserves formulées par la République islamique du Pakistan aux articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 et 40 du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques. S’agissant des articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 et 25, le Gouvernement estonien estime que les réserves sont incompatibles avec l’objet et le but du Pacte, du fait qu’elles subordonnent l’application du Pacte international aux dispositions du droit constitutionnel. Le Gouvernement estonien est d’avis que cette réserve, qui consiste en une référence générale à une législation interne, sans en préciser la teneur, n’indique pas clairement dans quelle mesure la République islamique du Pakistan s’estime liée par les obligations énoncées aux articles pertinents du Pacte et fait donc naître de sérieux doutes quant à son attachement à l’objet et au but du Pacte. Le Gouvernement estonien estime en outre que la réserve émise par la République islamique du Pakistan à l’article 40 du Pacte est contraire au but du Pacte, du fait que ledit article décrit les obligations qui incombent aux États à l’égard du Comité des droits de l’homme et que le mécanisme d’établissement des rapports constitue un élément essentiel de l’application du Pacte. En conséquence, le Gouvernement estonien objecte aux réserves susmentionnées qui ont été formulées par la République islamique du Pakistan au Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, sans préjudice de l’entrée en vigueur du Pacte entre la République d’Estonie et la République islamique du Pakistan.	-
Ethiopia	-	June 11, 1993	-	-
Fiji	-	August 16, 2018	-	-
Finland	October 11, 1967	August 19, 1975	Reservation Reservations: "With respect to article 10, paragraph 2 (b) and 3, of the Covenant, Finland declares that although juvenile offenders are, as a rule, segregated from adults, it does not deem appropriate to adopt an absolute prohibition not allowing for more flexible arrangements; With respect to article 14, paragraph 7, of the Covenant, Fin- land declares that it is going to pursue its present practice, according to which a sentence can be changed to the detriment of the convicted person, if it is established that a member or an official of the court, the prosecutor or the legal counsel have through criminal or fraudulent activities obtained the acquittal of the defendant or a substantially more lenient penalty, or if false evidence has been presented with the same effect, and according to which an aggravated criminal case may be taken up for reconsideration if within a year until then unknown evidence is presented, which would have led to conviction or a substantially more severe penalty; With respect to article 20, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, Fin- land declares that it will not apply the provisions of this paragraph, this being compatible with the standpoint Finland already expressed at the 16th United Nations General Assembly by voting against the prohibition of propaganda for war, on the grounds that this might endanger the freedom of expression referred in article 19 of the Covenant." Objections: 28 September 1993 With regard to the reservations, understandings and declarations made by the United States of America: "... It is recalled that under international treaty law, the name assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. Understanding (1) pertaining to articles 2, 4 and 26 of the Covenant is therefore considered to constitute in substance a reservation to the Covenant, directed at some of its most essential provisions, namely those concerning the prohibition of discrimination. In the view of the Government of Finland, a reservation of this kind is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant, as specified in article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. As regards reservation (2) concerning article 6 of the Coven- ant, it is recalled that according to article 4(2), no restrictions of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are allowed for. In the view of the Government of Finland, the right to life is of fundamental importance in the Covenant and the said reservation therefore is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. As regards reservation (3), it is in the view of the Government of Finland subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty. For the above reasons the Government of Finland objects to reservations made by the United States to articles 2, 4 and 26 [ cf . Understanding (1)], to article 6 [ cf . Reservation (2)] and to article 7 [cf. Reservation (3)]. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Finland and the United States of America. 25 July 1997 With regard to declarations and the reseration made by Kuwait: "The Government of Finland notes that according to the interpretative declarations the application of certain articles of the Covenant is in a general way subjected to national law. The Government of Finland considers these interpretative declarations as reservations of a general kind. The Government of Finland is of the view that such general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Kuwait to the object and purpose of the Covenant and would recall that a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted. As regards the reservation made to article 25 (b), the Government of Finland wishes to refer to its objection to the reservation made by Kuwait to article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. It is the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Finland is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Kuwait, which do not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provisions of the covenant, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. The Government of Finland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Kuwait to the [said Covenant] which are considered to be inadmissible. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Kuwait and Finland." 13 October 2004 With regard to declarations and the reservation made by Turkey upon ratification: "The Government of Finland has examined the declarations and reservation made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland notes that the Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 27 of the Covenant in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes. The Government of Finland emphasises the great importance of the rights of minorities provided for in Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reference to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey is of a general nature and does not clearly specify the content of the reservation. The Government of Finland therefore wishes to declare that it assumes that the Government of the Republic of Turkey will ensure the implementation of the rights of minorities recognised in the Covenant and will do its utmost to bring its national legislation into compliance with the obligations under the Covenant with a view to withdrawing the reservation. This declaration does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Turkey and Finland." 15 November 2005 With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification: "The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the declaration made by the Government of Mauritania on Article 18 and paragraph 4 of Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to religious or other national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the receiving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law asjustification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations. The Government of Finland notes that the reservations made by the Government of Mauritania, addressing some of the most essential provisions of the Covenant, and aiming to exclude the obligations under those provisions, are in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration made by the Government of Mauritania to the Covenant. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and Finland. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without the Islamic Republic of Mauritania benefiting from its declarations." 14 September 2007 With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of Finland has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland notes that the Republic of Maldives reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 18 of the Covenant in accordancewith the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives. The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Covenant and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the receiving State to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations. Furthermore, the Government of Finland emphasises the great importance of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion which is provided for in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland therefore wishes to declare that it assumes that the Government of the Republic of Maldives will ensure the implementation of the rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion recognised in the Covenant and will do its utmost to bring its national legislation into compliance with the obligations under the Covenant with a view to withdrawing the reservation. This declaration does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Maldives and Finland. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without the Republic of Maldives benefiting from its reservation." 5 October 2010 With regard to the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification: “The Government of Finland welcomes the ratification by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Finland has taken note of the reservation made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to Article 22 thereof upon ratification. The Government of Finland notes that Article 22(2) provides that States Parties may, under certain specific circumstances and for certain specific purposes, restrict the right protected under Article 22(1). The Government of Finland is of the view that the reservation made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic seeks to limit the obligation of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic not to restrict the freedom of association to an extent which is incompatible with Article 22(2). The reservation would therefore restrict one of the essential obligations of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic under the Covenant and raises serious doubts as to the commitment of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to the object and purpose of the Covenant. It is in the common interest of States that treaties they have chosen to become parties to are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under such treaties. Furthermore, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, and according to well established customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted. The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic in respect of Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Finland. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without the Lao People’s Democratic Republic benefiting from its reservation.” 28 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: The Government of Finland welcomes the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Government of Finland has carefully examined the content of the reservations relating to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Convention made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification. The Government of Finland notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves the right to apply the provisions of Article 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 to the extent that they are not repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws, the provisions of Article 12 so as to be in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan, and the provisions of Article 25 to the extent that they are not repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan, and that, as regards the provisions of Article 13, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves the right to apply its law relating to foreigners. The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its content does not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving States commits itself to the Covenant and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations. Furthermore, the Government of Finland notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant. The reporting mechanism established under Article 40 is an essential feature of the system of human rights protection created by the Covenant and an integral undertaking of States Parties to the Covenant. All of the above reservations seek to restrict essential obligations of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan under the Covenant and raise serious doubts as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in respect of Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its reservations.	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: "Finland declares, under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the said Covenant, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Covenant."
France	-	November 4, 1980	Reservation Declarations and reservations: (1) The Government of the Republic considers that, in accordance with Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations, in case of conflict between its obligations under the Covenant and its obligations under the Charter (especially Articles 1 and 2 thereof), its obligations under the Charter will prevail. (2) The Government of the Republic enters the following reservation concerning article 4, paragraph 1: firstly, the circumstances enumerated in article 16 of the Constitution in respect of its implementation, in article 1 of the Act of 3 April 1978 and in the Act of 9 August 1849 in respect of the declaration of a state of siege, in article 1 of Act No. 55-385 of 3 April 1955 in respect of the declaration of a state of emergency and which enable these instruments to be implemented, are to be understood as meeting the purpose of article 4 of the Covenant; and, secondly, for the purpose of interpreting and implementing article 16 of the Constitution of the French Republic, the terms "to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation" cannot limit the power of the President of the Republic to take "the measures required by circumstances". (3) The Government of the Republic enters a reservation concerning articles 9 and 14 to the effect that these articles cannot impede enforcement of the rules pertaining to the disciplinary régime in the armies. (4) The Government of the Republic declares that article 13 cannot derogate from chapter IV of Order No. 45-2658 of 2 November 1945 concerning the entry into, and sojourn in, France of aliens, nor from the other instruments concerning the expulsion of aliens in force in those parts of the territory of the Republic in which the Order of 2 November 1945 does not apply. (5) The Government of the Republic interprets article 14, paragraph 5, as stating a general principle to which the law may make limited exceptions, for example, in the case of certain of- fences subject to the initial and final adjudication of a police court and of criminal offences. However, an appeal against a final decision may be made to the Court of Cassation which rules on the legality of the decision concerned. (6) The Government of the Republic declares that articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant will be implemented in accordance with articles 10, 11 and16 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950. (7) The Government of the Republic declares that the term "war", appearing in article 20, paragraph1, is to be understood to mean war in contravention of international law and considers, in any case, that French legislation in this matter is adequate. (8) In the light of article 2 of the Constitution of the French Republic, the French Government declares that article 27 is not applicable so far as the Republic is concerned. Objections: The Government of the Republic takes objection to the reservation entered by the Government of the Republic of India to article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as this reservation attaches conditions not provided for by the Charter of the United Nations to the exercise of the right of self-determination. The present declaration will not be deemed to be an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the French Republic and the Republic of India. 4 October 1993 At the time of the ratification of [the said Covenant], the United States of America expressed a reservation relating to article 6, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age. France considers that this United States reservation is not valid, inasmuch as it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Such objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between France and the United States. 15 October 2001 With regard to the reservation made by Botswana upon ratification: The Government of the French Republic has studied Botswana's reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The purpose of the two reservations is to limit Botswana's commitment to articles 7 and 12, paragraph 3, of the Covenant to the extent to which these provisions are compatible with sections 7 and 14 of the Constitution of Botswana. The Government of the French Republic considers that the first reservation casts doubt upon Botswana's commitment and might nullify article 7 of the Covenant which prohibits in general terms torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Consequently, the Government of the French Republic objects to the Government of Botswana's reservation to article 7 of the Covenant. 18 November 2005 With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification: “The Government of the French Republic has examined the declarations formulated by the Government of Mauritania upon acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, in accordance with which the Government of Mauritania, on the one hand, ‘while accepting the provisions set out in article 18 concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion, declares that their application shall be without prejudice to the Islamic sharia’ and, on the other, ‘interprets the provisions of article 23, paragraph 4, on the rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic sharia’. By making the application of article 18 and the interpretation of article 23, paragraph 4, of the Covenant subject to the prescriptions of the Islamic sharia, the Government of Mauritania is, in reality, formulating reservations with a general, indeterminate scope, such that they make it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant, which they purport to introduce. The Government of the French Republic considers that the reservations thus formulated are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of any effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof. It therefore enters an objection to these reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between France and Mauritania.” 19 September 2007 With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: The Government of the French Republic has reviewed the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives at the time of its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 to the effect that the Republic of Maldives intends to apply the principles relating to freedom of thought, conscience and religion set out in article 18 of twithout prejudice to its own Constitution. The French Republic considers that by subordinating the general application of a right set out in the Covenant to its internal law, the Republic of Maldives is formulating a reservation that is likely to deprive a provision of the Covenant of any effect and makes it impossible for other States Parties to know the extent of its commitment. The Government of the French Republic considers the reservation as contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. It therefore objects to that reservation. This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Covenant between the French Republic and the Republic of Maldives. 24 June 2011 With regard to the servations made by Pakistan upon ratification: The Government of the French Republic has considered the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 23 June 2010. Concerning the reservations to articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 18, 19 and 25, France considers that in seeking to exclude the application of provisions of the Covenant, insofar as they might be contrary to or inconsistent with the Constitution of Pakistan and/or Sharia law, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has made reservations of a general and indeterminate nature. Indeed, these reservations are vague since they do not specify which provisions of domestic law are affected. Thus, they do not allow other States Parties to appreciate the extent of the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, including the compatibility of the provisions with the object and purpose of the Covenant. With regard to article 40, France believes that in seeking to exclude the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider periodic reports, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is depriving this key body under the Covenant of its main function. As such, the Government of the French Republic considers this reservation to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the French Republic therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between France and Pakistan. PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL OF RESERVATION TO ARTICLE 14(5) OF THE COVENANT The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, communicates the following: The above action was effected on 26 July 2012. Article 81 of law No. 2000-516 as codified in artic les 380-1 et seq. of the Criminal Procedure Code introduced a procedure for appeal from the decisi ons of criminal courts. Hence, that part of the reservation made by France that refers to that procedure (“and of criminal offences”) in article 14, paragraph 5, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can be withdrawn. The reservation shall henceforth read as follows: The Government of the Republic interprets article 14, paragraph 5, as stating a general principle to which the law may make limited exceptions, for example, in the case of certain offences subject to the initial and final adjudication of a police court. However, an appeal against a final decision may be Nmade to the Court of Cassation which rules on the legality of the decision concerned.	-
Gabon	-	January 21, 1983	-	-
Gambia	-	March 22, 1979	Reservation "For financial reasons free legal assistance for accused per- sons is limited in our constitution to persons charged with capital offences only. The Government of the Gambia therefore wishes to enter a reservation in respect of article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant in question."	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 9 June 1988 "The Government of the Gambia hereby declares that the Gambia recognises the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the present Covenant."
Georgia	-	May 3, 1994	-	-
Germany	October 9, 1968	December 17, 1973	Reservation "1. Articles 19, 21 and 22 in conjunction with Article 2 (1) of the Covenant shall be applied within the scope of Article 16 of the Convention of 4 November 1950 for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. "2. Article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant shall be applied in such manner that it is for the court to decide whether an accused person held in custody has to appear in person at the hearing before the court of review ( Revisionsgericht ). "3. Article 14 (5) of the Covenant shall be applied in such manner that: (a) A further appeal does not have to be instituted in all cases solely on the grounds the accused person having been acquitted by the lower court-was convicted for the first time in the proceedings concerned by the appellate court. (b) In the case of criminal offences of minor gravity the re- view by a higher tribunal of a decision not imposing imprisonment does not have to be admitted in all cases. "4. Article 15 (1) of the Covenant shall be applied in such manner that when provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty the hitherto applicable law may for certain exceptional categories of cases remain applicable to criminal offences committed before the law was amended." Objections: 21 April 1982 "The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the [reservation (i) by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago]. In the opinion of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany it follows from the text and the history of the Covenant that the said reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant." 28 May 1991 [The Federal Republic of Germany] interprets the declaration to mean that the Republic of Korea does not intend to restrict its obligations under article 22 by referring to its domestic legal system. 29 September 1993 "The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the United States' reservation referring to article 6, paragraph 5 of the Covenant, which prohibits capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age. The reservation referring to this provision is incompatible with the text as well as the object and purpose of article 6, which, as made clear by paragraph 2 of article 4, lays down the minimum standard for the protection of the right to life. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany interprets the United States' `reservation' with regard to article 7 of the Covenant as a reference to article 2 of the Covenant, thus not in any way affecting the obligations of the United States of America as a state party to the Covenant." 10 July 1997 With regard to declarations and the reservation made by Kuwait: "The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany notes that article 2 (2) and article 3 have been made subject to the general reservation of national law. It is of the view that these general reservations may raise doubts as to the commitment of Kuwait to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany regards the reservation concerning article 8 (1) (d), in which the Government of Kuwait reserves the right not to apply the right to strike expressly stated in the Covenant, as well as the interpretative declaration regarding article 9, according to which the right to social security would only apply to Kuwaitis, as being problematic in view of the object and purpose of the Covenant. It particularly feels that the declaration regarding article 9, as a result of which the many foreigners working on Kuwaiti territory would, on principle, be totally excluded from social security protection, cannot be based on article 2 (3) of the Covenant. It is in the common interest of all parties that a treaty should be respected, as to its object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the [said] general reservations and interpretative declarations. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Kuwait and the Federal Republic of Germany." 13 October 2004 With regard to declarations and the reservation made by Turkey upon ratification: The Government of the Republic of Turkey has declared that it will implement the provisions of the Covenant only to the states with which it has diplomatic relations. Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Turkey has declared that it ratifies the Covenant exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Turkey has reserved the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 27 of the Covenant in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany would like to recall that it is in the common interest of all states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected and applied as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under these treaties. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is therefore concerned about declarations and reservations such as those made and expressed by the Republic of Turkey with respect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany believes these declarations do not aim to limit the Covenant's scope in relation to those states with which Turkey has established bonds under the Covenant, and that they do not aim to impose any other restrictions that are not provided for by the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany attaches great importance to the rights guaranteed by Article 27 of the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany understands the reservation expressed by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to mean that the rights guaranteed by Article 27 of the Covenant will also be granted to all minorities not mentioned in the provisions and rules referred to in the reservation." 15 November 2005 With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification: The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of Mauritania on 17 November 2004 in respect of Articles 18 and 23 (4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that the limitations set out therein leave it unclear to which extent Mauritania considers itself bound by the obligations resulting from the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore regards the above-mentioned declaration as a reservation and as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and Mauritania. 12 September 2007 With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006 in respect of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that reservations which consist in a general reference to a system of norms (like the constitution or the legal order of the reserving State) without specifying the contents thereof leave it uncertain to which extent that State accepts to be bound by the obligations under the treaty. Moreover, those norms may be subject to changes. The reservation made by the Republic of Maldives is therefore not sufficiently precise to make it possible to determine the restrictions that are introduced into the agreement. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is therefore of the opinion that the reservation is capable of contravening the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore regards the above-mentioned reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Maldives." 28 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on 23 June 2010 to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that these reservations subject the applications of Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant to a system of domestic norms without specifying the contents thereof, leaving it uncertain to which extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan accepts to be bound by the obligations under the Covenant and raising serious doubts as to its commitment to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. These reservations therefore are considered incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and consequently impermissible under Art. 19 c of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. By refusing to recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant the Republic of Pakistan calls into question the complete reporting mechanism which is a central procedural element of the Covenant system. This specific reservation against Article 40 therefore is considered to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant as well. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 27 December 2001 The Federal Republic of Germany now recognizes for an unlimited period the competence of the Human Rights Committee under Article 41(1) of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that at State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
Ghana	September 7, 2000	September 7, 2000	-	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 7 September 2000 “The Government of the Republic of Ghana recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider complaints brought by or against the Republic in respect of another State Party which has made a Declaration recognising the competence of the Committee at least twelve months before Ghana becomes officially registered as Party to the Covenant. [The Government of the Republic of Ghana] interprets Article 41 as giving the Human Rights Committee the competence to receive and consider complaints in respect of violations by the Republic of any rights set forth in the said Covenant which result from decisions, acts, commissions, developments or events occurring AFTER the date on which Ghana becomes officially regarded as party to the said Covenant and shall not apply to decisions, acts, omissions, developments or events occurring before that date.”
Greece	-	May 5, 1997	Reservation Objections: 11 October 2004 With regard to the declarations made by Turkey upon ratification: "The Government of Greece has examined the declarations made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of the Covenant only to the States with which it has diplomatic relations. In the view of the Government of Greece, this declaration in fact amounts to a reservation. This reservation is incompatible with the principle that inter-State reciprocity has no place in the context of human rights treaties, which concern the endowment of individuals with rights. It is therefore contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Republic of Turkey furthermore declares that the Covenant is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. In the view of the Government of Greece, this declaration in fact amounts to a reservation. This reservation is contrary to the letter and the spirit of article 2 (i) of the Covenant. Indeed, a State Party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within the power or effective control of that State Party, even if not situated within the territory of such State Party. Accordingly, this reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. For these reasons, the Government of Greece objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Turkey. The Covenant, therefore, enters into force between the two States without the Republic of Turkey benefiting from these reservations." 24 October 2005 With regard to the reservations made by Mauritania upon accession: "The Government of the Hellenic Republic have examined the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966) in respect of articles 18 and 23 paragraph 4 thereof. The Government of the Hellenic Republic consider that these declarations, seeking to limit the scope of the aformentioned provisions on a unilateral basis, amount in fact to reservations. The Government of the Hellenic Republic furthermore consider that, although these reservations refer to specific provisions of the Covenant, they are of a general character, as they do not clearly define the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations deriving from the Covenant. For these reasons, the Government of the Hellenic Republic object to the abovementioned reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Greece and Mauritania." 22 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the Covenant are of fundamental importance and that the reservations formulated by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to those Articles, containing a general reference to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws without specifying the extent of the derogation there from, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Furthermore, the Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the reservation formulated with respect to Article 40 of the Covenant, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, which seeks, inter alia, to establish an effective monitoring mechanism for the obligations undertaken by the States Parties. For this reason the Government of the Hellenic Republic objects to the abovementioned reservations formulated by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Greece and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”	-
Grenada	-	September 6, 1991	-	-
Guatemala	-	May 5, 1992	-	NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 4 (3) Sir, Further to my note J/1/198 of 8 February 2010, I have the honour to inform you, in your capacity as depositary of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of a notification made by the Government of Guatemala pursuant to article 4, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. In that regard, I have the honour to inform you that an extension of the state of emergency in the Department of San Marcos, Guatemala, has been decreed by the President of the Republic in the Council of Ministers by virtue of Governmental Decree No. 08-2010 of 18 March 2010. Governmental Decree No. 08-2010, which entered into force immediately, has been issued for an additional period of fifteen (15) days in the Department of San Marcos, Guatemala. The exercise of the rights and freedoms established in articles 12; 19, paragraph 2; and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been partially restricted. I should be grateful if you would inform the other States parties of this notification and of the Governmental Decree attached herewith. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Guatemala, C.A. Sir, I have the honour to inform you, pursuant to article 4, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that on 18 March 2010, in the Council of Ministers, Mr. Álvaro Colom Caballeros, President of the Republic of Guatemala, by virtue of Governmental Decree No. 08- 2010, declared a state of emergency in the Department of San Marcos for a period of fifteen days as from the entry into force of the said Decree. The state of emergency was declared owing to the fact that groups of dishonest persons, exceeding their legal prerogatives, are committing destructive acts that undermine the public interest, thereby creating anarchy; disturbing the peace, public order and State security; and endangering people’s lives and property. In that regard, the following measures, which partially restrict the rights referred to in articles 12; 19, paragraph 2; and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, have been adopted: 1. Restriction of the right to hold public meetings or demonstrations and other displays that affect freedom of movement and public services, which may, if necessary, be dispersed by force unless they are conducted with prior authorization; 2. Dispersal by force, without need of authorization, of any group, public meeting or demonstration, or other display at which weapons are used or violent acts are committed; 3. Restriction of the right to bear arms, except in the case of the security forces; 4. Prohibition of vehicular traffic and parking in designated places or areas and at designated times, obstruction of vehicular movement away from populated areas or registration of vehicles that affect the delivery of public services; 5. Requirement that publicity or advertising agencies refrain from publishing any material that, in the opinion of the authorities, contributes to or incites disturbance of the public order; and 6. Halting of public services provided by private companies. Accordingly, I should be grateful if you would inform the other States parties to the Covenant. Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration (Signed) Lars Pira Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs Head of Office NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE4(3) The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, communicates the following: The above action was effected on 27 February 2013. (Translation) (Original: Spanish) Sir, Further to my note J/1/61 of 15 January 2013, I have the honour to transmit to you the notification by the Government of Guatemala pursuant to article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As you will recall, on 7 November 2012, the Pres ident of the Republic of Guatemala, in the Council of Ministers, declared a state of disaster in the Guatem alan departments of Retalhuleu, Quetzaltenango, Sololá, Quiché, Totonicapán, Sa n Marcos, Huehuetenango and Suchitepéquez through Government Decrees Nos. 3-2012, 4-2012, 5-2012 and 1-2013. Because the conditions that gave rise to the af orementioned declaration of a state of disaster still persist, the President of the Republic of Gu atemala has further extended, through Government Decree No. 2-2013 of 31 January 2013, the state of disaster in the Guatemalan departments of Retalhuleu, Quetzaltenango, Sololá, Quiché, Totonicapán, San Marcos, Huehuetenango and Suchitepéquez, for a period of thirty additional days. Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. Permanent Representative Gert Rosenthal
Guinea	February 28, 1967	January 24, 1978	Reservation In accordance with the principle whereby all States whose policies are guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations are entitled to become parties to covenants affecting the interests of the international community, the Government of the Republic of Guinea considers that the provisions of article 48, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are contrary to the principle of the universality of international treaties and the democratization of international relations.	-
Guinea-Bissau	September 12, 2000	November 1, 2010	Reservation DECLARATION WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 41 "Recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and examine communications in which a Party claims that another Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the present Covenant, signed by Guinea-Bissau on 12 September, 2000, and for which the instrument of ratification was deposited by Guinea-Bissau on 1 November 2010".	-
Guyana	August 22, 1968	February 15, 1977	Reservation In respect of sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 3 of article 14 "While the Government of the Republic of Guyana accept the principle of Legal Aid in all appropriate criminal proceedings, is working towards that end and at present apply it in certain defined cases, the problems of implementation of a comprehensive Legal Aid Scheme are such that full application cannot be guaranteed at this time." In respect of paragraph 6 of article 14 "While the Government of the Republic of Guyana accept the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment, it is not possible at this time to implement such a principle."	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 10 May 1993 "The Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana hereby declares that it recognises the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the aforementioned Covenant."
Haiti	-	February 6, 1991	-	-
Honduras	December 19, 1966	August 25, 1997	-	-
Hungary	March 25, 1969	January 17, 1974	Reservation Upon signature: "The Government of the Hungarian People's Republic declares that paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights according to which certain States may not become signatories to the said Covenants are of a discriminatory nature and are contrary to the basic principle of international law that all States are entitled to become signatories to general multilateral treaties. These discriminatory provisions are incompatible with the objectives and purposes of the Covenants." Upon ratification: "The Presidential Council of the Hungarian People's Republic declares that the provisions of article 48, paragraphs 1 and 3, of [...] the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and article 26, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are inconsistent with the universal character of the Covenants. It follows from the principle of sovereign equality of States that the Covenants should be open for participation by all States without any discrimination or limitation." Objections: 18 September 2007 With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of the Republic of Hungary has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006 upon accession to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966. The reservation states that the application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives. The Government of the Republic of Hungary is of the opinion that the reservation to Article 18 will unavoidably result in a legal situation in respect of the Republic of Maldives, which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Namely the reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant thus raising concerns as to its commitment to the object and purpose of the Covenant. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to Article 19 point (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, a State may formulate a reservation unless it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. The Government of the Republic of Hungary therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Maldives." 28 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “With regard to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan: The Government of the Republic of Hungary has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, in respect of Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 thereof. The Government of the Republic of Hungary is of the opinion that the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, and 19 are in contradiction with the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a State party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform according to the obligations set out by the treaty. Furthermore, the reservations consist of a general reference to the provisions of the Constitution, the Sharia laws, and/or Pakistani internal law relating to foreigners without specifying their content and as such do not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Covenant. The Government of the Republic of Hungary recalls that it is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. The Government of the Republic of Hungary therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18 and 19 of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Hungary and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 7 September 1988 The Hungarian People's Republic [...] recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
Iceland	December 30, 1968	August 22, 1979	Reservation The ratification is accompanied by reservations with respect to the following provisions: 1. ... 2. Article 10, paragraph 2 (b), and paragraph 3, second sentence, with respect to the separation of juvenile prisoners from adults. Icelandic law in principle provides for such separation but it is not considered appropriate to accept an obligation in the absolute form called for in the provisions of the Covenant. 3. ... 4. Article 14, paragraph 7, with respect to the resumption of cases which have already been tried. The Icelandic law of procedure has detailed provisions on this matter which it is not considered appropriate to revise. 5. Article 20, paragraph 1, with reference to the fact that a prohibition against propaganda for war could limit the freedom of expression. This reservation is consistent with the position of Iceland at the General Assembly at its 16th session. Other provisions of the Covenant shall be inviolably observed.	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 22 August 1979 "The Government of Iceland [...] recognizes in accordance with article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."
India	-	April 10, 1979	Reservation Declarations: "I. With reference to article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of the Republic of India declares that the words `the right of self-determination' appearing in [this article] apply only to the peoples under foreign domination and that these words do not apply to sovereign independent States or to a section of a people or nation--which is the essence of national integrity. "II. With reference to article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of the Republic of India takes the position that the provisions of the article shall be so applied as to be in consonance with the provisions of clauses (3) to (7) of article 22 of the Constitution of India. Further under the Indian Legal System, there is no enforceable right to compensation for persons claiming to be victims of unlawful arrest or detention against the State. "III. With respect to article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of the Republic of India reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners. "IV. With reference to articles 4 and 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and articles 12, 19 (3), 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights the Government of the Republic of India declares that the provisions of the said [article] shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the provisions of article 19 of the Constitution of India. "V. With reference to article 7 (c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Government of the Republic of India declares that the provisions of the said article shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the provisions of article 16(4) of the Constitution of India."	-
Indonesia	-	February 23, 2006	Reservation Declaration: "With reference to Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that, consistent with the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, and the relevant paragraph of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action of 1993, the words "the right of self-determination" appearing in this article do not apply to a section of people within a sovereign independent state and can not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states."	-
Iran	April 4, 1968	June 24, 1975	-	-
Iraq	February 18, 1969	January 25, 1971	Reservation Upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: "The entry of the Republic of Iraq as a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall in no way signify recognition of Israel nor shall it entail any obligation towards Israel under the said two Covenants." "The entry of the Republic of Iraq as a party to the above two Covenants shall not constitute entry by it as a party to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." Upon ratification: "Ratification by Iraq ... shall in no way signify recognition of Israel nor shall it be conducive to entry with her into such dealings as are regulated by the said [Covenant]."	-
Ireland	October 1, 1973	December 8, 1989	Reservation Article 10, paragraph 2 Ireland accepts the principles referred to in paragraph 2 of article 10 and implements them as far as practically possible. It reserves the right to regard full implementation of these principles as objectives to be achieved progressively. Article 19, paragraph 2 Ireland reserves the right to confer a monopoly on or require the licensing of broadcasting enterprises. Article 20, paragraph 1 Ireland accepts the principle in paragraph 1 of article 20 and implements it as far as it is practicable. Having regard to the difficulties in formulating a specific offence capable of adjudication at a national level in such a form as to reflect the general principles of law recognised by the community of nations as well as the right to freedom of expression, Ireland reserves the right to postpone consideration of the possibility of introducing some legislative addition to, or variation of, existing law until such time as it may consider that such is necessary for the attainment of the objective of paragraph 1 of article 20. Objections: 11 October 2001 With regard to the reservations made by Botswana upon ratification: "The Government of Ireland have examined the reservations made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to Article 7 and to Article 12, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These reservations invoke provisions of the internal law of the Republic of Botswana. The Government of Ireland are of the view that such reservations may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Furthermore, the Government of Ireland are of the view that such reservations may undermine the basis of international treaty law. The Government of Ireland therefore object to the reservations made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to Article 7 and Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and the Republic of Botswana." 19 September 2007 With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of Ireland notes that the Republic of Maldives subjects application of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives. The Government of Ireland is of the view that a reservation which consists of a general reference to the Constitution of the reserving State and which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provision of the Covenant may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. The Government of Ireland is furthermore of the view that such a reservation may undermine the basis of international treaty law and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and the Republic of Maldives." 13 October 2010 With regard to the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification: “The Government of Ireland has examined the reservations and declarations made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and notes in particular, the intention of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to apply the provisions in Article 22 of the Covenant in its territory only insofar as those provisions are in conformity with the Constitution and relevant laws of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. The Government of Ireland is of the view that a reservation which consists of a general reference to the Constitution or domestic laws of the reserving State and which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provision of the Covenant may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. The Government of Ireland is furthermore of the view that such a reservation may undermine the basis of international treaty law and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Ireland recalls that according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.” 23 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of Ireland has examined the reservations made on 23 June 2010 by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Ireland notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan subjects Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 to the Constitution of Pakistan, its domestic law and/or Sharia law. The Government of Ireland is of the view that a reservation which consists of a general reference to the Constitution or the domestic law of the reserving State or to religious law, may cast doubt on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. The Government of Ireland is of the view that such general reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and may undermine the basis of international treaty law. The Government of Ireland further notes the reservation by Pakistan to Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reporting mechanism is an integral undertaking of all States Parties to the Covenant. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: "The Government of Ireland hereby declare that in accordance with article 41 they recognise the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under article 28 of the Covenant."
Israel	December 19, 1966	October 3, 1991	Reservation Reservation: "With reference to Article 23 of the Covenant, and any other provision thereof to which the present reservation may be relevant, matters of personal status are governed in Israel by the religious law of the parties concerned. "To the extent that such law is inconsistent with its obligations under the Covenant, Israel reserves the right to apply that law." Notifications under Article 4 (3) of the Covenant (Derogations): 3 October 1991 "Since its establishment, the State of Israel has been the victim of continuous threats and attacks on its very existence as well as on the life and property of its citizens. "These have taken the form of threats of war, of actual armed attacks, and campaigns of terrorism resulting in the murder of and injury to human beings. "In view of the above, the State of Emergency which was proclaimed in May 1948 has remained in force ever since. This situation constitutes a public emergency within the meaning of article 4 (1) of the Covenant. "The Government of Israel has therefore found it necessary, in accordance with the said article 4, to take measures to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, for the defence of the State and for the protection of life and property, including the exercise of powers of arrest and detention. "In so far as any of these measures are inconsistent with article 9 of the Covenant, Israel thereby derogates from its obligations under that provision."	Communication from May 16th 2014: “The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as depositary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and refers to the communication by the depositary, dated 9 April 2014, regarding the Palestinian request to accede to this Convention (Reference number C.N.181.2014.TREATIES-IV.4). ‘Palestine’ does not satisfy the criteria for statehood under international law and lacks the legal capacity to join the aforesaid convention both under general international law and the terms of bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreements. The Government of Israel does not recognize ‘Palestine’ as a State, and wishes to place on record, for the sake of clarity, its position that it does not consider ‘Palestine’ a party to the Convention and regards the Palestinian request for accession as being without legal validity and without effect upon Israel’s treaty relations under the Convention.”
Italy	January 18, 1967	September 15, 1978	Reservation Article 15, paragraph 1 With reference to article 15, paragraph 1, last sentence: "If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby", the Italian Republic deems this provision to apply exclusively to cases in progress. Consequently, a person who has already been convicted by a final decision shall not benefit from any provision made by law, subsequent to that decision, for the imposition of a lighter penalty. Article 19, paragraph 3 The provisions of article 19, paragraph 3, are interpreted as being compatible with the existing licensing system for national radio and television and with the restrictions laid down by law for local radio and television companies and for stations relaying foreign programmes. Objections: 5 October 1993 "The Government of Italy, ..., objects to the reservation to art. 6 paragraph 5 which the United States of America included in its instrument of ratification. In the opinion of Italy reservations to the provisions contained in art. 6 are not permitted, as specified in art.4, para 2, of the Covenant. Therefore this reservation is null and void since it is incompatible with the object and the purpose of art. 6 of the Covenant. Furthermore in the interpretation of the Government of Italy, the reservation to art. 7 of the Covenant does not affect obligations assumed by States that are parties to the Covenant on the basis of article 2 of the same Covenant. These objections do not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Italy and the United States." 28 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of Italy has examined the reservations made on 23 June 2010 by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Italy has noted that the reservations to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18, 19, 12, 13 and 25 makes the constitutive provisions of International Covenant subject to the national law of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (the Constitution, its domestic law and/or Sharia laws). In the view of the Government of Italy a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. A reservation which consists of a general reference to national provisions without specifying its implications makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Italy is of the view that such general reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and may undermine the basis of international treaty law. The Government of Italy recalls that customary international law as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c), sets out that reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permissible. The Government of Italy, therefore, objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18, 19, 12, 13 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Italy and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 15 September 1978 The Italian Republic recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee, elected in accordance with article 28 of the Covenant, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
Ivory Coast	-	March 26, 1992	-	-
Jamaica	December 19, 1966	October 3, 1975	-	-
Japan	May 30, 1978	June 21, 1979	Reservation Reservations and declarations made upon signature and con firmed upon ratification: "1. In applying the provisions of paragraph (d) of article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Japan reserves the right not be bound by 'remuneration for public holidays' referred to in the said provisions. "2. Japan reserves the right not to be bound by the provisions of sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 1 of article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, except in relation to the sectors in which the right referred to in the said provisions is accorded in accordance with the laws and regulations of Japan at the time of ratification of the Covenant by the Government of Japan. "3. In applying the provisions of sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 of article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Japan reserves the right not to be bound by `in particular by the progressive introduction of free education' referred to in the said provisions. "4. Recalling the position taken by the Government of Japan, when ratifying the Convention (No. 87) concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, that `the police' referred to in article 9 of the said Convention be interpreted to include the fire service of Japan, the Government of Japan declares that `members of the police' referred to in paragraph 2 of article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as well as in paragraph 2 of article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights be interpreted to include fire service personnel of Japan."	-
Jordan	June 30, 1972	May 28, 1975	-	-
Kazakhstan	December 2, 2003	January 24, 2006	-	-
Kenya	-	May 1, 1972	-	-
Kuwait	-	May 21, 1996	Reservation Interpretative declaration regarding article 2, paragraph 1, and article 3: Although the Government of Kuwait endorses the worthy principles embodied in these two articles as consistent with the provisions of the Kuwait Constitution in general and of its article 29 in particular, the rights to which the articles refer must be exercised within the limits set by Kuwaiti law. Interpretative declaration regarding article 23: The Government of Kuwait declares that the matters addressed by article 23 are governed by personal-status law, which is based on Islamic law. Where the provisions of that article conflict with Kuwaiti law, Kuwait will apply its national law. Reservations concerning article 25 (b): The Government of Kuwait wishes to formulate a reservation with regard to article 25(b). The provisions of this paragraph conflict with the Kuwaiti electoral law, which restricts the right to stand and vote in elections to males. It further declares that the provisions of the article shall not apply to members of the armed forces or the police.	-
Kyrgyzstan	-	October 7, 1994	-	-
Lao People's Democratic Republic	December 7, 2000	September 25, 2009	Reservation Reservation The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic accepts Article 22 of the Covenant provided that the said article be interpreted according to self-determination stated in Section 1 and applied in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the Lao PDR. Declarations The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that Article 1 of the Covenant on the right of peoples to self- determination, be interpreted as compatible with the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter, adopted October 24, 1970 by the General Assembly and the Declaration and Program of Action, adopted June 25, 1993 by the World Conference on Human Rights. The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that Article 18 of the Covenant shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging others to engage, there understood by economic means, to any activity that requires or compels, directly or indirectly, any person to believe or not believe in a religion or to convert to another religion or belief. The Lao Government considers that any document creating a division or discrimination between ethnic groups and religions are incompatible with Article 18 of the Covenant.	-
Latvia	-	April 14, 1992	Reservation Objections: 15 November 2005 With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification: "The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the declaration made by Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights upon accession. The Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the declaration contains general reference to prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah, making the provisions of International Covenant subject to the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah. Thus, the Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that the declaration is in fact a unilateral act deemed to limit the scope of application of the International Covenant and therefore, it shall be regarded as a reservation. Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia noted that the reservation does not make it clear to what extent Mauritania considers itself bound by the provisions of the International Covenant and whether the way of implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant is in line with the object and purpose of the International Covenant. The Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that customary international law as codified by Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19c), sets out that reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permissible. The Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and Mauritania. Thus, the International Covenant will become operative without Mauritania benefiting from its reservation." 13 August 2007 With regard to reservation made by Bahrain: "The Government of the Republic of Latvia has noted that the reservation made by the Kingdom of Bahrain is submitted to the Secretary General on 4 December 2006, but the consent to be bound by the said Covenant by accession is expressed on 20 September 2006. In accordance with Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties reservations might be made upon signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. Taking into considerations the aforementioned, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the said reservation is not in force since its submission." 4 September 2007 With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights upon accession. The Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the said reservation makes the constitutive provisions of International Covenant subject to the national law (the Constitution) of the Republic of Maldives. The Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that customary international law as codified by Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c), sets out that reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permissible. The Government of the Republic of Latvia, therefore, objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenantbetween the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Maldives. Thus, the International Covenant will become operative without the Republic of Maldives benefiting from its reservation." 29 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservations expressed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant upon ratification. Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the International Covenant shall be viewed as constituting the object and purpose thereof. Therefore, pursuant to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations, whereby the mentioned provisions of the International Covenant are subjected to the regime of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan or of Sharia law may not be viewed as being compatible with the object and purpose of the International Covenant. Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia notes that the reservations expressed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the International Covenant are ambiguous, thereby lacking clarity, whether and to what extent the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the International Covenant will be ensured. Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that Article 40 of the International Covenant contains essential provisions to oversee the implementation of the rights guaranteed by the International Covenant. Therefore, the reservation declaring that the State Party does not consider itself bound with the provisions of this Article cannot be in line with the object and purpose of the International Covenant. Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan regarding Articles 3, 6, 7 and 40 of the International Covenant. At the same time, this objection shall notpreclude the entry into force of the International Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Thus, the International Covenant will become operative without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its reservation.”	-
Lebanon	-	November 3, 1972	-	-
Lesotho	-	September 9, 1992	-	-
Liberia	April 18, 1967	September 22, 2004	-	-
Libya	-	May 15, 1970	Reservation "The acceptance and the accession to this Covenant by the Libyan Arab Republic shall in no way signify a recognition of Israel or be conducive to entry by the Libyan Arab Republic into such dealings with Israel as are regulated by the Covenant."	-
Liechtenstein	-	December 10, 1998	Reservation Declarations concerning article 3: "The Principality of Liechtenstein declares that it does not interpret the provisions of article 3 of the Covenant as constituting an impediment to the constitutional rules on the hereditary succession to the throne of the Reigning Prince." Reservation concerning article 14 (1): "The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to apply the provisions of article 14, paragraph 1 of the Covenant, concerning the principle that hearings must be held and judgments pronounced in public, only within the limits deriving from the principles at present embodied in the Liechtenstein legislation on legal proceedings." Reservation concerning article 17 (1): "The Principality of Liechtenstein makes the reservation that the right to respect for family life, as guaranteed by article 17, paragraph 1 of the Covenant, shall be exercised, with regard to aliens, in accordance with the principles at present embodied in the legislation on aliens." ... Reservation concerning article 26: "The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to guarantee the rights contained in article 26 of the Covenant concerning the equality of all persons before the law and their entitlement without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law only in connection with other rights contained in the present Covenant."	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: “The Principality of Liechtenstein declares under article 41 of the Covenant to recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."
Lithuania	-	November 20, 1991	-	-
Luxembourg	November 26, 1974	August 18, 1983	Reservation "(a) The Government of Luxembourg considers that article 10, paragraph 3, which provides that juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status, refers solely to the legal measures incorporated in the system for the protection of minors, which is the subject of the Luxembourg youth welfare act. With regard to other juvenile offenders falling within the sphere of ordinary law, the Government of Luxembourg wishes to retain the option of adopting measures that might be more flexible and be designed to serve the interests of the persons concerned." "(b) The Government of Luxembourg declares that it is implementing article 14, paragraph 5, since that paragraph does not conflict with the relevant Luxembourg legal statutes, which provide that, following an acquittal or a conviction by a court of first instance, a higher tribunal may deliver a sentence, confirm the sentence passed or impose a harsher penalty for the same crime. However, the tribunal's decision does not give the person declared guilty on appeal the right to appeal that conviction to a higher appellate jurisdiction." The Government of Luxembourg further declares that article 14, paragraph 5, shall not apply to persons who, under Luxembourg law, are remanded directly to a higher court or brought before the Assize Court." "(c) The Government of Luxembourg accepts the provision in article 19, paragraph 2, provided that it does not preclude it from requiring broadcasting, television and film companies to be licensed." "(d) The Government of Luxembourg declares that it does not consider itself obligated to adopt legislation in the field covered by article 20, paragraph 1, and that article 20 as a whole will be implemented taking into account the rights to freedom of thought, religion, opinion, assembly and association laid down in articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in articles 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant." 6 November 2003 * The Government of Luxembourg declares that it is implementing article 14, paragraph 5, since that paragraph does not conflict with the relevant Luxembourg legal statutes, which provide that, following an acquittal or a conviction by a court of first instance, a higher tribunal may deliver a sentence, confirm the sentence passed or impose a harsher penalty for the same crime. However, the tribunal's decision does not give the person declared guilty on appeal the right to appeal that conviction to a higher appellate jurisdiction. The Government of Luxembourg further declares that article 14, paragraph 5, shall not apply to persons who, under Luxembourg law, are remanded directly to a higher court.	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 18 August 1983 "The Government of Luxembourg recognizes, in accordance with article 41, the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."
Madagascar	September 17, 1969	June 21, 1971	-	-
Malawi	-	December 22, 1993	-	-
Maldives	-	September 19, 2006	Reservation Reservation: "The application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives."	-
Mali	-	July 16, 1974	-	-
Malta	-	September 13, 1990	Reservation Reservations: "1. Article 13 - The Government of Malta endorses the principles laid down in article 13. However, in the present circumstances it cannot comply entirely with the provisions of this article; 2. Article 14 (2) - The Government of Malta declares that it interprets paragraph 2 of article 14 of the Covenant in the sense that it does not preclude any particular law from imposing upon any person charged under such law the burden of proving particular facts; 3. Article 14 (6) - While the Government of Malta accepts the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment, it is not possible at this time to implement such a principle in accordance with article 14, paragraph 6, of the Covenant; 4. Article 19 - The Government of Malta desiring to avoid any uncertainty as regards the application of article 19 of the Covenant declares that the Constitution of Malta allow such restrictions to be imposed upon public officers in regard to their freedom of expression as are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. The code of Conduct of public officers in Malta precludes them from taking an active part in political discussions or other political activity during working hours or on the premises. "The Government of Malta also reserves the right not to apply article 19 to the extent that this may be fully compatible with Act 1 of 1987 entitled "An act to regulate the limitations on the political activities of aliens", and this in accordance with Article 16 of the Convention of Rome (1950) for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or with Section 41 (2) (a) (ii) of the Constitution of Malta; "5. Article 20 - The Government of Malta interprets article 20 consistently with the rights conferred by Articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant but reserves the right not to introduce any legislation for the purposes of article 20; "6. Article 22 - the Government of Malta reserves the right not to apply article 22 to the extent that existing legislative measures may not be fully compatible with this article.	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: "The Government of Malta declares that under article 41 of this Covenant it recognises the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such other State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Malta, made a declaration under article 41 recognising the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself."
Marshall Islands	-	March 12, 2018	-	-
Mauritania	-	November 17, 2004	Reservation Reservations: Article 18 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. 3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. The Mauritanian Government, while accepting the provisions set out in article 18 concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion, declares that their application shall be without prejudice to the Islamic Shariah. Article 23, paragraph 4 States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children. The Mauritanian Government interprets the provisions of article 23, paragraph 4, on the rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah.	-
Mauritius	-	December 12, 1973	-	-
Mexico	-	March 23, 1981	Reservation Interpretative statements: Article 9, paragraph 5 Under the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and the relevant implementing legislation, every individual enjoys the guarantees relating to penal matters embodied therein, and consequently no person may be unlawfully arrested or detained. However, if by reason of false accusation or complaint any individual suffers an infringement of this basic right, he has, inter alia , under the provisions of the appropriate laws, an enforceable right to just compensation. Article 18 Under the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, every person is free to profess his preferred religious belief and to practice its ceremonies, rites and religious acts, with the limitation, with regard to public religious acts, that they must be performed in places of worship and, with regard to education, that studies carried out in establishments designed for the professional education of ministers of religion are not officially recognized. The Government of Mexico believes that these limitations are included among those established in paragraph 3 of this article. Reservations: Article 13 The Government of Mexico makes a reservation to this article, in view of the present text of article 33 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. Partiel withdrawal to the reservation on July 11th 2014. Now reads: Article13. The Government of Mexico makes a reservation to this article, in view of the present text of article 33 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. Article 25, subparagraph (b) The Government of Mexico also makes a reservation to this provision, since article 130 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States provides that ministers of religion shall have neither a passive vote nor the right to form associations for political purposes.	-
Monaco	June 26, 1997	August 28, 1997	Reservation Interpretative declarations and reservations made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: The Government of Monaco declares that it does not interpret the provisions of article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2, and articles 3 and 25 as constituting an impediment to the constitutional rules on the devolution of the Crown, according to which succession to the Throne shall take place within the direct legitimate line of the Reigning Prince, in order of birth, with priority being given to male descendants within the same degree of relationship, or of those concerning the exercise of the functions of the Regency. The Princely Government declares that the implementation of the principle set forth in article 13 shall not affect the texts in force on the entry and stay of foreigners in the Principality or of those on the expulsion of foreigners from Monegasque territory. The Princely Government interprets article 14, paragraph 5, as embodying a general principle to which the law can introduce limited exceptions. This is particularly true with respect to certain offences that, in the first and last instances, are under the jurisdiction of the police court, and with respect to offences of a criminal nature. Furthermore, verdicts in the last instance can be appealed before the Court of Judicial Review, which shall rule on their legality. The Princely Government declares that it considers article 19 to be compatible with the existing system of monopoly and authorization applicable to radio and television corporations. The Princely Government, recalling that the exercise of the rights and freedoms set forth in articles 21 and 22 entails duties and responsibilities, declares that it interprets these articles as not prohibiting the application of requirements, conditions, restrictions or penalties which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society to national security, territorial integrity or public safety, the defence of order and the prevention or crime, the protection of health or morals, and the protection of the reputation of others, or in order to prevent the disclosure of confidential information or to guarantee the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. The Princely Government formulates a reservation concerning article 25, which shall not impede the application of article 25 of the Constitution and of Order No. 1730 of 7 May 1935 on public employment. Article 26, together with article 2, paragraph 1, and article 25, is interpreted as not excluding the distinction in treatment between Monegasque and foreign nationals permitted under article 1, paragraph 2, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, taking into account the distinctions established in articles 25 and 32 of the Monegasque Constitution.	-
Mongolia	June 5, 1968	November 18, 1974	Reservation Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: The Mongolian People's Republic declares that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which a number of States cannot become parties to these Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature and considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States concerned without any discrimination or limitation.	-
Montenegro	-	October 23, 2006	-	-
Morocco	January 19, 1977	May 3, 1979	-	-
Mozambique	-	July 21, 1993	-	-
Namibia	-	November 28, 1994	-	-
Nauru	November 12, 2001	-	-	-
Nepal	-	May 14, 1991	-	-
Netherlands	June 25, 1969	December 11, 1978	Reservation Reservations: "Article 10 "The Kingdom of the Netherlands subscribes to the principle set out in paragraph 1 of this article, but it takes the view that ideas about the treatment of prisoners are so liable to change that it does not wish to be bound by the obligations set out in paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 (second sentence) of this article. "Article 12, paragraph 1 "The Kingdom of the Netherlands regards the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles as separate territories of a State for the purpose of this provision. "Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 4 "The Kingdom of the Netherlands regards the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles as separate countries for the purpose of these provisions. "Article 14, paragraph 3 (d) "The Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves the statutory option of removing a person charged with a criminal offence from the court room in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings. "Article 14, paragraph 5 "The Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves the statutory power of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands to have sole jurisdiction to try certain categories of persons charged with serious offences committed in the discharge of a public office. "Article 14, paragraph 7 "The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts this provision only insofar as no obligations arise from it further to those set out in article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Netherlands and article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Netherlands Antilles as they now apply. They read: "1. Except in cases where court decisions are eligible for review, no person may be prosecuted again for an offence in respect of which a court in the Netherlands or the Netherlands Antilles has delivered an irrevocable judgement. "2. If the judgement has been delivered by some other court, the same person may not be prosecuted for the same of fence in the case of (I) acquittal or withdrawal of proceedings or (II) conviction followed by complete execution, remission or lapse of the sentence. "Article 19, paragraph 2 "The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provision with the proviso that it shall not prevent the Kingdom from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. "Article 20, paragraph 1 "The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the obligation set out in this provision in the case of the Netherlands." "[The Kingdom of the Netherlands] clarify that although the reservations [...] are partly of an interpretational nature, [it] has preferred reservations to interpretational declarations in all cases, since if the latter form were used doubt might arise concerning whether the text of the Covenant allows for the interpretation put upon it. By using the reservation form the Kingdom of the Netherlands wishes to ensure in all cases that the relevant obligations arising out of the Covenant will not apply to the Kingdom, or will apply only in the way indicated. Declaration: "...The Kingdom of the Netherlands, consisting, as per 10 October 2010, of the European part of the Netherlands, the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba), Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, regards these parts as separate territories for the purpose of Article 12, paragraph 1, and as separate countries for the purpose of Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 4, of the Covenant." Objections: 12 June 1980 "In the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands it follows from the text and the history of the Covenant that [reservation (i) by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago] is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore considers the reservation unacceptable and formally raises an objection to it." 12 January 1981 "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of India in relation to article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, since the right of self determination as embodied in the Covenants is conferred upon all peoples. This follows not only from the very language of article 1 common to the two Covenants but as well from the most authoritative statement of the law concerned, i.e., the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Any attempt to limit the scope of this right or to attach conditions not provided for in the relevant instruments would undermine the concept of self-determination itself and would thereby seriously weaken its universally acceptable character." 17 September 1981 "I. Reservation by Australia regarding articles 2 and 50 The reservation that article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, and article 50 shall be given effect consistently with and subject to the provisions in article 2, paragraph 2, is acceptable to the Kingdom on the understanding that it will in no way impair Australia's basic obligation under international law, as laid down in article 2, paragraph 1, to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. II. Reservation by Australia regarding article 10 The Kingdom is not able to evaluate the implications of the first part of the reservation regarding article 10 on its merits, since Australia has given no further explanation on the laws and lawful arrangements, as referred to in the text of the reservation. In expectation of further clarification by Australia, the Kingdom for the present reserves the right to raise objection to the reservation at a later stage. III. Reservation by Australia regarding `Convicted Persons' The Kingdom finds it difficult, for the same reasons as mentioned in itscommentary on the reservation regarding article 10, to accept the declaration by Australia that it reserves the right not to seek amendment of laws now in force in Australia relating to the rights of persons wo have been convicted of serious criminal offences. The Kingdom expresses the hope it will be possible to gain a more detailed insight in the laws now in force in Australia, in order to facilitate a definitive opinion on the extent of this reservation." 6 November 1984 [Same objection as the one made by Belgium.] [The Belgian Government] wishes to observe that the sphere of application of article 11 is particularly restricted. In fact, article 11 prohibits imprisonment only when there is no reason for resorting to it other than the fact that the debtor is unable to fulfil a contractual obligation. Imprisonment is not incompatible with article 11 when there are other reasons for imposing this penalty, for example when the debtor, by acting in bad faith or through fraudulent manoeuvres, has placed himself in the position of being unable to fulfil his obligations. This interpretation of article 11 can be confirmed by reference to the travaux préparatoires (see document A/2929 of 1 July 1955). After studying the explanations provided by the Congo concerning its reservation, [the Belgian Government] has provisionally concluded that this reservation is unnecessary. It is its understanding that the Congolese legislation authorizes imprisonment for debt when other means of enforcement have failed when the amount due exceeds 20,000 CFA francs and when the debtor, between 18 and 60 years of age, makes himself insolvent in bad faith. The latter condition is sufficient to show that there is no contradiction between the Congolese legislation and the letter and the spirit of article 11 of the Covenant. By virtue of article 4, paragraph 2, of the aforementioned Covenant, article 11 is excluded from the sphere of application of the rule which states that in the event of an exceptional public emergency, the States Parties to the Covenant may, in certain conditions, take measures derogating from their obligations under the Covenant. Article 11 is one of the articles containing a provision from which no derogation is permitted in any circumstances. Any reservation concerning that article would destroy its effects and would therefore be in contradiction with the letter and the spirit of the Covenant. Consequently, and without prejudice to its firm beliefthat Congolese law is in complete conformity with the provisions of article 11 of the Covenant, [the Belgian Government] fears that the reservation made by the Congo may, by reason of its very principle, constitute a precedent which might have considerable effects at the international level. [The Belgian Government] therefore hopes that this reservation will be withdrawn and, as a precautionary measure, wishes to raise an objection to that reservation. 18 March 1991 With regard to interpretative declaration made by Algeria: "In the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the interpretative declaration concerning article 13, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights must be regarded as a reservation to the Covenant. From the text and history of the Covenant it follows that the reservation with respect to article 13, paragraphs 3 and 4 made by the Government of Algeria is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore considers the reservation unacceptable and formally raises an objection to it. [This objection is] not an obstacle to the entry into force of [the Covenant] between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Algeria." 10 June 1991 "In the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands it follows from the text and the history of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that the reservations with respect to articles 14, paragraphs 5 and 7 and 22 of the Covenant made by the Government of the Republic of Korea are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore considers the reservation unacceptable and formally raises objection to it. This objection is not an obstacle to the entry into force of this Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Korea." 28 September 1993 With regard to the reservations to articles 6 and 7 made by the United States of America: "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservations with respect to capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age, since it follows from the text and history of the Covenant that the said reservation is incompatible with the text, the object and purpose of article 6 of the Covenant, which according to article 4 lays down the minimum standard for the protection of the right to life. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation with respect to article 7 of the Covenant, since it follows from the text and the interpretation of this article that the saidreservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. In the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands this reservation has the same effect as a general derogation from this article, while according to article 4 of the Covenant, no derogations, not even in times of public emergency, are permitted. It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the understandings and declarations of the United States do not exclude or modify the legal effect of provisions of the Covenant in their application to the United States, and do not in any way limit the competence of the Human Rights Committee to interpret these provisions in their application to the United States. Subject to the proviso of article 21, paragraph 3 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, these objections do not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States." 22 July 1997 With regard to the declarations and the reservation made by Kuwait: [ Same objection identical in essence, mutatis mutandis as the one made for Algeria.] 26 December 1997 With regard to the interpretative declaration concerning article 6 paragraph 5 made by Thailand: "The Government of theKingdom of the Netherlands considers this declaration as a reservation. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the aforesaid declaration, since it follows from the text and history of the Covenant that the declaration is incompatible with the text, the object and purpose of article 6 of the Covenant, which according to article 4 lays down the minimum standard for the protection of the right to life. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Thailand." 9 October 2001 With regard to the reservations made by Botswana upon ratification: "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Government of Botswana upon signature of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and confirmed upon ratification, regarding articles 7 and 12, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the said articles of the Covenant are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing legislation in Botswana. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that, in the absence of further clarification, these reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Botswana as to the object and purpose of the Covenant and would like to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all Parties and that States are preparedto undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Botswana to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Botswana." 31 May 2005 With regard to the reservations made by Mauritania upon accession: "The Government of the Netherlands has examined the reservation made by Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The application of the Articles 18 and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been made subject to religious considerations. This makes it unclear to what extent Mauritania considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of Mauritania to the object and purpose of the Covenant. It is of the common interest of States that all parties respect treaties to which they have chosen to become parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted (Art. 19 c). The Government of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation made by Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Mauritania and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, without Mauritania benefiting from its reservation." 27 July 2007 With regard to the reservation made by Bahrain: "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since the reservations were made after the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations were too late and therefore inconsistent with article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Furthermore, the reservation with respect to articles 3, 18 and 23 of the Covenant is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the Islamic Shariah. This makes it unclear to what extent the Kingdom of Bahrain considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to all of thereservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain since they were made after accession, and specifically objects to the content of the reservation on articles 3, 18 and 23 made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Bahrain." 27 July 2007 With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservation with respect to article 18 of the Covenant is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Furthermore, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the provisions of constitutional law in force in the Republic of Maldives. This makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Republic of Maldives to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and expresses the hope that the Republic of Maldives will soon be able to withdraw its reservation in light of the ongoing process of a revision of the Maldivian Constitution. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Maldives." 8 October 2010 Objection to the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification: “The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of Article 22 of the Covenant is made subject to national law in force in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. This makes it unclear to what extent the Lao People’s Democratic Republic considers itself bound by the obligations under Article 22 of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such a reservation must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and would recall that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic republic to Article 22 of the Covenant. This object does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.”	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 11 December 1978 "The Kingdom of the Netherlands declares under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."
New Zealand	November 12, 1968	December 28, 1978	Reservation Reservations: "The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply article 10 (2) (b) or article 10 (3) in circumstances where the shortage of suitable facilities makes the mixing of juveniles and adults unavoidable; and further reserves the right not to apply article 10 (3) where the interests of other juveniles in an establishment require the removal of a particular juvenile offender or where mixing is considered to be of benefit to the persons concerned. "The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply article 14 (6) to the extent that it is not satisfied by the existing system for ex gratia payments to persons who suffer as a result of a miscarriage of justice. "The Government of New Zealand having legislated in the areas of the advocacy of national and racial hatred and the exciting of hostility or ill will against any group of persons, and having regard to the right of freedom of speech, reserves the right not to introduce further legislation with regard to article 20. "The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply article 22 as it relates to trade unions to the extent that existing legislative measures, enacted to ensure effective trade union representation and encourage orderly industrial relations, may not be fully compatible with that article."	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 28 December 1978 "The Government of New Zealand declares under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that it recognises the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from another State Party which has similarly declared under article 41 its recognition of the Committee's competence in respect to itself except where the declaration by such a state party was made less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a complaint relating to New Zealand."
Nicaragua	-	March 12, 1980	-	-
Niger	-	March 7, 1986	-	-
Nigeria	-	July 29, 1993	-	-
Norway	March 20, 1968	September 13, 1972	Reservation Subject to reservations to article 10, paragraph 2 (b) and paragraph 3 "with regard to the obligation to keep accused juvenile persons and juvenile offenders segregated from adults" and to article 14, paragraphs 5 and 7 and to article 20, paragraph 1. 19 September 1995 [The Government of Norway declares that] the entry into force of an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act, which introduces the right to have a conviction reviewed by a higher court in all cases, the reservation made by the Kingdom of Norway with respect to article 14, paragraph 5 of the Covenant shall continue to apply only in the following exceptional circumstances: 1. "Riksrett" (Court of Impeachment ) According to article 86 of the Norwegian Constitution, a special court shall be convened in criminal cases against members of the Government, the Storting (Parliament) or the Supreme Court, with no right of appeal. 2. Conviction by an appellate court In cases where the defendant has been acquitted in the first instance, but convicted by an appellate court, the conviction may not be appealed on grounds of error in the assessment of evidence in relation to the issue of guilt. If the appellate court convicting the defendant is the Supreme Court, the conviction may not be appealed whatsoever. Objections: 4 October 1993 With regard to reservations to articles 6 and 7 made by the United States of America: "1. In the view of the Government of Norway, the reservation (2) concerning capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age is according to the text and history of the Covenant, incompatible with the object and purpose of article 6 of the Covenant. According to article 4 (2), no derogations from article 6 may be made, not even in times of public emergency. For these reasons the Government of Norway objects to this reservation. 2. In the view of the Government of Norway, the reservation (3) concerning article 7 of the Covenant is according to the text and interpretation of this article incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. According to article 4 (2), article 7 is a non-derogable provision, even in times of public emergency. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to this reservation. The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Norway and the United States of America." 22 July 1997 With regard to the declarations and the reservation made by Kuwait : "In the view of the Government of Norway, a statement by which a State Party purports to limit its responsibilities by invoking general principles of internal law may create doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to the objective and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. Under well-established treaty law, a State is not permitted to invoke internal law as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. Furthermore, the Government of Norway finds the reservations made to article 8, paragraph 1 (d) and article 9 as being problematic in view of the object and purpose of the Covenant. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the said reservations made by the Government of Kuwait. The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the State of Kuwait." 11 October 2001 With regard to the reservation made by Botswana upon ratification : "The Government of Norway has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reservation's reference to the national Constitution without further description of its contents, exempts the other States Parties to the Covenant from the possibility of assessing the effects of the reservation. In addition, as the reservation concerns two of the core provisions of the Covenant, it is the position of the Government of Norway that the reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. Norway therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Botswana. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Botswana. The Covenant thus becomes operative between Norway and Botswana without Botswana benefiting from the said reservation." 29 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of Norway has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Norway considers that the reservations with regard to articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant are so extensive as to be contrary to its object and purpose. The Government of Norway therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Covenant thus becomes operative between the Kingdom of Norway and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from the aforesaid reservations.”	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 31 August 1972 "Norway recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."
Pakistan	April 17, 2008	June 23, 2010	Reservation Reservations made upon ratification: Article 3 "The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Article 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall be so applied as to be in conformity with Personal Law of the citizens and Qanoon-e-Shahadat." Article 25 "The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan states that the application of Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall be subject to the principle laid down in Article 41 (2) and Article 91 (3) of the Constitution of Pakistan.” Upon signature Reservation: “The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to attach appropriate reservations, make declarations and state its understanding in respect of various provisions of the Covenant at the time of ratification.” Objections: 17 April 2008 With regard to the declaration made by India upon accession: "The Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan objects to the declaration made by the Republic of India in respect of article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The right of Self-determination as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and as embodied in the Covenants applies to all peoples under foreign occupation and alien domination. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan cannot consider as valid any interpretation of the right of self-determination which is contrary to the clear language of the provisions in question. Moreover, the said reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenants. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and India without India benefiting from its reservations."	-
Palau	September 20, 2011	-	-	-
Panama	July 27, 1976	March 8, 1977	-	-
Papua New Guinea	-	July 21, 2008	-	-
Paraguay	-	June 10, 1992	-	-
Peru	August 11, 1977	April 28, 1978	Reservation 1 June 2012. The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretariat of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to Supreme Decree 085-2011-PCM (5November 2011), by which a state of emergency was declared in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, in the department of Ayacucho; in the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; in the districts of Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba, province of La Convención, in the department of Cusco; in the province of Satipo; in the districts of Andamarca and Comas, province of Concepción; and in the districts of Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca province of Huancayo, department of Junín. The aforementioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decrees 004-2012-PCM (4 Januar 2012) and 022-2012-PCM (6 March 2012). In that regard, in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations informs the Secretariat of the United Nations that, by Supreme Decree 060-2012-PCM, a copy of which is attached to the present note, the state of emergency was extended for 60 days, in effect from 4 June 2012. During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, set out in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended. The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations takes this opportunity to convey to theSecretariat of the United Nations the renewed assurances of its highest consideration. Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 9 April 1984 Peru recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with article 41 of the said Covenant. PERU: NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE4(3) The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, communicates the following: The above action was effected on 12 December 2012. The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretariat of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to Supreme Decree 085-2011-PCM (5November 2011) by which a state of emergency was declared in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción; and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín. The above-mentioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decrees 004-2012-PCM (4 January 2012), 022-2012-PCM (6 March 2012), 060-2012-PCM (29 May 2012), 081-2012-PCM (1 August 2012) and 098-2012-PCM (27 September 2012). In that regard, and in accordance with the provi sions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations hereby informs the Secretariat that, by Supreme D ecree 115-2012-PCM, a copy of which is attached hereto, the aforementioned state of emergency has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 1 December 2012. During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of pers on, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended. The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations takes this opportunity to convey to the Secretariat of the United Nations the renewed assurances of its highest consideration. Executive Branch Office of the President of the Council of Ministers Extension of the state of emergency in provinces and districts of the departments of Ayacucho, Huancavelica, Cusco and Junín Supreme Decree No. 115-2012-PCM The President of the Republic, Considering: That, by Supreme Decree No. 098-2012-PCM, promulgated on 27 September 2012, the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención, department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción; and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín, was exte nded for a period of sixty (60) calendar days, with effect from 2 October 2012; That, while the state of emergency referred to in the preceding paragraph is about to expire, the Chief of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces has reported, in note No. 1303-JCCFFAA/SG of 16 November 2012, the circumstances that gave rise to the declaration of a state of emergency in the above-mentioned provinces and districts still prevail; and that therefore it is necessary to extend the state of emergency, so that the presence of the armed forces and their appropriate action may enable the population to identify with the goals and objectives sought by the national Government, namely the consolidation of peace in the area and in the country; That article 137, paragraph 1, of the Political Constitution of Peru provides that the extension of a state of emergency requires a new supreme decree; That Legislative Decree No. 1095 of 1 September 2010 established the procedures governing the intervention of the armed forces in areas declared to be in a state of emergency; Pursuant to article 118, paragraphs 4 and 14,of the Political Constitution of Peru; and, With the vote of approval of the Council of Ministers, and subject to notification of the Congress of the Republic; Hereby decrees: (IV.4) Attention: Treaty Services of Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of international organizations concerned. Article 1: Extension of the state of emergency The state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención, department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción; and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín;is hereby extended for a period of sixty (60) calendar days, with effect from 1 December 2012. Article 2: Suspension of the exercise of constitutional rights During the state of emergency referred to in the preceding article and in the locations indicated therein, the constitutional rights to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home and freedom of assembly and of movement within the territory provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru, shall be suspended. Article 3: Endorsement The present supreme decree shall be endorsed by the President of the Council of Ministers, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Justice and Human Rights. Done at Government House, Lima, on 22 November 2012. Ollanta Humala Tasso President of the Republic Juan F. Jiménez Mayor President of the Council of Ministers Pedro Cateriano Bellido Minister of Defence Wilfredo Pedraza Sierra Minister of the Interior Eda A. Rivas Franchini Minister of Justice and Human Rights. NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 3 OF ARTICLE 4 The Secretary-General of the United Nations United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, communicates the following: The above action was effected on 13 March 2013. The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretariat of the United Nations and has the honor to refer to the Supreme no061-2012-PCM decree dated May 29, 2012, statement on the state of emergency in the district Echarate, located in the province of La Convención (Department of Cusco). It recalls that the state Emergency was extended by Supreme Decrees No. 080-2012-PCM, August 1, 2012, no099-2012-PCM of 27 September 2012, and No. 116-2012-PCM of 23 November 2012. In this regard and in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru informed the Secretariat that the Supreme Decree No. 011-2013-PCM, the text of which is attached hereto , extends the aforementioned state of emergency for a period of 60 days beginning on February 5, 2013. Is suspended for the duration of the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, the right to move freely, the right of assembly and the right to liberty and security of person, devoted to paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 f) of Article 2 of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Secretariat of the United Nations the assurances of its highest consideration. Supreme Decree No. 011-2013-PCM The President of the Republic, Considering: That, by Supreme Decree No. 116-2012-PCM, promulgated on 23 November 2012, the state of emergency in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención, department of Cusco, was extended for a period of sixty (60) calendar days, with effect from 7 December 2012; That, while the state of emergency referred to in the preceding paragraph is about to expire, the Chief of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces has reported, in note No.017 JCCFFAA/SG of 8 January 2013, that the circumstances that gave rise to the declaration of a state of emergency in the above-mentioned province and district still prevail; and that therefore it is necessary to extend the state of emergency, so that the presence of the armed forces and their appropriate action may enable the population to identify with the goals and objectives sought by the national Government, namely the consolidation of peace in the area and in the country; That article 137, paragraph 1, of the Political Constitution of Peru provides that the extension of a state of emergency requi res a new supreme decree; That Legislative Decree No. 1095 of 1 September 2010 established the procedures governing the intervention of the armed forces in areas declared to be in a state of emergency; Pursuant to article 118, paragraphs 4 and 14,of the Political Constitution of Peru; and, With the vote of approval of the Council of Ministers, and subject to notification of the Congress of the Republic; Hereby decrees: Article 1: Extension of the state of emergency The state of emergency in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención, department of Cusco, is hereby extended for a period of sixty (60) calendar days, with effect from 5 February 2013. Article 2: Suspension of the exercise of constitutional rights During the state of emergency referred to in the preceding article and in the location indicated therein, the constitutional rights to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home and freedom of assembly and of movement within the territory, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru, shall be suspended. Article 3: Endorsement The present supreme decree shall be endorsed by the President of the Council of Ministers, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Justice and Human Rights. Done at Government House, Lima, on 25 January 2013. Ollanta Humala Tasso President of the Republic Pedro Cateriano Bellido Minister of Defence and Chef de Cabinet of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers Wilfredo Pedraza Sierra Minister of the Interior Eda A. Rivas Franchini Minister of Justice and Human Rights. NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE4(3) The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, communicates the following: The above action was effected on 23 January 2013. The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretariat of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to Supreme Decree No. 078-2011-PCM (12 September 2011) by which a state of emergency was declared in the Cholón district of the province of Marañón, the Monzón district of the province of Huamalíes and the province of Leoncio Prado, all located in the department of Huánuco; the province of Tocache, department of San Martín; and the province of Padre Abad, department of Ucayali. The above-mentioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decrees Nos. 087-2011-PCM (11 N ovember 2011), 002-2012-PCM (3 January 2012), 023-2012-PCM (10 March 2012), 052-2012-PCM (9 May 2012), 073-2012-PCM (7 July 2012), 092- 2012-PCM (6 September 2012) and 108-2012-PCM (26 October 2012). In that regard, in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations hereby informs the Secretariat of the United Nations that, by Supr eme Decree No. 002-2013-PCM, a copy of which is attached hereto, the aforementioned state of emer gency was extended for 60 days, with effect from 5 January 2013. During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, set out in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12, and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended. The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations takes this opportunity to convey to the Secretariat of the United Nations the renewed assurances of its highest consideration. NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 4(3) The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, communicates the following: The above action was effected on 28 March 2013. The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretariat of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to Supreme Decree 061-2012-PCM (29 May 2012) by which a state of emergency was declared in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención, department of Cusco. The aforementioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decree 080-2012-PCM (1 August 2012), Supreme Decree 099-2012-PCM (27 September 2012), Supreme Decree 116-2012-PCM (23 November 2012) and Supreme Decree 011-2013-PCM (26 January 2013). In that regard, and in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations hereby informs theSecretariat that, by Supreme Decree 029-2013-PCM, a copy of which is attached hereto, the aforementioned state of emergency has been exte nded for 60 days, with effect from 6 April 2013. During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and of liberty and security of the person, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9,11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended. The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations takes this opportunity to convey to the Secretariat of the United Nations the renewed assurances of its highest consideration. Décret suprême N ° 029-2013-PCM Supreme Decree No. 029-2013-PCM The President of the Republic, Considering: That, by Supreme Decree No. 011-2013-PCM, promulgated on 26 January 2013, the state of emergency in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención, department of Cusco, was extended for a period of sixty (60) calendar days, with effect from 5 February 2013; That, while the state of emergency referred to in the preceding paragraph is about to expire, the Chief of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces has reported, in note No. 0406 JCCFFAA/SG of 4 March 2013, that the circumstances that gave rise to the declaration of a state of emergency in the above-mentioned province and district still prevail, and that it is therefore necessary to extend the state of emergency, so that the presence of the armed forces and their appropriate action may enable the population to identify with the goals and objectives sought by the national Government, namely the consolidation of peace in the area and in the country; That article 137, paragraph 1, of the Political Constitution of Peru provides that the extension of a state of emergency requires a new supreme decree; That Legislative Decree No. 1095 of 1 September 2010 established the procedures governing the intervention of the armed forces in areas declared to be in a state of emergency; Pursuant to article 118, paragraphs 4 and 14, of the Political Constitution of Peru; and, With the vote of approval of the Council of Ministers, and subject to notification of the Congress of the Republic; Hereby decrees: Article 1: Extension of the state of emergency The state of emergency in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención, department of Cusco, is hereby extended for a period of sixty (60) calendar days, with effect from 6 April 2013. Article 2: Suspension of the exercise of constitutional rights During the state of emergency referred to in the preceding article and in the location indicated therein, the constitutional rights to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home and freedom of assembly and of movement within the territory, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru, shall be suspended. Article 3: Endorsement The present supreme decree shall be endorsed by the Pr esident of the Council of Ministers, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Justice and Human Rights. NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE4 (3) The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, communicates the following: The above action was effected on 9 May 2013. The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the United Nations Secretariat and has the honour to refer to Supreme Decree No. 078-2011-PCM of 12 September 2011, whereby a state of emergency was declared in the District of Cholón, Province of Marañón; in the District of Monzón, Province of Huamalíes; and in the Province of Leoncio Prado, all in the Department of Huánuco; in the Province of Tocache, Department of San Martín; and in the Province of Padre Abad, Department of Ucayali. It should be noted that this state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decrees Nos. 087-2011-PCM of 11 November 2011, 002-2012-PCM of 3 January 2012, 023-2012- PCM of 10 March 2012, 052-2012-PCM, 073-2012-PCM of 7 July 2012, 092-2012-PCM of 6 September 2012, 108-2012-PCM of 26 October 2012, 001-2013-PCM of 3 January 2013 and 022-2013- PCM of 1 March 2013. In that regard, in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations hereby informs the Secretariat that the state of emergency has been extended by a further 60 days, with effect from 5 May 2013, pursuant to Supreme Decree No. 049-2013-PCM, a copy of which is transmitted herewith. The rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, as set out in article 2, pa ragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the In ternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended during the state of emergency. The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations takes this opportunity to convey to the United Nations Secretariat the renewed assu rances of its highest consideration. Supreme Decree No. 049-2013-PCM The President of the Republic, Whereas: Article 44 of the Political Constitution of Peru provides that the prime duties of the State include guaranteeing the full enjoyment of fundament al rights, protecting the population from security threats and promoting the general welfare based on ju stice and the full and balanced development of the nation; The constitutional Government has an obligation to guarantee the right of citizens to order, public peace, the proper delivery of basic servi ces and the normal supply of food and medicine; The continued movements of remnants of the Shining Path terrorist organization in the Huallaga Valley, divided into terrorist columns in va rious rural areas on the left and right banks of the Huallaga River in the District of Cholón, Province of Marañón; in the District of Monzón, Province of Huamalíes; and in the Province of Leoncio Prado, all in the Department of Huánuco; in the Province of Tocache, Department of San Martín; and in the Provin ce of Padre Abad, Department of Ucayali, require the presence of the State through the National Po lice of Peru in that part of the country; The Chief of the Huallaga Police Front, in report No. 022-2013-DIRNOP-FPH/EM, called for the extension of the state of emergency declar ed by Supreme Decree No. 078-2011-PCM, issued on 13 September 2011, and extended by Supreme Decrees Nos. 087-2011-PCM, issued on 11 November 2011; 002-2012-PCM, issued on 4 January 2012; 023-2012-PCM, issued on 10 March 2012; 052-2012- PCM, issued on 9 May 2012; 073-2012-PCM, issu ed on 7 July 2012; 092-2012-PCM, issued on 6 September 2012; 108-2012-PCM, issued on 26 October 2012; and 022-2013-PCM, issued on 1 March 2013, in the above-mentioned areas, in order to enable the population, through the presence and appropriate action of the National Police of Peru, to identify with the ends or objectives sought by the central Government, namely peacebuilding in that area and in the country as a whole, and stated furthermore that the problems in those areas include not only terrorism, but also illicit drug trafficking and illegal cultivation of coca, which is the main activity in which the local population is engaged; Peru has a State policy of combating illicit drug trafficking, which poses a threat owing to its devastating social, economic, environmental and political impact; Article 137, paragraph 1, of the Political Constitution of Peru provides that the extension of a state of emergency requires the issuance of a new decree; Pursuant to the provisions of article 118, paragraphs 4 and 14, and article 137, paragraph 1, of the Political Constitution of Peru, and of article 4, paragraphs 2 (b) and 2 (d), of Act No. 29158, the Organic Law of the Executive Branch; With the affirmative vote of the Council of Ministers and subject to notification of the Congress of the Republic; Decrees: Article 1. Extension of the state of emergency The state of emergency is hereby extended for a period of sixty (60) days, with effect from 5 May 2013, in the District of Cholón, Province of Marañón; in the District of Monzón, Province of Huamalíes; and in the Province of Leoncio Prado, all in the Department of Huánuco; in the Province of Tocache, Department of San Martín; and in the Province of Padre Abad, Department of Ucayali. The National Police of Peru shall maintain domestic order with the support of the armed forces. Article 2. Suspension of constitutional rights During the extension of the state of emergency referred to in the preceding article and in the locations specified therein, the constitutional rights of liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home and freedom of assembly and movement within the territory, as set out in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru, shall be suspended. Article 3. Endorsement The present Supreme Decree shall be endorsed by the President of the Council of Ministers, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Justice and Human Rights. Done at Government House, Lima, on 3 May 2013. Ollanta Humala Tasso Constitutional President of the Republic Juan F. Jiménez Mayor President of the Council of Ministers Pedro Cateriano Bellido Minister of Defence Wilfredo Pedraza Sierra Minister of the Interior Eda A. Rivas Franchini Minister of Justice and Human Rights. NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 4(3) The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, communicates the following: The above action was effected on 10 July 2012. The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretariat of the United Nations (Office of Legal Affairs) and, pursuant to article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has the honour to inform it that by Supreme Decree No. 070- 2012-PCM, promulgated on 3 July 2012, a copy of which is attached, a state of emergency was declared for thirty (30) days in the provinces of Cajama rca, Celendín and Hualgayoc in the department of Cajamarca, with the National Police of Peru maintaining public order. During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of pers on, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended. The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations takes this opportunity to convey to the Secretariat of the United Nations (Office of Legal Affairs) the renewed assurances of its highest consideration. EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS Supreme decree declaring a state of emergency in the provinces of Cajamarca, Celendín and Hualgayoc in the department of Cajamarca SUPREME DECREE No. 070-2012-PCM THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC, considering: That article 44 of the Political Constitution of Pe ru provides that the primary duties of the State are to guarantee the full enjoyment of basic rights, protect the population from threats to its security and promote general welfare based on justice and on the full and balanced development of the nation; That the constitutional Government has an obligation to guarantee the right of citizens to order, public peace, the proper functioning of basic services and the normal supply of food and medicines; That, as is public knowledge, acts of violence and disturbance of public order are jeopardizing the security of citizens and members of the National Police of Peru, and affecting public and private property in certain provinces of the department of Cajamarca, as reported by the Office of the Director- General of the National Police of Peru in Official Note No. 365-2012-DIRGEN-PNP/SA; That the events that have occurred are of such magnitude as to require the adoption of measures to enable the State to take immediate action to control and minimize current risks and any others that might arise; it is therefore necessary to declare a state of emergency in the provinces of Cajamarca, Celendín and Hualgayoc in the department of Cajamarca and to take the steps and measures provided for in the Constitution to restore public order and ensure the defence and protection of citizens' rights and public and private services; That it is the responsibility of the President of the Republic to comply and ensure compliance with the Political Constitution of Peru and uphold public order in the Republic in accordance with article 118, paragraphs 1 and 4, of the Political Constitution of Peru; That article 137, paragraph 1, of the Political Constitution of Peru empowers the President of the Republic to decree a state of emergency in the event of a disturbance of the peace or of public order or serious circumstances affecting the life of the nation; That article 27, paragraph 1, of the American Convention on Human Rights provides that a State party may suspend the exercise of certain constitutional rights in the event of a public danger or other emergency that threatens its security; Pursuant to article 118, paragraphs 4 and 14, and article 137, paragraph 1, of the Political Constitution of Peru and to article 4, paragraphs (2 )b and 2(d), of the Executive Power Organization Act (Act No. 29158); and With the vote of approval of the Council of Ministers and subject to notification of the Congress of the Republic; HEREBY DECREES: Article 1: Declaration of a state of emergency. A state of emergency is hereby declared for a pe riod of thirty (30) days in the provinces of Cajamarca, Celendín and Hualgayoc in the department of Cajamarca, with the National Police of Peru maintaining public order. Article 2: Suspension of constitutional guarantees During the state of emergency and in the districts referred to in the preceding article, the constitutional guarantees pertaining to liberty and s ecurity of person, inviolability of the home and freedom of assembly and movement within the national territory set out in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru are suspended. Article 3: Endorsement The present Supreme Decree shall be endorsed by the President of the Council of Ministers, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Justice and Human Rights. Done at Government House, Lima, on 3 July 2012. Ollanta Humala Tasso Constitutional President of the Republic Óscar Valdés Dancuart President of the Council of Ministers José Antonio Urquizo Maggia Minister of Defence Wilver Alfredo Calle Girón Minister of the Interior Juan F. Jiménez Mayor Minister of Justice and Human Rights	-
Philippines	December 19, 1966	October 23, 1986	-	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: "The Philippine Government, in accordance with article 41 of the said Covenant, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee set up in the aforesaid Covenant, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."
Poland	March 2, 1967	March 18, 1977	Reservation Objections: 22 November 2005 With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification: "The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the Declaration made by Mauritania upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, done in New York on 16 December 1966, hereinafter called the Covenant, in respect of Articles 18 and 23 (4). The Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the Declaration made Mauritania - which constitutes de facto a reservation - is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant which guarantees every person equal enjoyment of the rights set forth in the Covenant. The Government of the Republic of Poland therefore considers that, according to the customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, done at Vienna on 23 May 1969, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted (Article 19 c). Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the Declaration made by Mauritania is not precise enough to define for the other State Parties the extent to which Mauritania has accepted the obligation of the Covenant. The Government of the Republic of Poland therefore objects to Declaration made by Mauritania. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Poland and Mauritania." 20 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966, with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant. In the view of the Government of the Republic of Poland, if put into practice, the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, especially when taking into account their unspecified extent and the vast area of rights they affect, will considerably limit the ability to benefit from the rights guaranteed by the Covenant. Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers these reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, which is to guarantee equal rights to everyone without any discrimination. In consequence, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is a treaty and customary norm, these reservations shall not be permitted. In order to justify its will to exclude the legal consequences of certain provisions of the Covenant, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan raised in its reservations the inconsistency of these provisions with its domestic legislation. The Government of the Republic of Poland recalls that, according to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the State Party to an international agreement may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. On the contrary, it should be deemed a rule that a State Party adjusts its internal law to the treaty which it decides to be bound by. On these grounds, the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant shall not be permitted. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan refers in its reservations to the Sharia laws and to its domestic legislation as possibly affecting the application of the Covenant. Nonetheless it does not specify the exact content of these laws and legislation. As a result, it is impossible to clearly define the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. Thus, the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant shall not be permitted. Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers that reservations aimed at limitation or exclusion of the application of treaty norms stipulating non-derogable rights are in opposition with the purpose of this treaty. On these grounds, the reservations made with regard to Articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are impermissible. The Government of the Republic of Poland objects also to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Article 40 of the Covenant considering it as impermissible as it undermines the basis of the United Nations mechanism of monitoring of the respect of human rights. The Government of the Republic of Poland considers the reporting obligations of States Parties to the Covenant to be of utmost importance for the effectiveness of the UN system of the protection of human rights and as such – not of optional nature. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Poland objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966, with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Poland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan."	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 25 September 1990 "The Republic of Poland recognizes, in accordance with article 41, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."
Portugal	October 7, 1976	June 15, 1978	Reservation Objections: 26 October 1990 "The Government of Portugal hereby presents its formal objection to the interpretative declarations made by the Government of Algeria upon ratification of the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Government of Portugal having examined the contents of the said declarations reached the conclusion that they can be regarded as reservations and therefore should be considered invalid as well as incompatible with the purposes and object of the Covenants. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenants between Portugal and Algeria." 5 October 1993 With regard to the reservations made by the United States of America: "The Government of Portugal considers that the reservation made by the United States of America referring to article 6, paragraph 5 of the Covenant which prohibits capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age is in compatible with article 6 which, as made clear by paragraph 2 of article 4, lays down the minimum standard for the protection of the right to life. The Government of Portugal also considers that the reservation with regard to article 7 in which a State limits its responsibilities under the Covenant by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the Reserving State to the object and purpose of the Covenant and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations made by the United States of America. These objections shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Portugal and the United States of America." 26 July 2001 With regard to the reservation to article 7 made by Botswana upon ratification: "The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966). The Government of the Portuguese Republic is of the view that, according to article 4 (2) of the Covenant, the said reservation is incompatible with its object and purpose. Furthermore, this reservation goes against the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a State party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform according tothe obligations set out by the said treaty. It is the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the Government of the Republic of Botswana, by limiting its responsibilities under the Covenant by invoking general principles of its Constitutional Law, may create doubts on its commitment to the Covenant and, moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of International Law. The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to article 7 of the Covenant. This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Botswana." 13 October 2004 With regard to declarations and the reservation made by Turkey upon ratification: "The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by invoking certain provisions of national law in general terms may create doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international law. It is in the common interest of all States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservation by Turkey to the ICCPR. This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Portugal and Turkey." 21 November 2005 With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification: "Portugal considers that the declaration concerning both Article 18 and Article 23, paragraph 4 is a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis and that is not authorised by the Covenant. This reservation creates doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international law. The Government of the Portuguese Republic, therefore, objects to the above reservation made by the Mauritanian Government to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Portugal and Mauritania." 29 August 2007 With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of the Portuguese Republic has carefully examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). According to the reservation, the application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives. Portugal considers that this article is a fundamental provision of the Covenant and the reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant, raises concerns as to its commitment to the object and purpose of the Covenant and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international law. It is in the common interest of all States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under these treaties. The Government of the Portuguese Republic, therefore, objects to the above mentioned reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the ICCPR. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and the Maldives." 28 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, 16 December 1966. The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 are reservations that seek to subject the application of the Covenant to its Constitution, its domestic law or/and Sharia Law, limiting the scope of the [Covenant] on an unilateral basis and contributing to undermining the basis of International Law. The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by invoking its Constitution, the domestic law or/and the Sharia Law raise serious doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Covenant, as the reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of their effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof. It is in the common interest of all the States that Treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the Treaties. The Government of the Portuguese Republic furthermore notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant. The Government of the Portuguese Republic is of the view that the reporting mechanism is a procedural requirement of the Covenant, an integral undertaking of its States Parties and that the reservation is likely to undermine the international human rights treaty body system. Thus, the reservation to article 40 is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Portuguese Republic recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, 16 December 1966. However, these objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Portuguese Republic and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”	-
Qatar	-	May 21, 2018	Reservation The State of Qatar does not consider itself bound by the following provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the below mentioned reasons: 1. Article 3 with regard to provisions related to the inheritance of power, for it contravenes the provisions of article 8 of the Constitution. 2. Article 23.4, for it contravenes the Islamic Sharia.	1. The State of Qatar shall interpret the term “punishment” in Article 7 of the Covenant in accordance with the applicable legislation of Qatar and the Islamic Sharia. 2. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Covenant based on the understanding that it does not contravene the Islamic Sharia. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such paragraph in accordance with such understanding. 3. The State of Qatar shall interpret that the term “trade unions” and all related matters, as mentioned in Article 22 of the Covenant, are in line with the Labor Law and national legislation. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such article in accordance with such understanding. 4. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant in a manner that does not contravene the Islamic Sharia. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such paragraph in accordance with such understanding. 5. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 27 of the Covenant that professing and practicing one's own religion require that they do not violate the rules of public order and public morals, the protection of public safe[t]y and public health, or the rights of and basic freedoms of others.
Republic of Korea	-	April 10, 1990	Reservation Reservations: The Government of the Republic of Korea [declares] that the provisions of paragraph 5 [...] of article 14, article 22 [...] of the Covenant shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the provisions of the local laws including the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: [The Government of the Republic of Korea] recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee under article 41 of the Covenant.
Republic of Moldova	-	January 26, 1993	-	-
Romania	June 27, 1968	December 9, 1974	Reservation Upon signature: The Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania declares that the provisions of article 48, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are at variance with the principle that all States have the right to become parties to multilateral treaties governing matters of general interest. Upon ratification: (a) The State Council of the Socialist Republic of Romania considers that the provisions of article 48 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are inconsistent with the principle that multilateral international treaties whose purposes concern the international community as a whole must be open to universal participation. (b) The State Council of the Socialist Republic of Romania considers that the maintenance in a state of dependence of certain territories referred to in article 1 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations and the instruments adopted by the Organization on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, including the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, which solemnly proclaims the duty of States to promote the realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples in order to bring a speedy end to colonialism.	-
Russian Federation	March 18, 1968	October 16, 1973	Reservation Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratifica- tion: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which a number of States cannot become parties to these Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature and considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States concerned without any discrimination or limitation.	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 1 October 1991 The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that, pursuant to article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, in respect of situations and events occurring after the adoption of the present declaration, provided that the State Party in question has, not less than 12 months prior to the submission by it of such a communication, recognized in regard to itself the competence of the Committee, established in article 41, in so far as obligations have been assumed under the Covenant by the USSR and by the State concerned.
Rwanda	-	April 16, 1975	-	-
Saint Lucia	September 22, 2011	-	-	-
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	-	November 9, 1981	-	-
Samoa	-	February 15, 2008	Reservation Declarations: “The term “forced or compulsory labour” as appears in article 8 paragraph 3 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights of 1966 shall be interpreted as being compatible with that expressed in article 8 (2) (a) (b) (c) (d) of the Constitution of the Independent State of Samoa 1960, which stipulates that the “term forced or compulsory labour” shall include, (a) any work required to be done in consequence of a sentence of a Court; or (b) any service of a military character or, in the case of conscientious objectors, service exacted instead of compulsory military service; or (c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening life or well-being of the community; or (d) any work or service which is required by Samoan custom or which forms part of normal civic obligations. The Government of the Independent State of Samoa considers that article 10 paragraphs 2 and 3, which provides that juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status refers solely to the legal measures incorporated in the system for the protection of minors, which is addressed by the Young Offenders Act 2007 (Samoa).”	-
San Marino	-	October 18, 1985	-	-
Sao Tome and Principe	October 31, 1995	January 10, 2017	-	-
Senegal	July 6, 1970	February 13, 1978	-	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 5 January 1981 The Government of Senegal declares, under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the said Covenant to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Senegal, made a declaration under article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself.
Serbia	-	March 12, 2001	-	-
Seychelles	-	May 5, 1992	-	-
Sierra Leone	-	August 23, 1996	-	-
Slovakia	-	May 28, 1993	Reservation Objections: 23 June 2011 With regard to the reservations amde by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Slovak Republic has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, according to which: ‘[The] Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Article 12 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan. With respect to Article 13, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Article 25 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant’. The Slovak Republic considers that with the reservations to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the Islamic Sharia law. Moreover it considers the reservations with respect to Articles 12, 13, 25 and 40 of the Covenant as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant as to its commitment to the object and purpose of the Covenant. It isin the common interest of States that all parties respect treaties to which they have chosen to become party, as to their object and purpose, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Slovak Republic recalls that the customary international law, as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c), sets out that the reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted. The Slovak Republic therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Slovak Republic and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its reservations."	-
Slovenia	-	July 6, 1992	-	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: "[The] Republic of Slovenia, in accordance with article 41 of the said Covenant, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."
Somalia	-	January 24, 1990	-	-
South Africa	October 3, 1994	December 10, 1998	-	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: “The Republic of South Africa declares that it recognises, for the purposes of article 41 of the Covenant, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under present the Covenant."
South Sudan	-	February 5, 2024	-	-
Spain	September 28, 1976	April 27, 1977	Reservation Objections: 5 October 1993 With regard to the reservations made by the United States of America: ... After careful consideration of the reservations made by the United States of America, Spain wishes to point out that pursuant to article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, a State Party may not derogate from several basic articles, among them articles 6 and 7, including in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation. The Government of Spain takes the view that reservation (2) of the United States having regard to capital punishment for crimes committed by individuals under 18 years of age, in addition to reservation (3) having regard to article 7, constitute general derogations from articles 6 and 7, whereas, according to article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, such derogations are not to be permitted. Therefore, and bearing in mind that articles 6 and 7 protect two of the most fundamental rights embodied in the Covenant, the Government of Spain considers that these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and, consequently, objects to them. This position does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America. 9 October 2001 With regard to the reservation to article 7 made by Botswana upon ratification: The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation made on 16 December 2000 by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which makes its adherence to that article conditional by referring to the current content of Botswana's domestic legislation. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this reservation, by referring to domestic law, affects one of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Covenant (prohibition of torture, right to physical integrity), from which no derogation is permitted under article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. The Government of Spain also considers that the presentation of a reservation referring to domestic legislation, in the absence of further clarifications, raises doubts as to the degree of commitment assumed by the Republic of Botswana in becoming a party to the Covenant. Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to article 7 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966. This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Botswana. 17 September 2007 With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has reviewed the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006, at the time of its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain observes that the broad formulation of the reservation, which makes the application of article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights conditional on its conformity with the Constitution of Maldives without specifying the content thereof, renders it impossible to ascertain to what extent the Republic of Maldives has accepted the obligations arising from that provision of the Covenant and, in consequence, raises doubts about its commitment to the object and purpose of the treaty. The Government of the Kingdomof Spain considers the reservation of the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain recalls that, under customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permitted. Accordingly, the Government of Spain objects to the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Maldives." 9 June 2011 With regard to the reservation made by Pakistan upon ratification: The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, concerning articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the said Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the above-mentioned reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, since they are intended to exempt Pakistan from its commitment to respect and guarantee certain rights essential for the fulfilment of the object and purpose of the Covenant, such as equality between men and women; the right to life and restrictions on the imposition of the death penalty; the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of expression; liberty of movement and freedom in choice of residence; restrictions on the expulsion of aliens lawfully in the territory of a State Party; and the right to take part in public affairs, the right to vote and to be elected and the right to have access to public service on terms of equality, or to limit the said commitment in an undefined manner. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain also considers that the reservation whereby Pakistan declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee provided for in article 40 of the Covenant is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Furthermore, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the above-mentioned reservations made by Pakistan, subordinating the application of certain articles of the Covenant either to their conformity with sharia law or to their conformity with the Constitution of Pakistan, or to both, to which general reference is made without specifying their content, in no way excludes the legal effects of the obligations arising from the relevant provisions of the Covenant. Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the reservations made by Pakistan to articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Spain and Pakistan.	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 11 March 1998 The Government of Spain declares that, under the provisions of article 41 of the [Covenant], it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
Sri Lanka	-	June 11, 1980	-	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: "The Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka declares under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant, from another State Party which has similarly declared under article 41 its recognition of the Committee's competence in respect to itself."
Sudan	-	March 18, 1986	-	-
Suriname	-	December 28, 1976	-	-
Swaziland	-	March 26, 2004	-	-
Sweden	September 29, 1967	December 6, 1971	Reservation Sweden reserves the right not to apply the provisions of article 10, paragraph 3, with regard to the obligation to segregate juvenile offenders from adults, the provisions of article 14, paragraph 7, and the provisions of article 20, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Objections: 18 June 1993 With regard to interpretative declarations made by the United States of America: "... In this context the Government recalls that under international treaty law, the name assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. Thus, the Government considers that some of the understandings made by the United States in substance constitute reservations to the Covenant. A reservation by which a State modifies or excludes the application of the most fundamental provisions of the Covenant, or limits its responsibilities under that treaty by invoking general principles of national law, may cast doubts upon the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The reservations made by the United States of America include both reservations to essential and non-derogable provisions, and general references to national legislation. Reservations of this nature contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. All States Parties share a common interest in the respect for the object and purpose of the treaty to which they have chosen to become parties. Sweden therefore objects to the reservations made by the United States to: - article 2; cf. Understanding (1); - article 4; cf. Understanding (1); - article 6; cf. Reservation (2); - article 7; cf. Reservation (3); - article 15; cf. Reservation (4); - article 24; cf. Understanding (1). This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Sweden and the United States of America." 23 July 1997 With regard to the declarations and the reservation made by Kuwait: "The Government of Sweden notes that the interpretative declarations regarding article 2, paragraph 1, article 3 and 23 imply that central provisions of the Covenant are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of national law. The Government of Sweden further notes that the reservation concerning article 25 (b) is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden is of the view that these interpretative declarations and this reservation raise doubts as to the commitment of Kuwait to the object and purpose of the Covenant. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid interpretative declarations and reservation made by the Government of Kuwait upon accession to the [said Covenant]. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Kuwait and Sweden." 25 July 2001 With regard to the reservation made by Botswana upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: "The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by Botswana upon signature of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and confirmed upon ratification, regarding articles 7 and 12 (3) of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden notes that the said articles of the Covenant are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing legislation in Botswana. The Government of Sweden is of the view that, in the absence of further clarification, this reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to the object and purpose of the Covenant and would like to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted, It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Botswana to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Botswana and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Botswana benefiting from its reservation." 30 June 2004 With regard to the declarations and reservation made by Turkey upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: The Government of Sweden has examined the declarations and reservation made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of the Covenant only to the State parties with which it has diplomatic relations. This statement in fact amounts, in the view of the Government of Sweden, to a reservation. The reservation of the Republic of Turkey makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Turkey considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant. In absence of further clarification, therefore, the reservation raises doubt as to the commitment of the Republic of Turkey to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Republic of Turkey furthermore declares that the Covenant is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. This statement also amounts, in the view of the Government of Sweden, to a reservation. It should be recalled that the duty to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the Covenant is mandatory upon State parties in relation to all individuals under their jurisdiction. A limitation to the national territory is contrary to the obligations of State parties in this regard and therefore incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden notes that the interpretation and application of article 27 of the Covenant is being made subject to a general reservation referring to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes. The general reference to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, which, in the absence of further clarification, does not clearly specify the extent of the Republic of Turkey's derogation from the provision in question, raises serious doubts as to the commitment of the Republic of Turkey to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden furthermore wishes to recall that the rights of persons belonging to minorities in accordance with article 27 of the Covenant are to be respected without discrimination. As has been laid down by the Human Rights Committee in its General comment 23 on Article 27 of the Covenant, the existence of a minority does not depend upon a decision by the state but requires to be established by objective criteria. The subjugation of the application of article 27 to the rules and provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne and its Appendixes is, therefore, in the view of the Government of Sweden, incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. According to established customary law as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of all States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Turkey and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without the Republic of Turkey benefiting from its reservations. 5 October 2005 With regard to the reservations made by the Mauritania upon accession: "The Government of Sweden has examined the declarations made by the Government of Mauritania upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, regarding Article 18 and paragraph 4 of Article 23. The Government of Sweden would like to recall that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty.The Government of Sweden considers that this declaration made by the Government of Mauritania in substance constitutes a reservation. The reservations make general references to the Islamic Sharia. The Government of Sweden is of the view that the reservations which do not clearly specify the extent of Mauritania's derogation from the provisions in question raises serious doubts as to the commitment of Mauritania to the object and purpose of the Covenant. In addition, article 18 of the Covenant is among the provisions from which no derogation is allowed, according to article 4 of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden wishes to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that all parties respect treaties to which they have chosen to become parties as to their object and purpose, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and considers the reservation null and void. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Mauritania and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Mauritania benefiting from its reservation." 18 September 2007 With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: "...the Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Sweden notes that the Maldives gives precedence to its Constitution over the application of article 18 of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden is of the view that this reservation, which does not clearly specify the extent of the Maldives' derogation from the provision in question, raises serious doubt as to the commitment of the Maldives to the object and purpose of the Covenant. According to international customary law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of all States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties, are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and considers the reservation null and void. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Maldives and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the Maldives and Sweden, without the Maldives benefiting from its reservation." 22 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of Sweden is of the view that these reservations raise serious doubt as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant, as the reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of their effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof. The Government of Sweden furthermore notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 40 of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden is of the view that the reporting mechanism is a procedural requirement of the Covenant, an integral undertaking of its States Parties and that the reservation is likely to undermine the international human rights treaty body system. Thus, the reservation to article 40 is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. According to international customary law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of all States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and considers the reservations null and void. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Pakistan and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between Pakistan and Sweden, without Pakistan benefiting from these reservations.”	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 26 November 1971 "Sweden recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."
Switzerland	-	June 18, 1992	Reservation Reservations: ... (b) Reservation concerning article 12, paragraph 1: The right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose one's residence is applicable, subject to the federal laws on aliens, which provide that residence and establisment permits shall be valid only for the canton which issues them. ... (f) Reservation concerning article 20: Switzerland reserves the right not to adopt further measures to ban propaganda for war, which is prohibited by article 20, paragraph 1. ... (g) Reservation concerning article 25, subparagraph (b): The present provision shall be applied without prejudice to the cantonal and communal laws, which provide for or permit elections within assemblies to be held by a means other than secret ballot. (h) Reservation concerning article 26: The equality of all persons before the law and their entitlement without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law shall be guaranteed only in connection with other rights contained in the present Covenant. Objections: 28 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: Concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966: “The Swiss Federal Council has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, with regard to articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 of the Covenant. The reservations to the articles, which refer to the provisions of domestic law and Islamic Sharia law, do not specify their scope and raise doubts about the ability of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to honour its obligations as a party to the Covenant. Furthermore, the Swiss Federal Council emphasizes that the third sentence of article 6, paragraph 1; article 7; and article 18, paragraph 2, constitute jus cogens and therefore enjoy absolute protection. A general reservation to article 40, a key provision of the Covenant, raises serious doubts as to the compatibility of such a reservation with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 prohibits any reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty. Consequently, the Swiss Federal Council objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Switzerland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 25 April 1997 The Swiss Government declares, pursuant to article 41 (1) of the [said Covenant], that it shall recognize for a further period of five years, as from 18 September 1997, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the present Covenant. 11 May 2010 “… the Swiss Federal Council declares, pursuant to article 41 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, that it recognizes for a further period of five years, beginning on 16 April 2010, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from States parties concerning non-compliance by other States parties with the obligations arising under the Covenant.”
Syrian Arab Republic	-	April 21, 1969	Reservation 1. The accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to these two Covenants shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or entry into a relationship with it regarding any matter regulated by the said two Covenants. 2. The Syrian Arab Republic considers that paragraph 1 of article 26 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and paragraph 1 of article 48 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are incompatible with the purposes and objectives of the said Covenants, inasmuch as they do not allow all States, without distinction or discrimination, the opportunity to become parties to the said Covenants.	-
Tajikistan	-	January 4, 1999	-	-
Thailand	-	October 29, 1996	Reservation Interpretative declarations: "The Government of Thailand declares that: 1. The term "self-determination" as appears in article 1, paragraph 1, of the Covenant shall be interpreted as being compatible with that expressed in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights on 25 June 1993. 2. With respect to article 6, paragraph 5 of the Covenant, the Thai Penal Code enjoins, or in some cases allows much latitude for, the Court to take into account the offender's youth as a mitigating factor in handing down sentences. Whereas Section 74 of the code does not allow any kind of punishment levied upon any person below fourteen years of age, Section 75 of the same Code provides that whenever any person over fourteen years but not yet over seventeen years of age commits any act provided by the law to be an offence, the Court shall take into account the sense of responsibility and all other things concerning him in order to come to decision as to whether it is appropriate to pass judgment inflicting punishment on him or not. If the court does not deem it appropriate to pass judgment inflicting punishment, it shall proceed according to Section 74 ( viz . to adopt other correction measures short of punishment) or if the court deems it appropriate to pass judgment inflicting punishment, it shall reduce the scale of punishment provided for such offence by one half. Section 76 of the same Code also states that whenever any person over seventeen years but not yet over twenty years of age, commits any act provided by the law to be an offence, the Court may , if it thinks fit, reduce the scale of the punishment provided for such offence by one third or one half. The reduction of the said scale will prevent the Court from passing any sentence of death. As a result, though in theory, sentence of death may be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years, but not below seventeen years of age, the Court always exercises its discretion under Section 75 to reduce the said scale of punishment, and in practice the death penalty has not been imposed upon any persons below eighteen years of age. Consequently, Thailand considers that in real terms it has already complied with the principles enshrined herein. 3. With respect to article 9, paragraph 3 of the Covenant, Section 87, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Thailand provides that the arrested person shall not be kept in custody for more than forty-eight hours from the time of his arrival at the office of the administrative or police official, but the time for bringing the arrested person to the Court shall not be included in the said period of forty-eight hours. In case it is necessary for the purpose of conducting the inquiry, or there arises any other necessity, the period of forty-eight hours may be extended as long as such necessity persists, but in no case shall it be longer than seven days. 4. With respect to article 20 of the Covenant, the term "war" appearing in paragraph 1 is understood by Thailand to mean war in contravention of international law." WITHDRAWAL OF INTERPRETATIVE DECLARATIONS MADE UPON ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLES 6(5) AND 9(3) OF THE COVENANT 1 The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, communicates the following: The above action was effected on 6 July 2012. The instrument of withdrawal included an annex which is attached to this depositary notification. The interpretative declarations which have been withdrawn read as follows: (Original: English) “With respect to article 6, paragraph 5 of the Covenant, the Thai Penal Code enjoins, or in some cases allows much latitude for, the Court to take into account the offender's youth as a mitigating factor in handing down sentences. Whereas Secti on 74 of the Code does not allow any kind of punishment levied upon any person below fourteen year s of age, Section 75 of the same Code provides that whenever any person over fourteen years but not yet over seventeen years of age commits any act provided by the law to be an offence, the Court shall take into account the sense of responsibility and all other things concerning him in order to come to decision as to whether it is appropriate to pass judgment inflicting punishment on him or not. If the court does not deem it appropriate to pass judgment inflicting punishment, it shall proceed according to Section 74 (viz. to adopt other correction measures short of punishment), or if the Court deems it appropriate to pass judgment inflicting punishment, it shall reduce the scale of punishment provided for such offence by one half. Section 76 of the same Code also states that whenever any person over seventeen years but not yet over twenty years of age, commits any act provided by the law to be an offence, the Court may, if it thinks fit, reduce the scale of the punishment provided for such offence by one third or one half. The reduction of the said scale will prevent the Court from passing any sentence of death. As a result, though in theory, sentence of death may be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years, but not below seventeen years of age, the Court always exercises its discretion under Section 75 to reduce the said scale of punishment, and in practice the death penalty has not been imposed upon any persons below eighteen years of age. Consequently, Thailand considers that in real terms it has already complied with the principles enshrined herein.	-
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	-	January 18, 1994	-	-
Timor-Leste	-	September 18, 2003	-	-
Togo	-	May 24, 1984	-	-
Trinidad and Tobago	-	December 21, 1978	Reservation Trinidad and Tobago 30 (i) The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right not to apply in full the provision of paragraph 2 of article 4 of the Covenant since section 7 (3) of its Constitution enables Parliament to enact legislation even though it is inconsistent with sections (4) and (5) of the said Constitution; (ii) Where at any time there is a lack of suitable prison facilities, the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right not to apply article 10 (2) (b) and 10 (3) so far as those provisions require juveniles who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults; (iii) The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right not to apply paragraph 2 of article 12 in view of the statutory provisions requiring persons intending to travel abroad to furnish tax clearance certificates; (iv) The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right not to apply paragraph 5 of article 14 in view of the fact that section 43 of its Supreme Court of Judicature Act No. 12 of 1962 does not confer on a person convicted on indictment an unqualified right of appeal and that in particular cases, appeal to the Court of Appeal can only be done with the leave of the Court of Appeal itself or of the Privy Council; (v) While the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago accepts the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment, it is not possible at this time to implement such a principle in accordance with paragraph 6 of article 14 of the Covenant; (vi) With reference to the last sentence of paragraph 1 of article 15-"If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby", the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago deems this provision to apply exclusively to cases in progress. Consequently, a person who has already been convicted by a final decision shall not benefit from any provision made by law, subsequent to that decision, for the imposition of a lighter penalty. (vii) The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right to impose lawful and or reasonable restrictions with respect to the right of assembly under article 21 of the Covenant; (viii) The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right not to apply the provision of article 26 of the Covenant in so far as it applies to the holding of property in Trinidad and Tobago, in view of the fact that licences may be granted to or withheld from aliens under the Aliens Landholding Act of Trinidad and Tobago.	-
Tunisia	April 30, 1968	March 18, 1969	-	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 24 June 1993 The Government of the Republic of Tunisia declares that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under article 28 of the [said Covenant] ..., to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that the Republic of Tunisia is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant. The State Party submitting such communications to the Committee must have made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee under article 41 of the [said Covenant].
Turkey	August 15, 2000	September 23, 2003	Reservation Declarations and reservation: The Republic of Turkey declares that; it will implement its obligations under the Covenant in accordance to the obligations under the Charter of the United Nations (especially Article 1 and 2 thereof). The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of this Covenant only to the States with which it has diplomatic relations. The Republic of Turkey declares that this Convention is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. The Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes.	-
Turkmenistan	-	May 1, 1997	-	-
Uganda	-	June 21, 1995	-	-
Ukraine	March 20, 1968	November 12, 1973	Reservation Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratifica- tion: The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic declares that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which a number of States cannot become parties to these Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature and considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States concerned without any discrimination or limitation.	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 28 July 1992 In accordance with article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Ukraine recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that any State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	September 16, 1968	May 20, 1976	Reservation February 4, 2015. UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND: WITHDRAWAL OF RESERVATION RELATING TO ARTICLE 11 WITH RESPECT TO THE BAILIWICK OF JERSEY Upon signature: \\\"First, the Government of the United Kingdom declare their understanding that, by virtue of Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations, in the event of any conflict between their obligations under Article 1 of the Covenant and their obligations under the Charter (in particular, under Articles 1, 2 and 73 thereof) their obligations under the Charter shall prevail. \\\"Secondly, the Government of the United Kingdom declare that: \\\"(a) In relation to Article 14 of the Covenant, they must reserve the right not to apply, or not to apply in full, the guarantee of free legal assistance contained in sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 3 in so far as the shortage of legal practitioners and other considerations render the application of this guarantee in British Honduras, Fiji and St. Helena impossible; \\\"(b) In relation to Article 23 of the Covenant, they must reserve the right not to apply the first sentence of paragraph 4 in so far as it concerns any inequality which may arise from the operation of the law of domicile; \\\"(c) In relation to Article 25 of the Covenant, they must reserve the right not to apply: \\\"(i) Sub-paragraph (b) in so far as it may require the establishment of an elected legislature in Hong Kong and the introduction of equal suffrage, as between different electoral rolls, for elections in Fiji; and \\\"(ii) Sub-paragraph (c) in so far as it applies to jury service in the Isle of Man and to the employment of married women in the Civil Service of Northern Ireland, Fiji, and Hong Kong. \\\"Lastly, the Government of the United Kingdom declare that the provisions of the Covenant shall not apply to Southern Rhodesia unless and until they inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they are in a position to ensure that the obligations imposed by the Covenant in respect of that territory can be fully implemented.\\\" Upon ratification: \\\"Firstly the Government of the United Kingdom maintain their declaration in respect of article 1 made at the time of signature of the Covenant. \\\"The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to apply to members of and persons serving with the armed forces of the Crown and to persons lawfully detained in penal establishments of whatever character such laws and procedures as they may from time to time deem to be necessary for the preservation of service and custodial discipline and their acceptance of the provisions of the Covenant is subject to such restrictions as may for these purposes from time to time be authorised by law. \\\"Where at any time there is a lack of suitable prison facilities or where the mixing of adults and juveniles is deemed to be mutually beneficial, the Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply article 10 (2) (b) and 10 (3), so far as those provisions require juveniles who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults, and not to apply article 10 (2) (a) in Gibraltar, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands in so far as it requires segregation of accused and convicted persons. \\\"The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply article 11 in Jersey. \\\"The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to interpret the provisions of article 12 (1) relating to the territory of a State as applying separately to each of the territories comprising the United Kingdom and its dependencies. \\\"The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to continue to apply such immigration legislation governing entry into, stay in and departure from the United Kingdom as they may deem necessary from time to time and, accordingly, their acceptance of article 12 (4) and of the other provisions of the Covenant is subject to the provisions of any such legislation as regards persons not at the time having the right under the law of the United Kingdom to enter and remain in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom also reserves a similar right in regard to each of its dependent territories. \\\"The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply article 13 in Hong Kong in so far as it confers a right of review of a decision to deport an alien and a right to be represented for this purpose before the competent authority. \\\"The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply or not to apply in full the guarantee of free legal assistance in sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 3 of article 14 in so far as the shortage of legal practitioners renders the application of this guarantee impossible in the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, the Gilbert Islands, the Pitcairn Islands Group, St. Helena and Dependencies and Tuvalu. \\\"The Government of the United Kingdom interpret article 20 consistently with the rights conferred by articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant and having legislated in matters of practical concern in the interests of public order (ordre public) reserve the right not to introduce any further legislation. The United Kingdom also reserve a similar right in regard to each of its dependent territories. \\\"The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to postpone the application of paragraph 3 of article 23 in regard to a small number of customary marriages in the Solomon Islands. \\\"The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to enact such nationality legislation as they may deem necessary from time to time to reserve the acquisition and possession of citizenship under such legislation to those having sufficient connection with the United Kingdom or any of its dependent territories and accordingly their acceptance of article 24 (3) and of the other provisions of the Covenant is subject to the provisions of any such legislation. \\\"The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply sub-paragraph (b) of article 25 in so far as it may require the establishment of an elected Executive or Legislative Council in Hong Kong [...]. \\\"Lastly, the Government of the United Kingdom declare that the provisions of the Covenant shall not apply to Southern Rhodesia unless and until they inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they are in a position to ensure that the obligations imposed by the Covenant in respect of that territory can be fully implemented.\\\" Objections: 24 May 1991 With regard to the reservations made by the Republic of Korea upon accession: \\\"The Government of the United Kingdom have noted the statement formulated by the Government of the Republic of Korea on accession, under the title \\\"Reservations\\\". They are not however able to take a position on these purported reservations in the absence of a sufficient indication of their intended effect, in accordance with the terms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the practice of the Parties to the Covenant. Pending receipt of such indication, the Government of the United Kingdom reserve their rights under the Covenant in their entirety.\\\" 17 August 2005 With regard to the declarations made by Mauritania upon accession: \\\"The Government of the United Kingdom have examined the Declaration made by the Government of Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (done at New York on 16 December 1966) on 17 November 2004 in respect of Articles 18 and 23 (4). The Government of the United Kingdom consider that the Government of Mauritania\\\'s declaration that: ‘The Mauritanian Government, while accepting the provisions set out in article 18 concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion, declares that their application shall be without prejudice to the Islamic Shariah. ... The Mauritanian Government interprets the provisions of article 23, paragraph 4, on the rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah\\\' is a reservation which seeks to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis. The Government of the United Kingdom note that the Mauritanian reservation specifies particular provisions of the Convention Articles to which the reservation is addressed. Nevertheless this reservation does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving Sta has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Mauritania. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Mauritania.\\\" 6 September 2007 With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession: \\\"The Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General and has the honour to refer to the reservation made by the Government of the Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which reads: ‘The application of the principles set out in Article 18 [freedom of thought, conscience and religion] of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of the Maldives.\\\' In the view of the United Kingdom a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. A reservation which consists of a general reference to a constitutional provision without specifying its implications does not do so. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to the reservation made by the Government of the Maldives. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the United Kingdom and the Maldives.\\\" 28 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has examined the reservations made by the Government of Pakistan to the [International] Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights] on 23 June 2010, which read: 1. [The] Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws. 2. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 12 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan. 3. With respect to Article 13, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners. 4. [The] Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 25 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan. 5. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant. In the view of the United Kingdom a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. Reservations which consist of a general reference to a constitutional provision, law or system of laws without specifying their contents do not do so. In addition, the United Kingdom considers that the reporting mechanism enshrined in Article 40 is an essential procedural requirement of the Covenant, and an integral undertaking of States Parties to the Covenant. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore objects to the reservations made by the Government of Pakistan. The United Kingdom will re-consider its position in light of any modifications or withdrawals of the reservations made by the Government of Pakistan to the Covenant.”	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: \\\"The Government of the United Kingdom declare under article 41 of this Covenant that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such other State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to the United Kingdom made a declaration under article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself.\\\"
United Republic of Tanzania	-	June 11, 1976	-	-
United States of America	October 5, 1977	June 8, 1992	Reservation Reservations: "(1) That article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. "(2) That the United States reserves the right, subject to its Constitutional constraints, to impose capital punishment on any person (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing or future laws permitting the imposition of capital punishment, including such punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age. "(3) That the United States considers itself bound by article 7 to the extent that `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel and unusual treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. "(4) That because U.S. law generally applies to an offender the penalty in force at the time the offence was committed, the United States does not adhere to the third clause of paragraph 1 of article 15. "(5) That the policy and practice of the United States are generally in compliance with and supportive of the Covenant's provisions regarding treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, the United States reserves the right, in exceptional circumstances, to treat juveniles as adults, notwithstanding paragraphs 2 (b) and 3 of article 10 and paragraph 4 of article 14. The United States further reserves to these provisions with respect to States with respect to individuals who volunteer for military service prior to age 18." Understandings: "(1) That the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee all persons equal protection of the law and provide extensive protections against discrimination. The United States understands distinctions based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or any other status - as those terms are used in article 2, paragraph 1 and article 26 - to be permitted when such distinctions are, at minimum, rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. The United States further understands the prohibition in paragraph 1 of article 4 upon discrimination, in time of public emergency, based `solely' on the status of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin, not to bar distinctions that may have a disproportionate effect upon persons of a particular status. "(2) That the United States understands the right to compensation referred to in articles 9 (5) and 14 (6) to require the provision of effective and enforceable mechanisms by which a victim of an unlawful arrest or detention or a miscarriage of justice may seek and, where justified, obtain compensation from either the responsible individual or the appropriate governmental entity. Entitlement to compensation may be subject to the reasonable requirements of domestic law. "(3) That the United States understands the reference to `exceptional circumstances' in paragraph 2 (a) of article 10 to permit the imprisonment of an accused person with convicted persons where appropriate in light of an individual's overall dangerousness, and to permit accused persons to waive their right to segregation from convicted persons. The United States further understands that paragraph 3 of article 10 does not diminish the goals of punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation as additional legitimate purposes for a penitentiary system. "(4) That the United States understands that subparagraphs 3 (b) and (d) of article 14 do not require the provision of a criminal defendant's counsel of choice when the defendant is provided with court-appointed counsel on grounds of indigence, when the defendant is financially able to retain alternative counsel, or when imprisonment is not imposed. The United States further understands that paragraph 3 (e) does not prohibit a requirement that the defendant make a showing that any witness whose attendance he seeks to compel is necessary for his defense. The United States understands the prohibition upon double jeopardy in paragraph 7 to apply only when the judgment of acquittal has been rendered by a court of the same governmental unit, whether the Federal Government or a constituent unit, as is seeking a new trial for the same cause. "(5) That the United States understands that this Covenant shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the state or local governments may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of the Covenant." Declarations: "(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing. "(2) That it is the view of the United States that States Party to the Covenant should wherever possible refrain from imposing any restrictions or limitations on the exercise of the rights recognized and protected by the Covenant, even when such restrictions and limitations are permissible under the terms of the Covenant. For the United States, article 5, paragraph 2, which provides that fundamental human rights existing in any State Party may not be diminished on the pretext that the Covenant recognizes them to a lesser extent, has particular relevance to article 19, paragraph 3 which would permit certain restrictions on the freedom of expression. The United States declares that it will continue to adhere to the requirements and constraints of its Constitution in respect to all such restrictions and limitations. "(3) That the United States declares that the right referred to in article 47 may be exercised only in accordance with international law." Objections: 29 June 2011 Objection to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the United States of America objects to Pakistan’s reservations to the ICCPR. Pakistan has reserved to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 25 of the Covenant, which address the equal right of men and women to the full enjoyment of civil and political rights, the right to life, protections from torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, freedom of movement, expulsion of aliens, the freedoms of thought, conscious and religion, the freedom of expression, and the right to take part in political affairs. Pakistan has also reserved to Article 40, which provides for a process whereby States Parties submit periodic reports on their implementation of the Covenant when so requested by the Human Rights Committee (HRC). These reservations raise serious concerns because they both obscure the extent to which Pakistan intends to modify its substantive obligations under the Covenant and also foreclose the ability of other Parties to evaluate Pakistan’s implementation through periodic reporting. As a result, the United States considers the totality of Pakistan’s reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the United States and Pakistan, and the aforementioned articles shall apply between our two states, except to the extent of Pakistan’s reservations.”	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: "The United States declares that it accepts the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications under article 41 in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant. Communication from May 13th 2014: “The United States Mission to the United Nations presents its compliments to the United Nations and has the honor to refer to the Secretary-General’s depositary notification C.N.181.2014, dated April 9, 2014, regarding the purported accession of the ‘State of Palestine’ to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, done at New York, December 16, 1966. The Government of the United States of America does not believe the ‘State of Palestine’ qualifies as a sovereign State and does not recognize it as such. Accession to the Covenant is limited to sovereign States. Therefore, the Government of the United States of America believes that the ‘State of Palestine’ is not qualified to accede to the Covenant and affirms that it will not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship with the ‘State of Palestine’ under the Covenant.”
Uruguay	February 21, 1967	April 1, 1970	Reservation Objections: 23 June 2011 With regard to a reservation made by Pakistan upon ratification: The Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay considers that the oversight procedures established by international human rights agreements are an essential tool for monitoring and determining the degree to which States Parties are complying with their obligations and an integral part of the system for the international protection of human rights. Rejecting the competence of the Committee to request, receive and consider reports from the State Party thwarts the aim of promoting universal and effective respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as set forth in the preamble of the Covenant. Accordingly, the Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay objects to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with respect to article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Covenant between the Eastern Republic of Uruguay and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.	-
Uzbekistan	-	September 28, 1995	-	-
Vanuatu	November 29, 2007	November 21, 2008	-	-
Venezuela	June 24, 1969	May 10, 1978	Reservation Article 60, paragraph 5, of the Constitution of the Republic of Venezuela establishes that: "No person shall be convicted in criminal trial unless he has first been personally notified of the charges and heard in the manner prescribed by law. Persons accused of an offence against the res publica may be tried in a bsentia , with the guarantees and in the manner prescribed by law". Venezuela is making this reservation because article 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant makes no provision for persons accused of an offence against the res publica to be tried in absentia .	-
Viet Nam	-	September 24, 1982	Reservation Declaration: That the provisions of article 48, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and article 26, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, under which a number of States are deprived of the opportunity to become parties to the Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature. The Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States without any discrimination or limitation.	-
Yemen	-	February 9, 1987	Reservation The accession of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen to this Covenant shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or serve as grounds for the establishment of relations of any sort with Israel.	-
Zambia	-	April 10, 1984	-	-
Zimbabwe	-	May 13, 1991	-	Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee: 20 August 1991* "The Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe recognizes with effect from today's date, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another state party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant [provided that such State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Zimbabwe, made a declaration under article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself]." (*The text between brackets was received at the Secretariat on 27 January 1993.)"

Refine your search New search

WhatConvention.org

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966