Please read the privacy and cookies policy.

WhatConvention.org

International legal search engine

861 multilateral conventions on Environmental Law, Human Rights, Humanitarian Law and Law of the Sea

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984

Entry into force: Sunday, July 26, 1987

Adoption date: Dec 10, 1984

Adoption place: New York

Depositary: Secrétaire Général des Nations Unies

Signed by 82 countries, ratified by 173 countries

See the convention Ratifications evolution

Signatory countries

Country	Signature date	Ratification date *	Reservation / Declaration	Comments
Afghanistan	Feb 4, 1985	Apr 1, 1987	Reservation While ratifying the above-mentioned Convention, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, invoking paragraph 1 of the article 28, of the Convention, does not recognize the authority of the committee as foreseen in the article 20 of the Convention. Also according to paragraph 2 of the article 30, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, will not be bound to honour the provisions of paragraph 1 of the same article since according to that paragraph 1 the compulsory submission of disputes in connection with interpretation or the implementation of the provisions of this Convention by one of the parties concerned to the International Court of Justice is deemed possible. Concerning to this matter, it declares that the settlement of disputes between the States Parties, such disputes may be referred to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice with the consent of all the Parties concerned and not by one of the Parties. Also according to paragraph 2 of the article 30, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, will not be bound to honour the provisions of paragraph 1 of the same article since according to that paragraph 1 the compulsory submission of disputes in connection with interpretation or the implementation of the provisions of this Convention by one of the parties concerned to the International Court of Justice is deemed possible. Concerning to this matter, it declares that the settlement of disputes between the States Parties, such disputes may be referred to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice with the consent of all the Parties concerned and not by one of the Parties.
Albania	-	May 11, 1994	-
Algeria	Nov 26, 1985	Sep 12, 1989	Reservation	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: Article 21 The Algerian Government declares, pursuant to article 21 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Article 22 The Algerian Government declares, pursuant to article 22 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Andorra	Aug 5, 2002	Sep 22, 2006	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 22 November 2006 1. The Principality of Andorra recognizes, in accordance with article 21 of the Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. 2. The Principality of Andorra recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction, who claim to be victims of a violation of the provisions of the Convention.
Angola	Sep 24, 2013	Oct 2, 2019	-
Antigua and Barbuda	-	Jul 19, 1993	-
Argentina	Feb 4, 1985	Sep 24, 1986	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: The Argentine Republic recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. It also recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Armenia	-	Sep 13, 1993	-
Australia	Dec 10, 1985	Aug 8, 1989	Reservation Objections: 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 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 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 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Convention). 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 Convention 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 Convention and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of Australia considers that the reservations to the Convention are subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation, pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of 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. For the above reasons, the Government of Australia objects to the aforesaid reservations made by The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Convention 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 Convention between Australia and The Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 28 January 1993 "The Government of Australia hereby declares that it recognises, 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; and The Government of Australia hereby declares that it recognises, for and on behalf of Australia, the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to Australia's jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the aforesaid Convention."
Austria	Mar 14, 1985	Jul 29, 1987	Reservation reservation "1. Austria will establish its jurisdiction in accordance with article 5 of the Convention irrespective of the laws applying to the place where the offence occurred, but in respect of paragraph 1 (c) only if prosecution by a State having jurisdiction under para graph 1 (a) or paragraph 1 (b) is not to be expected. "2. Austria regards article 15 as the legal basis for the inadmissibility provided for therein of the use of statements which are established to have been made as a result of torture." Objections: 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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of Austria considers that in aiming to exclude the application of those provisions of the Convention 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 Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The Government of Austria therefore considers the reservations of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to them. These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Austria and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” Declarations made under articles 21 and 22 (Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture) "Austria recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. "Austria recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to Austrian jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation of the provisions of the Convention." OBJECTION TO THE RESERVATION MADE UPON ACCESSION BY THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES The above action was effected on 31 January 2013. “The Government of Austria has examined th e reservation made by the United Arab Emirates upon accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of Austria considers that by the reference to national law regarding Art. 1 of the Convention the United Arab Emirates have made a reservation of general and indeterminate scope. This reservation does not clearly define for the othe r States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The Government of Austria therefore considers the reservation of the United Arab Emirates to Art. 1 incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and objects to it. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Austria and the United Arab Emirates.” Objection of September 23th 2013 to the declaration made upon ratification by the Lao People's Democratic Republic: “The Government of Austria has examined the declaration made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In Austria's view the declaration amounts to a reservation. The Government of Austria considers that by the reference to national law regarding Art. 1 of the Convention the Lao People's Democratic Republic has made a reservation of general and indeterminate scope. This reservation 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 Convention. The Government of Austria therefore considers the reservation to Art. 1 incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and objects to it. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Austria and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.”
Azerbaijan	-	Aug 16, 1996	Reservation	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 4 February 2002 ".....the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention."
Bahamas	Dec 16, 2008	May 31, 2018	-
Bahrain	-	Mar 6, 1998	Reservation The State of Bahrain does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 30 of the Convention.
Bangladesh	-	Oct 5, 1998	Reservation Declaration: “The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh will apply article 14 para 1 in consonance with the existing laws and legislation in the country."
Belarus	Dec 19, 1985	Mar 13, 1987	Reservation
Belgium	Feb 4, 1985	Jun 25, 1999	Reservation Objections: 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 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The vagueness and general nature of the reservations made by Pakistan with respect to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment may contribute to undermining the bases of international human rights treaties. The reservations make the implementation of the Convention’s provisions contingent upon their compatibility with the Islamic Sharia and legislation in force in Pakistan. This creates uncertainty as to which of its obligations under the Convention Pakistan intends to observe and raises doubts as to Pakistan’s respect for the object and purpose of the Convention. 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 fundamental provisions of the Convention. Consequently, Belgium considers the reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of that instrument. 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 toperform a treaty. Consequently, Belgium objects to the reservations formulated by Pakistan with respect to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Belgium and Pakistan. OBJECTION TO THE RESERVATION MADE BY THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES UPON ACCESSION Belgium has examined the declaration formulated by the United Arab Emirates upon its accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of Belgium considers that, in referring to national law in connection with article 1 of the Convention, the United Arab Emirates has formulated a reservation of general, indeterminate scope that does not define clearly for the other States parties to the Convention the extent to which the State that formulated the reservation has accepted the obligations arising from the Convention. The Government of Belgium considers that the reservation formulated by the United Arab Emirates concerning article 1 is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Belgium recalls that, pursuant to article 19, pa ragraph (c), of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation may not be formulated when it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty in question. Belgium therefore objects to the declaration, while specifying that this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Arab Emirates and Belgium. The above action was effected on 23 July 2013.	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, Belgium declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention." In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, Belgium declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Belize	-	Mar 17, 1986	-
Benin	-	Mar 12, 1992	-
Bolivia	Feb 4, 1985	Apr 12, 1999	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 14 February 2006 "The Government of Bolivia recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture as provided for under article 21 of the Convention." "The Government of Bolivia recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture as provided for under article 22 of the Convention."
Bosnia and Herzegovina	-	Sep 1, 1993	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 4 June 2003 “The State of Bosnia and Herzegovina...., accepts without reservations the competence of the Committee Against Torture [in accordance with article 22].”
Botswana	Sep 8, 2000	Sep 8, 2000	Reservation Reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: "The Government of the Republic of Botswana considers itself bound by Article 1 of the Convention to the extent that 'torture' means the torture and inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment prohibited by Section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana."
Brazil	Sep 23, 1985	Sep 28, 1989	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 26 June 2006 ".....the Federative Republic of Brazil recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider denunciations of violations of the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted in New York on December 10, 1984, as permitted by Article 22 of the Convention."
Bulgaria	Jun 10, 1986	Dec 16, 1986	Reservation	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture): 12 May 1993 "The Republic of Bulgaria declares that in accordance with article 21 (2) of the Convention it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention." The Republic of Bulgaria declares that in accordance with article 22 (1) of the Convention it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of this Convention."
Burkina Faso	-	Jan 4, 1999	-
Burundi	-	Feb 18, 1993	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 10 June 2003 The Government of the Republic of Burundi declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee of the United Nations against Torture to receive and consider individual communications in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted at New York on 10 December 1984.
Cabo Verde	-	Jun 4, 1992	-
Cambodia	-	Oct 15, 1992	-
Cameroon	-	Dec 19, 1986	Reservation	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 12 October 2000 [The Republic of Cameroon declares], that [it] recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from a State Party claiming that the Republic of Cameroon is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. However, such communications will not be receivable unless they refer to situations and facts subsequent to this declaration and emanate from a State Party which has made a similar declaration indicating its reciprocal acceptance of the competence of the Committee with regard to itself at least twelve (12) months before submitting its communication. [The Republic of Cameroon also declares] that it recognizes, in the case of situations and facts subsequent to this declaration, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Canada	Aug 23, 1985	Jun 24, 1987	Reservation Objections: 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 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, in accordance with which the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that: The provisions of Articles 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 ‘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 Government of Canada considers that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law or to the prescriptions of the Islamic Sharia constitutes, in reality, a reservation with a general, indeterminate scope. Such a reservation makes it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Convention that it purports to introduce and impossible for the other States Parties to the Convention to know the extent to which Pakistan has accepted the obligations of the Convention, an uncertainty which is unacceptable, especially in the context of treaties related to human rights. The Government of Canada notes that the above-mentioned reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, addressing many of the most essential provisions of the Convention, and aiming to exclude the obligations under those provisions, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and thus inadmissible under article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 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 Convention between Canada and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 13 November 1989 "The Government of Canada declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture, pursuant to article 21 of the said Convention, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a state party claims that another state party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. "The Government of Canada also declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture, pursuant to article 22 of the said Convention, to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a state party of the provisions of the Convention." 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 the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Secretary-General's communication of 9 April 2014, numbered C.N.184.2014.TREATIES-IV.9, 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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 'Palestine' is not able to accede to this convention, and that the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment does not enter into force, or have an effect on Canada's treaty relations, with respect to the 'State of Palestine'."
Central African Republic	-	Oct 11, 2016	Reservation
Chad	-	Jun 9, 1995	-
Chile	Sep 23, 1987	Sep 30, 1988	Reservation Upon signature: ... 2. The Government of Chile does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 30, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 3. The Government of Chile reserve the right to formulate, upon ratifying the Convention, any declarations or reservations it may deem necessary in the light of its domestic law. Upon ratification: The Government of Chile declares that in its relations with American States that are Parties to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, it will apply that Convention in cases where its provisions are incompatible with those of the present Convention. ...	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 15 March 2004 By virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution of the Republic of , I should like to declare that the Government of recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture established pursuant to article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984, with respect to acts of which the commencement of execution is subsequent to the communication of this declaration by the Republic of to the Secretary-General of the United Nations: (a) To receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that the State of Chile is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention, in accordance with article 21 thereof; and (b) To receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the State of Chile of the provisions of the Convention, in accordance with article 22 thereof.
China	Dec 12, 1986	Oct 4, 1988	Reservation Reservations made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: "(1) The Chinese Government does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture as provided for in article 20 of the Convention. "(2) The Chinese Government does not consider itself bound by paragraph l of article 30 of the Convention."
Colombia	Apr 10, 1985	Dec 8, 1987	-
Comoros	Sep 22, 2000	May 25, 2017	-
Congo	-	Jul 30, 2003	-
Costa Rica	Feb 4, 1985	Nov 11, 1993	Reservation	Declarations made under articles 21 and 22 (Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture) 27 February 2002 ..the Republic of Costa Rica, with a view to strengthening the international instruments in this field and in accordance with full respect for human rights, the essence of Costa Rica's foreign policy, recognizes, unconditionally and during the period of validity of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 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 Convention. Furthermore, the Republic of Costa Rica recognizes, unconditionally and during the period of validity of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. The foregoing is in accordance with articles 21 and 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1984.
Croatia	-	Oct 12, 1992	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: Made upon succession: "[The] Republic of Croatia . . . accepts the competence of the Committee in accordance with articles 21 and 22 of the said Convention."
Cuba	Jan 27, 1986	May 17, 1995	Reservation Declarations: The Government of the Republic of Cuba deplores the fact that even after the adoption of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) containing the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, a provision such as paragraph 1 of article 2 was included in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of the Republic declares, in accordance with article 28 of the Convention, that the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of article 20 of the Convention will have to be invoked in strict compliance with the principle of the sovereignty of States and implemented with the prior consent of the States Parties. In connection with the provisions of article 30 of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Cuba is of the view that any dispute between Parties should be settled by negotiation through the diplomatic channe
Cyprus	Oct 9, 1985	Jul 18, 1991	Reservation	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 8 April 1993 "The Republic of recognizes the competence of the Committee established under article 17 of the Convention I. to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention (article 21), and II. to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention (Article 22)."
Czech Republic	-	Feb 22, 1993	Reservation Objections: 20 June 2011 “The Czech Republic believes that the reservations of Pakistan made to Articles 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, and 16 of the Convention, if put into practice, would result in restriction and weakening of the universal prohibition of torture. Such restriction or weakening is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. Furthermore, Pakistan supports reservations to Articles 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 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 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 that refer to the notions such as “Constitution of Pakistan” and “Sharia laws” and to Article 3 that refer to the notions such as “the provisions of its laws relating to extradition and foreigners”, without specifying its contents, do not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations under the Convention. 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 Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Czech Republic and Pakistan. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the Czech Republic and Pakistan, without Pakistan benefiting from its reservation.” Objection on September 25th 2013to the Declaration made by the La' People's Democratic Republic upon ratification: “The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the reservations and declarations made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic on ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter as the "Convention"). The Government of the Czech Republic is of the view that the declaration made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic with regard to the definition of torture in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention is of general and vague nature and, therefore, its character and scope cannot be properly assessed. The declaration leaves open the question whether it amounts to a reservation and whether such a reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, i.e., to what extent the Lao People's Democratic Republic commits itself to the binding definition of torture as contained in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention, which forms part of the object and purpose of the Convention and cannot be excluded or modified by the definitions of torture contained in national law of the States Parties to the Convention.The Government of the Czech Republic wishes to recall that reservations may not be general or vague, since such reservations, without indicating in precise terms their scope, make it impossible to assess whether or not they are compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. Therefore, the Government of the Czech Republic objects to the aforesaid declaration made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Lao People's Democratic Republic and the Czech Republic, without the Lao People's Democratic Republic benefiting from its declaration.” OBJECTION TO THE RESERVATION MADE UPON ACCESSION BY THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES “The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the declaration and reservations made by the United Arab Emirates at the time of its accession to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Puni shment. The Government of the Czech Republic considers that the declaration made by the United Ar ab Emirates in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention. The Government of the Czech Republic is of the view that the reservation, according to which ‘the lawful sanctions applicable under national law, or pain or suffering arising from or associated with or incidental to these lawful sanctions, do not fall under the concept of ‘torture’ defined in article 1 of this Convention or under the concept of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment mentioned in this Convention’ raises serious doubt as to the commitment of the United Arab Emirates to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Czech Republic therefore considers the aforesaid reservati on incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and objects to it. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Arab Emirates and the Czech Republic. The Conven tion enters into force between the United Arab Emirates and the Czech Republic, without the Untied Arab Emirates benefiting from this reservation.” The above action was effected on 15 July 2013.	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 3 September 1996 The Czech Republic declares that in accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention that it recognizes 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 this Convention. The Czech Republic declares, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals within its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Democratic Republic of the Congo	-	Mar 18, 1996	-
Denmark	Feb 4, 1985	May 27, 1987	Reservation Objections: 4 October 2001 With regard to the reservation made by Botswana upon ratification: "The Government of Denmark has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Government of Botswana to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The reservation refers to legislation in force in Botswana as to the definition of torture and thus to the scope of application of the Convention. In the absence of further clarification the Government of Denmark considers that the reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to fullfil her obligations under the Convention and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. For these reasons, the Government of Denmark objects to this reservation made by the Government of Botswana. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention in its entirety between Botswana and Denmark without Botswana benefiting from the reservation." 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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of Denmark considers, that the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, and 16 of the Convention, which make the application of these essential obligations under the Convention 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 Convention. 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 Convention shall not be permitted. Consequently, the Government of Denmark considers the said reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention 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 Convention 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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: "The Government of Denmark [. . .] recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that the State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. "The Government of Denmark [. . .] recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention."
Djibouti	-	Nov 5, 2002	-
Dominican Republic	Feb 4, 1985	Jan 24, 2012	-
Ecuador	Feb 4, 1985	Mar 30, 1988	Reservation Ecuador declares that, in accordance with the provisions of article 42 of its Political Constitution, it will not permit extradition of its nationals.	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 6 September 1988 The Ecuadorian State, pursuant to article 21 of the International Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention; it also recognizes in regard to itself the competence of the Committee, in accordance with article 21. It further declares, in accordance with the provisions of article 22 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Egypt	-	Jun 25, 1986	-
El Salvador	-	Jun 17, 1996	-
Equatorial Guinea	-	Oct 8, 2002	Reservation First - The Government of Equatorial Guinea hereby declares that, pursuant to article 28 of this Convention, it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20 of the Convention. Second - With reference to the provisions of article 30, the Government of Equatorial Guinea does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 thereof.
Eritrea	-	Sep 25, 2014	Reservation
Estonia	-	Oct 21, 1991	-
Ethiopia	-	Mar 14, 1994	-
Fiji	Mar 1, 2016	Mar 10, 2016	Reservation
Finland	Feb 4, 1985	Aug 30, 1989	Reservation Objections: 27 February 1996 With regard to the reservations, understandings and declarations made by the United States of America upon ratification: "A reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore may cast doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such a reservation is also, in the view of the Government of Finland, subject to the general principle to treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty. The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservation made by the United States to article 16 of the Convention [(cf. Reservation I.(1)]. In this connection the Government of Finland would also like to refer to its objection to the reservation entered by the United States with regard to article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [For the text of the objection see under "Objections" in chapter IV.4]. 13 December 1999 With regard to the declaration made by Bangladesh upon accession: "The Government of Finland has examined the contents of the declaration made by the Government of Bangladesh to Article 14 paragraph 1 to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and notes that the declaration constitutes a reservation as it seems to modify the obligations of Bangladesh under the said article. A reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore may raise doubts as to the commitment ofthe reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such a reservation is also, 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 domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations. Therefore the Government of Finland objects to the aforesaid reservation to Article 14 paragraph 1 made by the Government of Bangladesh. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Bangladesh and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without Bangladesh benefitting from these reservations". 16 January 2001 With regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon accession: "The Government of Finland has examined the context of the reservation made by the Government of Qatar regarding any interpretation incompatible with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. 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 for the other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and may therefore raise doubts as to the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such a reservation, in the view of the Government of Finland, is 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. The Government of Finland also notes that the reservation of Qatar, being of such a general nature, raises doubts as to the full commitment of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Convention and would like to recall that, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. For the above-mentioned reasons the Government of Finland objects to the reservation made by the Government of Qatar. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Qatar and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without Qatar benefitting from this reservation." 28 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of Finland welcomes the ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Government of Finland has carefully examined the content of the reservations relating to Articles 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 28 and 30 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 so as to be in conformity with the provisions of its laws relating to extradition and foreigners, and the provisions of Articles 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 to the extent that they are not repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws. 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 Convention the extent to which the reserving States commits itself to the Convention and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the reserving 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 as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations. The reservations to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 seek to restrict essential obligations of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan under the Convention and raise serious doubts as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Convention. 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, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention 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.” Objection on the 28th of september 2012: “The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the declaration [made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic relating to article 1, paragraph 1 of the Convention] and considers that it amounts to a reservation as it seems to modify the obligations of the Lao People's Democratic Republic under the said article. A reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore, raises doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such a reservation is also 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. 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 wishes to recall that according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty is not permitted. In its present formulation, the reservation to article 1, paragraph 1, is in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention.Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to the aforesaid reservation to article 1, paragraph 1, made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and the Lao People's Democratic Republic. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without the Lao People's Democratic Republic benefitting from this reservation.” OBJECTION TO THE RESERVATION MADE UPON ACCESSION BY THE UNITED ARABE MIRATES "The Government of Finland has examined the contents of the declaration made by the Government of the United Arab Emirates to Article 1 to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and notes that the declaration constitutes a reservation as it seems to modify the obligations of the United Arab Emirates under the said article. A reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore may raise doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to fulfill its obligations under the Convention. Such a reservation is also, 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 domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations. In its present formulation, the reservation to Article 1 is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. According to Article 19, paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, such reservations shall not be permitted. The above action was effected on 22 July 2013.	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: "Finland declares that it recognizes fully the competence of the Committee against Torture as specified in article 21, paragraph 1 and article 22, paragraph 1 of the Convention."
France	Feb 4, 1985	Feb 18, 1986	Reservation Reservation: The Government of France declares in accordance with article 30, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that it shall not be bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of [article 30]. Objections: 30 September 1999 With regard to the declaration made by Bangladesh upon accession: The Government of France notes that the declaration made by Bangladesh in fact constitutes a reservation since it is aimed at precluding or modifying the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty. A reservation which consists in a general reference to domestic law without specifying its contents does not clearly indicate to the other parties to what extent the State which issued the reservation commits itself when acceding to the Convention. The Government of France considers the reservation of Bangladesh incompatible with the objective and purpose of the treaty, in respect of which the provisions relating to the right of victims of acts of torture to obtain redress and compensation, which ensure the effectiveness and tangible realization of obligations under the Convention, are essential, and consequently lodges an objection to the reservation entered by Bangladesh regarding article 14, paragraph 1. This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Convention between Bangladesh and France. 24 January 2001 With regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon accession: The Government of the French Republic has carefully considered the reservation made by the Government of Qatar to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984, whereby it excludes any interpretation of the Convention which would be incompatible with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. The reservation, which seeks to give precedence to domestic law and practices over the Convention to an indeterminate extent, is comprehensive in scope. Its terms undermine the commitment of Qatar and make it impossible for the other States parties to assess the extent of that commitment. The Government of France consequently objects to the reservation made by Qatar. 24 June 2011 With regard to the reservations 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 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on 23 June 2010. Concerning the reservations to articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16, France considers that in seeking to exclude the application of provisions of the Convention, insofar as they might be contrary to or inconsistent with laws relating to extradition and foreigners, the Constitution of Pakistan and 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 Convention. 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 Convention between France and Pakistan.	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 23 June 1988 The Government of France declares [. . .] that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. The Government of France declares [. . .] that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Gabon	Jan 21, 1986	Sep 8, 2000	-
Gambia	Oct 23, 1985	Sep 28, 2018	-
Georgia	-	Oct 26, 1994	Reservation	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture 30 June 2005 "In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York on December 10, 1984 Georgia hereby declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture under the conditions laid down in article 21, to receive and consider communications to the effect that another state party claims that Georgia is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York on December 10, 1984 Georgia hereby declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture under the conditions laid down in article 22, to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by Georgia of the provisions of the Convention."
Germany	Oct 13, 1986	Oct 1, 1990	Reservation Upon signature: The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany reserves the right to communicate, upon ratification, such reservations or declarations of interpretation as are deemed necessary especially with respect to the applicability of article 3. Upon ratification: Article 3 This provision prohibits the transfer of a person directly to a State where this person is exposed to a concrete danger of being subjected to torture. In the opinion of the Federal Republic of Germany, article 3 as well as the other provisions of the Convention exclusively establish State obligations that are met by the Federal Republic of Germany in conformity with the provisions of its domestic law which is in accordance with the Convention Objections: 23 January 2001 With regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon accession: “The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the reservation to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment made by the Government of Qatar. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the view that the reservation with regard to compatibility of the rules of the Convention with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic religion raises doubts as to the commitment of Qatar to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers this reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Therefore the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Qatar to the Convention. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Qatar." 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, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that these reservations subject the application of Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16, all of which are core provisions of the Convention, 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 Convention and raising serious doubts as to its commitment to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. The reservations therefore are considered incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and consequently impermissible under Art. 19 c of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 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 Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” The following action is effected on 25 September 2013. OBJECTION TO THE RESERVATION MADE BY THE LAO PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC UPON RATIFICATION “The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic upon its ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984 with respect to Article 1, paragraph 1, thereof. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the declaration, notwithstanding its designation, amounts to a reservation which is meant to limit the scope of application of the Convention. A reservation which makes the application of the Convention conditional on a definition contained in national laws is of a general and indeterminate nature and raises doubts as to the extent of the State’s commitment to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. In the opinion of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany such a reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. OBJECTION TO THE RESERVATION MADE UPON ACCESSION BY THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES “The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates upon its accession to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the declaration, notwithstanding its designation, amounts to a reservation, which is meant to limit the scope of application of the Convention. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany also considers that a reservation which subjects the application of the Convention to national laws on sanctions is of a general and indeterminate nature and raises doubts as to the extent of the commitment to fulfil obligations under the Convention. According to the opinion of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany such a reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to this reservation as being impermissible. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Arab Emirates.” The above action was effected on 22 July 2013.	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 19 October 2001 In accordance with article 21 (1) of the Convention, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. In accordance with article 22 (1) of the Convention, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the Federal Republic of Germany of the provisions of the Convention.
Ghana	Sep 7, 2000	Sep 7, 2000	Reservation Declaration: “[The Government of Ghana declares] in accordance with Article 30 (2) of the said Convention that the submission under Article 30 (1) to arbitration or the International Court of Justice of disputes between State Parties relating to the interpretation or application of the said Convention shall be by the consent of ALL the Parties concerned and not by one or more of the Parties concerned.”	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: “The Government of the Republic of Ghana recognises the competence of the Committee Against Torture 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 as well as individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic who claim to be victims of any violations by the Republic of the provsions of the said Convention. The Government of the Republic of Ghana interprets Article 21 and Article 22 as giving the said Committee the competence to receive and consider complaints in respect of matters occurring after the said Convention had entered into force for Ghana and shall not apply to decisions, acts, omissions or events relating to matters, events, omissions, acts or developments occurring before Ghana becomes a party.”
Greece	Feb 4, 1985	Oct 6, 1988	Reservation Objections: 22 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the reservation with respect to Article 3, a core provision of the Convention, which subjects its application to the laws of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan relating to extradition and foreigners without specifying their content, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the above Convention. Moreover, the Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the reservations with respect to Articles 4, 12, 13 and 16, which contain a general reference to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and Sharia laws do not specify the extent of the derogation there from and, therefore, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. For those reasons the Government of the Hellenic Republic objects to the abovementioned reservations formulated by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” Objection of September 23 2013 relating Lao People's Democratic Republic's declaration upon ratification: “The Government of the Hellenic Republic has examined the reservations and declarations formulated by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the declaration formulated by the Lao People's Democratic Republic regarding Article 1 paragraph 1 of the above Convention constitutes in substance a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention to the extent that with this reservation the application of the Convention is made subject to national legislation in force in the Lao People's Democratic Republic. The Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that reservations of this kind must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and would like to recall that according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. For these reasons the Government of the Hellenic Republic objects to the above mentioned reservation formulated by the Lao People's Democratic Republic. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Greece and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.”	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: Article 21 The Hellenic Republic declares, pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. Article 22 The Hellenic Republic declares, pursuant to article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claims to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Grenada	-	Sep 26, 2019	Reservation
Guatemala	-	Jan 5, 1990	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 25 September 2003 In accordance with article 22 of the Convention..., the Republic of Guatemala recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation of the provisions of the Convention in respect of acts, omissions, situations or events occurring after the date of the present declaration.
Guinea	May 30, 1986	Oct 10, 1989	-
Guinea-Bissau	Sep 12, 2000	Sep 24, 2013	-
Guyana	Jan 25, 1988	May 19, 1988	-
Haiti	Aug 16, 2013	-	-
Holy See	-	Jun 26, 2002	Reservation Declaration: The Holy See considers the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment a valid and suitable instrument for fighting against acts that constitute a serious offence against the dignity of the human person. In recent times the Catholic Church has consistently pronounced itself in favour of unconditional respect for life itself and unequivocally condemned "whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself" (Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 7 December 1965). The law of the Church (Code of Canon Law, 1981) and its catechism (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1987) enumerate and clearly identify forms of behaviour that can harm the bodily or mental integrity of the individual, condemn their perpetrators and call for the abolition of such acts. On 14 January 1978, Pope Paul VI, in his last address to the diplomatic corps, after referring to the torture and mistreatment practised in various countries against individuals, concluded as follows: "How could the Church fail to take up a stern stand ... with regard to torture and to similar acts of violence inflicted on the human person?" Pope John Paul II, for his part, has not failed to affirm that "torture must be called by its proper name" (message for the celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 1980). He has expressed his deep compassion for the victims of torture (World Congress on Pastoral Ministry for Human Rights, Rome, 4 July 1998), and in particular for tortured women (message to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, 1 March 1993). In this spirit the Holy See wishes to lend its moral support and collaboration tothe international community, so as to contribute to the elimination of recourse to torture, which is inadmissible and inhuman. The Holy See, in becoming a party to the Convention on behalf of the Vatican City State, undertakes to apply it insofar as it is compatible, in practice, with the peculiar nature of that State.
Honduras	-	Dec 5, 1996	-
Hungary	Nov 28, 1986	Apr 15, 1987	Reservation Objections: 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 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984, with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 28 and 30 of the Convention. The Government of the Republic of Hungary is of the view that the implementation of the reservations aiming at the elimination of the duty to fulfill by the reserving State vital obligations enshrined in the Convention made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention would make it impossible to attain the objective of the Convention, which is to protect entities from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and to make the struggle against such violations of human rights more effective. 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 as they are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. In order to justify its will to exclude the legal consequences of certain provisions of the Convention, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan raised in the reservations with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 the inconsistency of these provisions with its domestic legislation. The Government of the Republic of Hungary recalls that, according to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is a treaty and customary norm, 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. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan refers in the above-mentioned reservations to the Sharia laws and to its domestic legislation as possibly affecting the application of the Convention. Nonetheless, it fails to 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 Convention. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Hungary objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984, with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the [Convention] between the Republic of Hungary and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 13 September 1989 [The Government of Hungary] recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture provided for in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention
Iceland	Feb 4, 1985	Oct 23, 1996	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 23 October 1996 "[The Government of Iceland declares], pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the [said] Convention, that Iceland recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention and, pursuant to article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that Iceland recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
India	Oct 14, 1997	-	-
Indonesia	Oct 23, 1985	Oct 28, 1998	Reservation Declaration: “The Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of article 20 of the Convention will have to be implemented in strict compliance with the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. Reservation: The Government of the Republic of Indonesia does not consider itself bound by the provision of article 30, paragraph 1, and takes the position that disputes relating to the interpretation and application of the Convention which cannot be settled through the channel provided for in paragraph 1 of the said article, may be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of all parties to the disputes.”
Iraq	-	Jul 7, 2011	-
Ireland	Sep 28, 1992	Apr 11, 2002	Reservation Objections: 23 June 2011 Objection 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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of Ireland notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan subjects Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 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 Convention. The Government of Ireland is of the view that such general reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and may undermine the basis of international treaty law. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” Objection from september 18th 2013 1. The Government of Ireland has examined the reservations and declarations made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), made on 26 September 2012. 2. The Government of Ireland is of the view that this declaration in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention. 3. The Government of Ireland considers that a reservation which consists of a general reference to domestic laws of the reserving State and which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provision of the Convention may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. 4. 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. 5. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 1 (1) of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 6. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and the Lao People's Democratic Republic. OBJECTION TO THE RESERVATION MADE UPON ACCESSION BY THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES "The Government of Ireland has examined the declaration contained in the instrument of accession to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, made by the United Arab Emirates on 19 July 2012. The Government of Ireland is of the view that this declaration in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention. The Government of Ireland considers that a reservation which consists of a general reference to domestic laws of the reserving State and which does not clearly specify the extent of the reservation to the provisions of the Convention may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. 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 Convention. The above action was effected on 18 July 2013.	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 11 April 2002 "Ireland declares, in accordance with article 21 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Ireland declares, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention."
Israel	Oct 22, 1986	Oct 3, 1991	Reservation "1. In accordance with article 28 of the Convention, the State of Israel hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20. "2. In accordance with paragraph 2 of article 30, the State of Israel hereby declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of that article."	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 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 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.184.2014.TREATIES-IV.9). ‘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	Feb 4, 1985	Jan 12, 1989	Reservation Objections: 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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, regarding Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention. The Government of Italy notes that the said articles of the Convention are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing legislation in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Government of Italy is of the view that, in the absence of further clarification, these reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as to the object and purpose of the Convention and would like to recall that, according to customary international law as codified by 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 Italy, therefore, objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Italy and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” Objection fro september 23rd 2013 “The Government of Italy has examined the reservations and declarations formulated by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic upon ratification of the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment. The Government of Italy considers that the declaration formulated by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic regarding Article 1, paragraph 1, of the above Convention constitutes in substance a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention to the extent that with this reservation the application of the Convention is made subject to national legislation in force in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. The Government of Italy considers that reservations of this kind must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and would like to recall that according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. For these reasons the Government of Italy objects to the above mentioned reservation formulated by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Italy and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.”	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 10 October 1989 "Article 21: hereby declares, in accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention; "Article 22: hereby declares, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of violations by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention."
Ivory Coast	-	Dec 18, 1995	-
Japan	-	Jun 29, 1999	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: “The Government of Japan declares under article 21 of the Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.”
Jordan	-	Nov 13, 1991	-
Kazakhstan	-	Aug 26, 1998	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 21 February 2008 In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1: "..., the Republic of Kazakhstan hereby declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture under the conditions laid down in article 21, to receive and consider communications to the effect that another state party claims that the Republic of Kazakhstan is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.” In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1: "..., the Republic of Kazakhstan hereby declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture under the conditions laid down in article 22, to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of Kazakhstan of the provisions of the Convention.”
Kenya	-	Feb 21, 1997	-
Kiribati	-	Jul 22, 2019	Reservation
Kuwait	-	Mar 8, 1996	Reservation "With reservations as to article (20) and the provision of paragraph (1) from article (30) of the Convention."
Kyrgyzstan	-	Sep 5, 1997	-
Lao People's Democratic Republic	Sep 21, 2010	Sep 26, 2012	Reservation Reservations “The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, pursuant to Article 28 of the Convention, does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture under Article 20. The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 30, paragraph 1, to refer any dispute concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention to the International Court of Justice.” Declarations “It is the understanding of the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic that the term ‘torture’ in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention means torture as defined in both national law and international law. The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic declares that, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention it makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty. Therefore, it does not consider the Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of the offences set forth therein. It further declares that bilateral agreements will be the basis for extradition as between the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and other States Parties in respect of any offences.”
Latvia	-	Apr 14, 1992	Reservation Objections: 29 June 2011 With regards 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, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 28 and 30 of the Convention upon ratification. The Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the reservations expressed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan seek to limit the effect of the application of the Convention. Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia notes that the reservations expressed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention, viewed as constituting the object and purpose thereof, subject these provisions to the regime of its national law. The Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties sets out that a State Party may not invoke provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform obligations arising from an international treaty. The Government of the Republic of Latvia also recalls that customary international law as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c) thereof, sets out that a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permissible. Hence, reservations expressed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention raise doubts as to whether the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will apply the Convention in line with its object and purpose. Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention. At the same time, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Thus, the Convention will become operative without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its reservation.” Objection to the declaration of the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification: “The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservations and declarations made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to the Convention upon ratification. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia believes that the first declaration, making the notion of ‘torture’ as it is understood by this Convention subject to national legislation of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, should not be considered an interpretative declaration having a mere declarative purpose. The interpretative declaration is deemed to change the legal effect of the Convention by limiting its applicability. Thus, it should be considered a reservation as stipulated in Article 2 (1) (d) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia holds an opinion that this reservation contains vague reference to national legislation thus making impossible to determine to what extent the Lao People’s Democratic Republic considers itself bound by the provisions of the Convention. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia regards this reservation as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Whereof, the Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that customary international law as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c) thereof, sets out that a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permissible. Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to the declaration of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic made upon the ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. At the same time, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic benefiting from its reservation.”
Lebanon	-	Oct 5, 2000	-
Lesotho	-	Nov 12, 2001	-
Liberia	-	Sep 22, 2004	-
Libya	-	May 16, 1989	-
Liechtenstein	Jun 27, 1985	Nov 2, 1990	Reservation	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture Liechtenstein The Principality of Liechtenstein recognizes, in accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. The Principality of Liechtenstein recognizes in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Lithuania	-	Feb 1, 1996	-
Luxembourg	Feb 22, 1985	Sep 29, 1987	Reservation Article l The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg hereby declares that the only "lawful sanctions" that it recognizes within the meaning of article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention are those which are accepted by both national law and international law. Objections: 6 April 2000 With regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon accession: The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has examined the reservation made by the Government of the State of Qatar to [the Convention] regarding any interpretation incompatible with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg considers that this reservation, by referring in a general way to both Islamic law and the Islamic religion without specifying their content, raises doubts among other States Parties about the degree to which the State of Qatar is committed to the observance of the Convention. The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg believes that the aforementioned reservation of the Government of the State of Qatar is incompatible with the objective and purpose of the Convention, because it refers to it as a whole and seriously limits or even excludes its application on a poorly defined basis, as in the case of the global reference to Islamic law. Consequently, the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Government of the State of Qatar to [the Convention]. This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Convention between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the State of Qatar.	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: Article 21 The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg hereby declares [. . .] that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Article 22 The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg hereby declares [. . .] that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Madagascar	Oct 1, 2001	Dec 13, 2005	-
Malawi	-	Jun 11, 1996	-
Maldives	-	Apr 20, 2004	-
Mali	-	Feb 26, 1999	-
Malta	-	Sep 13, 1990	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: The Government of Malta fully recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture as specified in article 21, paragraph 1, and article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Marshall Islands	-	Mar 12, 2018	Reservation
Mauritania	-	Nov 17, 2004	Reservation Article 20 The Mauritanian Government does not recognize the competence granted to the Committee in article 20 of the Convention, which provides as follows: 1. If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practiced in the territory of a State Party, the Committee shall invite that State Party to cooperate in the examination of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned. 2. Taking into account any observations which may have been submitted by the State Party concerned, as well as any other relevant information available to it, the Committee may, if it decides that this is warranted, designate one or more of its members to make a confidential inquiry and to report to the Committee urgently. 3. If an inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, the Committee shall seek the cooperation of the State Party concerned. In agreement with that State Party, such an inquiry may include a visit to its territory. 4. After examining the findings of its member or members submitted in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, the Committee shall transmit these findings to the State Party concerned together with any comments or suggestions which seem appropriate in view of the situation. 5. All the proceedings of the Committee referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this article shall be confidential, and at all stages of the proceedings the cooperation of the State Party shall be sought. After such proceedings have been completed with regard to an inquiry made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee may, after consultations with the State Party concerned, decide to include a summary account of the results of the proceedings in its annual report made in accordance with article 24. Article 30, paragraph 1 1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court. Pursuant to article 30, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Government of Mauritania declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of this article, which provides that in the event of a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, one of the Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request.
Mauritius	-	Dec 9, 1992	-
Mexico	Mar 18, 1985	Jan 23, 1986	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 15 March 2002 The United Mexican States recognizes as duly binding the competence of the Committee against Torture, established by article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1984. Pursuant to Article 22 of the Convention, the United Mexican States declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Monaco	-	Dec 6, 1991	Reservation In accordance with paragraph 2 of article 30 of the Convention, the Principality of Monaco declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of that article.	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Principality of Monaco declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Principality of Monaco declares, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Mongolia	-	Jan 24, 2002	-
Montenegro	-	Oct 23, 2006	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: Confirmed upon succession: "Yugoslavia recognizes, in compliance with article 21, paragraph 1 of the Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications in which one State Party to the Convention claims that another State Party does not fulfil the obligations pursuant to the Convention; "Yugoslavia recognizes, in conformity with article 22, paragraph 1 of the Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention."
Morocco	Jan 8, 1986	Jun 21, 1993	Reservation Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: ... The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the same article.	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 19 October 2006 The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco declares, under article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, that it recognizes, on the date of deposit of the present document, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation, subsequent to the date of deposit of the present document, of the provisions of the Convention.
Mozambique	-	Sep 14, 1999	-
Namibia	-	Nov 28, 1994	-
Nauru	Nov 12, 2001	Sep 26, 2012	-
Nepal	-	May 14, 1991	-
Netherlands	Feb 4, 1985	Dec 21, 1988	Reservation Interpretative declaration with respect to article 1: "It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the term "lawful sanctions" in article 1, paragraph 1, must be understood as referring to those sanctions which are lawful not only under national law but also under international law." Objections: 26 February 1996 With regard to the reservations, understandings and declarations made by the United States of America upon ratification: "The Government of the Netherlands considers the reservation made by the United States of America regarding the article 16 of [the Convention] to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, to which the obligation laid down in article 16 is essential. Moreover, it is not clear how the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America relate to the obligations under the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the said reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States of America. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the following understandings to have no impact on the obligations of the United States of America under the Convention: II. 1 a This understanding appears to restrict the scope of the definition of torture under article 1 of the Convention. 1 d This understanding diminishes the continuous responsibility of public officials for behaviour of their subordinates. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves its position with regard to the understandings II. 1b, 1c and 2 as the contents thereof are insufficiently clear. 19 January 2001 With regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon accession: "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservation concerning the national law of Qatar, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of this State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they hav chosen to become party should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Qatar. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Qatar." Objection from september 19th 2013 “The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservations and the declarations made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic regarding Article 1 of the Convention in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of the Convention is made subject to national legislation in force in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that reservations of this kind must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to Article 1 of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.” OBJECTION TO THE RESERVATION MADE UPON ACCESSION BY THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES “The Government of the Kingdom of the Nether lands has carefully examined the reservations and the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates upon accession to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates regarding Article 1 of the Convention in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of the Convention is made subject to national legislation in force in the United Arab Emirates. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that reservations of this kind must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to customary international 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. The above action was effected on 16 July 2013.	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: "With respect to article 21: The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture under the conditions laid down in article 21, to receive and consider communications to the effect that another State Party claims that the Kingdom is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention; "With respect to article 22: The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture, under the conditions laid down in article 22, to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the Kingdom of the provisions of the Convention."
New Zealand	Jan 14, 1986	Dec 10, 1989	Reservation "The Government of New Zealand reserves the right to award compensation to torture victims referred to in article 14 of the Convention Against Torture only at the discretion of the Attorney-General of New Zealand."	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: "1. In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, [the Government of New Zealand declares] that it recognises the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention; and "2. In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, [the Government of New Zealand] recognises the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention."
Nicaragua	Apr 15, 1985	Jul 5, 2005	-
Niger	-	Oct 5, 1998	-
Nigeria	Jul 28, 1988	Jun 28, 2001	-
Norway	Feb 4, 1985	Jul 9, 1986	Reservation Objections: 18 January 2001 With regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon accession: "It is the Government of Norway's position that paragraph (a) of the reservation, due to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, and thus impermissible according to well established treaty law. The Government of Norway therefore objects to paragraph (a) of the reservation. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and Qatar. The Convention thus becomes operative between Norway and Qatar without Qatar benefitting from the said reservation." 4 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 Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The reservation's reference to the national Constitution without further description of its contents, exempts the other States Parties to the Convention from the possibility of assessing the effects of the reservation. In addition, as the reservation concerns one of the core provisions of the Convention, it is the position of the Government of Norway that the reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. 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 Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Botswana. The Convention 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 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of Norway considers that the reservations with regard to articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention are so extensive as to be contrary to its object and purpose. The Government of Norway therefore objects to the said reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Convention 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.” OBJECTION TO THE RESERVATION MADE UPON ACCESSION BY THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES “The Government of Norway is of the view that this declaration in substance constitutes a general reservation aimed at limiting the scope of the Convention with reference to national law, without identifying the provisions in question. It is the understanding of the Government of Norway that the term ‘lawful sanctions’ in article 1, paragra ph 1 of the Convention must be understood as referring to sanctions which are lawful not only under nati onal law but also under international law. The Government of Norway accordingly considers that the reservation casts serious doubts on the commitment of the United Arab Emirates to the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore objects to the said reservation. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the United Arab Emirates. The Convention thus becomes operative between the Kingdom of Norway and the United Arab Emirates without the United Arab Emirates benefiting from the aforesaid reservation.” The above action was effected on 24 July 2013	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: "Norway recognizes 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 this Convention. "Norway recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention." Communication regarding the Lao People's Democratic Republic's declaration upon ratification: "The Government of Norway has examined the declarations contained in the instrument of ratification to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (New York, 10 December 1984), made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic on 26 September 2012. The Government of Norway is of the view that the declaration with regard to Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention in substance constitutes a general reservation aimed at limiting the scope of the Convention with reference to national law, without identifying the provisions in question. The Government of Norway accordingly considers that the reservation casts serious doubts on the commitment of the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore objects to the said reservation. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the Lao People’s Republic. The Convention thus becomes operative between the Kingdom of Norway and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic without the Lao People’s Democratic Republic benefiting from the aforesaid reservation."
Oman	-	Jun 9, 2020	Reservation 1. The Sultanate of Oman declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture as set out in article 20 of the Convention. 2. The Sultanate of Oman declares that it is not bound by the provisions of article 30, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Pakistan	Apr 17, 2008	Jun 23, 2010	Reservation Reservation made upon ratification: “Article 8 ‘The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention, it does not take this Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States Parties’. Article 28 ‘In accordance with Article 28, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 20’. Article 30 ‘The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not consider itself bound by Article 30, Paragraph 1 of the Convention’.” 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 Convention at the time of ratification.”
Palau	Sep 20, 2011	-	-
Panama	Feb 22, 1985	Aug 24, 1987	Reservation The Republic of Panama declares in accordance with article 30, paragraph 2 of the Convention that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of the said article.
Paraguay	Oct 23, 1989	Mar 12, 1990	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 29 May 2002 ....the Government of the Republic of Paraguay recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture, pursuant to articles 21 and 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984. ....the Honourable National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay has granted its approval for the recognition of the competence of the Committee to receive communications from States parties and individuals.
Peru	May 29, 1985	Jul 7, 1988	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: The Republic of Peru recognizes, in accordance with Article 21 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the said Convention. Likewise, the Republic of Peru recognizes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 22 of the above-mentioned Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Philippines	-	Jun 18, 1986	-
Poland	Jan 13, 1986	Jul 26, 1989	Reservation Upon signature: Under article 28, the Polish People's Republic does not consider itself bound by article 20 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Polish People's Republic does not consider itself bound by article 30, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Objections: 3 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 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984, with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 28 and 30 of the Convention. The Government of the Republic of Poland is of the view that the implementation of the reservations aiming at the elimination of the duty to fulfill by the reserving State vital obligations enshrined in the Convention made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention would make it impossible to attain the objective of the Convention, which is to protect entities from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and to make the struggle against such violations of human rights more effective. 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 as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. In order to justify its will to exclude the legal consequences of certain provisions of the Convention, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan raised in the reservations with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 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, which is a treaty and customary norm, 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. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan refers in the above-mentioned reservations to the Sharia laws and to its domestic legislation as possibly affecting the application of the Convention. Nonetheless it does 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 Convention. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Poland objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984, with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Poland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” OBJECTION TO THE RESERVATION MADE UPON ACCESSION BY THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES "The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the reservation made by the United Arab Emirates upon accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel. Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984, with regard to Article 1 of the Convention. The reservation made by the United Arab Emirates with regard to Article 1 of the Convention is of general nature and in view of the reference to national law does not allow to define the extent to which State Party making a reservation will be bound by the Convention's provisions. In consequence, according to Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, which is a treaty and customary norm, the reservation shall not be permitted as incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. The above action was effected on 17 July 2013.	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 12 May 1993 "The Government of the Republic of Poland, in accordance with articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that the Republic of Poland is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention or communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of Poland of the provisions of the Convention."
Portugal	Feb 4, 1985	Feb 9, 1989	Reservation Objections: 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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984. The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 are reservations that seek to subject the application of the Convention to its Constitution, its domestic law or/and Sharia Law, limiting the scope of the Convention 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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 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 Convention, as the reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Convention 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 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, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984. However, these objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Portuguese Republic and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” Objection from september 13, 2013 “The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservations and declaration made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic on ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984. The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the declaration made by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to Article 1 of the Convention, insofar as it refers to the national law of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, constitutes in substance a reservation of general scope, which does not specify the extent of the derogation and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Portuguese Republic underlines 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, and recalls that 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 the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid declaration made by the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984. The present objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Portuguese Republic and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.” OBJECTION TO THE RESERVATION MADE UPON ACCESSION BY THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES “The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates upon accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984. The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates, to Article 1, is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose. The reservation furthermore is not compatible with the terms of Article 2 of the Convention according to which each State Party shall take effective measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. The Government of the Portuguese Republic 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 Convention shall not be permitted. The above action was effected on 19 July 2013.	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: "Article 21 Portugal hereby declares, in accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that the State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. "Article 22 Portugal hereby declares, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of violation by State Party of the provisions of the Convention."
Qatar	-	Jan 11, 2000	Reservation reservation (a) Any interpretation of the provisions of the Convention that is incompatible with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic religion; and (b) The competence of the Committee as indicated in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention. WITHDRAWAL AND PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL OF RESERVATIONS MADE UPON ACCESSION The above action was effected on 14 March 2012. On 14 March 2012, the Government of the State of Qatar notified the Secretary-General, in accordance with article 30, paragraph 3 of the Conven tion, of its decision to withdraw and partially withdraw its reservations made upon accession: “ the State of Qatar : 1) partially withdraws its general reservation, while keeping in effect a limited general reservation within the framework of Articles 1 and 16 of the Convention, and 2) withdraws its reservation to the mandate of the Committee against Torture as stipulated in Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.” The remaining reservation reads as follows: “Any interpretation of Articles 1 and 16 of the Convention that is incompatible with the precepts of Islamic law and Islamic religion”.
Republic of Korea	-	Jan 9, 1995	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 9 November 2007 The Republic of Korea recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture, pursuant to Article 21 of the ….. Convention, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention… [The Republic of Korea] ….. recognizes the competence of the ….. Committee [against Torture], pursuant to Article 22 of the ….. Convention, to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the
Republic of Moldova	-	Nov 28, 1995	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: Article 21 “In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Republic of Moldova recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.” Article 22 “In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Republic of Moldova recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.”
Romania	-	Dec 18, 1990	Reservation OBjection to the reversation made upon accession by the United Arab Emirates: “The Government of Romania has examined the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates which sustains that ‘the lawful sanctions applicable under national law, or pain or suffering arising from or associated with or incidental to these lawful sanctions, do not fall under the concept of ‘torture’ defined in article 1 of this Convention or under the concept of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment mentioned in this Convention’ and regards this declaration as a disguised reservation. The reservation refers to the legislation in force in the United Arab Emirates as to the definition of torture and thus to the scope of the application of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Furthermore, if the intention of the United Arab Emirates is to subordinate the application of the Convention entirely to the provisions of its internal law as it results from the text of the declaration, the reservation is contrary to the general rule (contained in article 27 VCLT) according to which a party may not invoke its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty. Thus, the reservation is inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty. Romania appreciates that the term ‘lawful sanctions’ under article 1, paragraph 1 of the Convention must not be subordinated only to domestic law but it incorporates also a standard of legality under international law. For these reasons, the Government of Romania objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the United Arab Emirates to the Convention as being incompatible with its object and purpose even though the objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Romania and the United Arab Emirates. At the same time, the Government of Romania recommends the United Arab Emirates to reconsider its reservation and expresses the hope in its withdrawal.”
Russian Federation	Dec 10, 1985	Mar 3, 1987	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 1 October 1991 The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that, pursuant to article 21 of the Convention, it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications in respect of situations and events occurring after the adoption of the present declaration, to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics also declares that, pursuant to article 22 of the Convention, it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in respect of situations or events occurring after the adoption of the present declaration, from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Rwanda	-	Dec 15, 2008	-
Saint Kitts and Nevis	-	Sep 21, 2020	Reservation
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	-	Aug 1, 2001	-
Samoa	-	Mar 28, 2019	Reservation “Article 14 ‘The Government of the Independent State of Samoa reserves the right to award compensation to torture victims or their families and the question of adequate compensation referred to in Article 14, at the discretion of the Courts of Samoa’. Article 20 ‘The Government of the Independent State of Samoa does not recognise the competence of the Committee against Torture as provided for in Article 20 of the Convention’. Article 30 ‘The Government of the Independent State of Samoa does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Convention’.”
San Marino	Sep 18, 2002	Nov 27, 2006	-
Sao Tome and Principe	Sep 6, 2000	Jan 10, 2017	-
Saudi Arabia	-	Sep 23, 1997	Reservation Reservations: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not recognize the jurisdiction of the Committee as provided for in article 20 of this Convention. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shall not be bound by the provisions of paragraph (1) of article 30 of this Convention.
Senegal	Feb 4, 1985	Aug 21, 1986	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 16 October 1996 The Government of the Republic of Senegal declares, in accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communciations to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. The Government of the Republic of Senegal declares, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Serbia	-	Mar 12, 2001	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: Confirmed upon succession: "Yugoslavia recognizes, in compliance with article 21, paragraph 1 of the Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications in which one State Party to the Convention claims that another State Party does not fulfil the obligations pursuant to the Convention; "Yugoslavia recognizes, in conformity with article 22, paragraph 1 of the Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention."
Seychelles	-	May 5, 1992	Reservation	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture 6 August 2001 Article 22: “The Republic of Seychelles accepts without reservations the competence of the Committee Against Torture.”
Sierra Leone	Mar 18, 1985	Apr 25, 2001	-
Slovakia	-	May 28, 1993	Reservation Objections: 23 June 2011 Objection to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: “The Slovak Republic has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon its ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, of 10 December 1984, according to which: ‘The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Article 3 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the provisions of its laws relating to extradition and foreigners. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention, it does not take this Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States Parties. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of these Articles [Article 4, 6, 12, 13, and 16] shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws. In accordance with Article 28, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 20. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not consider itself bound by Article 30, paragraph 1 of the Convention.’ The Slovak Republic considers that with the reservations to Articles 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 the application of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is made subject to the Islamic Sharia law. Moreover it considers the reservations with respect to Article 3 of the Convention as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. This makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the Convention as to its commitment to the object and purpose of the Convention. It is in 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, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Slovak Republic and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its reservations.”	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 17 March 1995 "The Slovak Republic, pursuant to article 21 of the [said Convention] recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention." "The Slovak Republic further declares, pursuant to article 22 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention."
Slovenia	-	Jul 16, 1993	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: "1. The Republic of Slovenia declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture, pursuant to article 21 of the said Convention, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. 2. The Republic of Slovenia also declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture, pursuant to article 22 of the said Convention, to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention."
Somalia	-	Jan 24, 1990	-
South Africa	Jan 29, 1993	Dec 10, 1998	Reservation	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: "The Republic of declares that: (a) it recognises, for the purposes of article 21 of the Convention, the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention; (b) it recognises, for the purposes of article 22 of the Convention, the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications from, or on behalf of individuals who claim to be victims of torture by a State Party.
South Sudan	-	Apr 30, 2015	Reservation
Spain	Feb 4, 1985	Oct 21, 1987	Reservation Objections: 13 December 1999 With regard to the declaration to article 14 (1) made by Bangladesh upon accession: The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this declaration is actually a reservation, since its purpose is to exclude or modify the application of the legal effect of certain provisions of the Convention. Moreover, in referring in a general way to the domestic laws of Bangladesh, without specifying their content, the reservation raises doubts among the other States parties as to the extent to which the People's Republic of Bangladesh is committed to ratifying the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain believes that the reservation lodged by the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh is incompatible with the objective and purpose of the Convention, for which the provisions concerning redress and compensation for victims of torture are essential factors in the concrete fulfilment of the commitments made under the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain therefore states an objection to the above-mentioned reservation lodged by the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concerning article 14, paragraph 1, of that Convention. This objection does not affect the entry into force of the above-mentioned Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the People's Republic of Bangladesh. 14 March 2000 With regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon accession: The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation made by the Government of the State of Qatar to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on 11 January 2000, as to any interpretation of the Convention that is incompatible with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that, by making a general reference to Islamic law and religion rather than to specific content, this reservation raises doubts among the other States parties as to the extent of the commitment of the State of Qatar to abide by the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers the reservation made by the Government of the State of Qatar to be incompatible with the purpose and aim of the Convention, in that it relates to the entire Convention and seriously limits or even excludes its application on a basis which is not clearly defined, namely, a general reference to Islamic law. Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of the State of Qatar to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This objection does not prevent the Convention's entry into force between the Government of Spain and the Government of the State of Qatar. 28 June 2011 Objection to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservations made by Pakistan upon its ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, with regard to articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of that international instrument. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that those articles refer to rights and guarantees that are essential for achieving the object and purpose of the Convention. As the reservations formulated by Pakistan make application of those articles of the Convention subject to their consistency with domestic law on extradition, with the Constitution and with Sharia laws, to which it refers in general terms without specifying their content, they make it impossible to determine the extent of Pakistan's commitment to achieving the object and purpose of the Convention. Furthermore, they violate the principle of international law, well established in practice, that a State cannot make compliance with international obligations that are assumed voluntarily subordinate to the application of the provisions of domestic law, whatever their nature. In no case may such reservations, as formulated, exclude the legal effects of obligations arising from the relevant provisions of the Convention. Consequently, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the reservations made to articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and Pakistan.	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: Spain declares that, pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that the Spanish State is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. It is Spain's understanding that, pursuant to the above-mentioned article, such communications shall be accepted and processed only if they come from a State Party which has made a similar declaration. Spain declares that, pursuant to article 22, paragraph l, of the Convention, it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications sent by, or on behalf of, persons subject to Spanish jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the Spanish State of the provisions of the Convention. Such communications must be consistent with the provisions of the above-mentioned article and, in particular, of its paragraph 5.
Sri Lanka	-	Jan 3, 1994	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: "Sweden recognizes 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 this Convention. "Sweden recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention."
Sudan	Jun 4, 1986	Aug 10, 2021	-	Declaration: “… the Government of the Republic of the Sudan, in accordance with article (30) paragraph (2) doesn’t consider itself bound by the provisions of the article (30) paragraph (1) of this Convention.”
Suriname	-	Nov 16, 2021	Reservation
Swaziland	-	Mar 26, 2004	-
Sweden	Feb 4, 1985	Jan 8, 1986	Reservation Objections: 27 february 1996 With regard to the reservations, understandings and declarations made by the United States of America upon ratification: "The Government of Sweden would like to refer to its objections to the reservations entered by the United States of America with regard to article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [For the text of the objections see under "Objections" in chapter IV.4] . The same reasons for objection apply to the now entered reservation with regard to article 16 reservation I (1) of [the Convention]. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to that reservation. It is the view of the Government of Sweden that the understandings expressed by the United States of America do not relieve the United States of America as a party to the Convention from the responsibility to fulfil the obligations undertaken therein." 14 December 1999 With regard to the declaration to article 14 (1) made by Bangladesh upon accession: “In this context the Government of Sweden would like to recall, that under well-established 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 of Sweden considers that the declaration made by the Government of Bangladesh, in the absence of further clarification, in substance constitutes a reservation to the Convention. The Government of Sweden notes that the said declaration imply that the said article of the Convention is being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing laws and regulations in the country. The Government of Sweden is of the view that this declaration raises doubts as to the commitment of Bangladesh to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to well-established international law, a resertion 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 these treaties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid declaration made by the Government of Bangladesh to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 27 April 2000 With regard to the reservations made by the Qatar upon accession: "The Government of Sweden has examined the reservations made by the Government of Qatar at the time of its accession to the Convention, as to the competence of the committee and to any interpretation of the provisions of the Convention that is incompatible with the precepts of Islamic laws and the Islamic religion. The Government of Sweden is of the view that as regards the latter, this general reservation, which does not clearly specify the provisions of the Convention to which it applies and the extent of the derogation therefrom, raises doubts as to the commitment of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Convention. 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. According to customary 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 Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservation made by the Government of Qatar to the [Convention]. This shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the State of Qatarand the Kingdom of Sweden, without Qatar benefiting from the said reservation". 2 October 2001 With regard to the reservation made by the Botswana upon ratification: "The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by Botswana upon ratification of the 1984 Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, regarding article 1 of the Convention. The Government of Sweden notes that the said article of the Convention is being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing legislation in Botswana. Article 1.2 of the Convention states that the definition of torture in article 1.1 is "without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application". The Government of Sweden is of the view that this reservation, in the absence of further clarification, raises doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to the object and purpose of the Convention. The government of Sweden 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 Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Botswana and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Botswana benefiting from its reservation." 29 September 2008 With regard to the interpretative declaration made by Thailand upon accession: “The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement does not determine whether or not it constitutes a reservation to a treaty. If the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified by an interpretative declaration, this in fact amounts to a reservation.Since the application of a number of provisions of the Convention have been made subject to provisions of the Thai Penal Code it is unclear to what extent the Kingdom of Thailand considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty. This in turn raises doubts as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Thailand to the object and purpose of the Convention. This applies in particular to the declaration made under Article 1 of the Convention which contains a clear and generally recognized definition of the concept of torture. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Kingdom of Thailand to the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This objection shall not precludethe entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Thailand and Sweden, without the Kingdom of Thailand 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 Convention, as the reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Convention of their effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof. The Government of Sweden 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 reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Pakistan and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Pakistan benefiting from these reservations.” OBJECTION TO THE RESERVATION MADE UPON ACCESSION BY THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, communicates the following: The above action was effected on 7 March 2013. “The Government of Sweden has examined the declaration and reservations made by the United Arab Emirates at the time of its accession to the Convention. The Government of Sweden recalls 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 the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention. The Government of Sweden notes that the reservation, according to which ‘the lawful sanctions applicable under national law, or pain or suffering arising from or associated with or incidental to these lawful sanctions, do not fall under the concept of ‘torture’ defined in article 1 of this Convention or under the concept of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment mentioned in this Convention’, implies that the application of the Convention is made subject to a general reservation referring to existing legislation in the United Arab Emirates. The Government of Sweden is of the view that such a reservation, which does not clearly specify the extent of its scope, raises serious doubt as to the commitment of the United Arab Emirates to the object and purpose of the Convention. Objection of September 23th 2013 to the declaration from Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification: “The Government of Sweden recalls 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 the declaration made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic, according to which the term 'torture' in Article 1 paragraph 1 of the Convention shall mean torture as defined in both national law and international law, in substance constitutes a reservation modifying the scope of the Convention. The Government of Sweden notes that this reservation implies that the application of the Convention is made subject to a general reservation referring to existing legislation in the Lao People's Democratic Republic. The Government of Sweden is of the view that such a reservation, which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation, raises serious doubt as to the commitment of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to the object and purpose of the Convention. 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 Lao People's Democratic Republic to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and considers the reservation null and void. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Sweden, without the Lao People's Democratic Republic benefiting from its reservation.”
Switzerland	Feb 4, 1985	Dec 2, 1986	Reservation Objections: 28 June 2011 With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification: Concerning the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984: “The Swiss Federal Council has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon its accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984, with regard to articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16. 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 Convention. 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 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Switzerland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” OBJECTION TO THE RESERVATION MADE UPON ACCESSION BY THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES The above action was effected on 1 July 2013. "The Swiss Federal Council has examined the reservations and the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates upon accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of 10 December 1984. The Council believes that the declaration related to article 1 of the Convention, insofar as it refers to the national law of the United Arab Emirates, constitutes in substance a reservation of general scope, which does not specify the extent of the derogation and is therefore incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Consequently, the Swiss Federal Council objects to the reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates".	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: (a) Pursuant to the Federal Decree of 6 October 1986 on the approval of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Federal Council declares, in accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that Switzerland recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that Switzerland is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. (b) Pursuant to the above-mentioned Federal Decree, the Federal Council declares, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that Switzerland recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by Switzerland of the provisions of the Convention.
Syrian Arab Republic	-	Aug 19, 2004	Reservation Declarations: In accordance with the provisions of article 28, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Syrian Arab Republic does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture provided for in article 20 thereof; The accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to this Convention shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or entail entry into any dealings with Israel in the context of the provisions of this Convention.
Tajikistan	-	Jan 11, 1995	-
Thailand	-	Oct 2, 2007	Reservation Interpretative declaration: "1. With respect to the term "torture" under Article 1 of the Convention, although there is neither a specific definition nor particular offence under the current Thai Penal Code corresponding to the term, there are comparable provisions under the aforesaid Thai Penal Code applicable to acts under Article 1 of the Convention. The term "torture" under Article 1 of the Convention shall accordingly be interpreted in conformity with the current Thai Penal Code. The Kingdom of Thailand shall revise its domestic law to be more consistent with Article 1 of the Convention at the earliest opportunity. 2. For the same reason as stipulated in the preceding paragraph, Article 4 of the Convention which stipulates: ‘Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture,' shall be interpreted in conformity with the current Thai Penal Code. The Kingdom of Thailand shall revise its domestic law to be more consistent with Article 4 of the Convention at the earliest opportunity. 3. Article 5 of the Convention which provides: ‘Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Article 4....." is interpreted by the Kingdom of Thailand to mean that the jurisdiction referred to in Article 5 shall be established in accordance with the current Thai Penal Code. The Kingdom of Thailand shall revise its domestic law to be more consistent with Article 5 of the Convention at the earliest opportunity." Reservation: "The Kingdom of Thailand does not consider itself bound by Article 30, paragraph 1, of the Convention."
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	-	Dec 12, 1994	-
Timor-Leste	-	Apr 16, 2003	-
Togo	Mar 25, 1987	Nov 18, 1987	Reservation The Government of the Togolese Republic reserves the right to formulate, upon ratifying the Convention, any reservations or declarations which it might consider necessary.	Declarationsrecognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture The Government of the Republic of Togo recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. The Government of the Republic of Togo recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Tunisia	Aug 26, 1987	Sep 23, 1988	Reservation Upon signature: The Government of Tunisia reserves the right to make at some later stage any reservation or declaration which it deems necessary, in particular with regard to articles 20 and 21 of the said Convention. Upon ratification: [The Government of Tunisia] confirms that the reservations made at the time of signature of the Convention on Tunisia's behalf on 26 August 1987 have been completely withdrawn.	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: [The Government of Tunisia] declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture provided for in article 17 of the Convention to receive communications pursuant to articles 21 and 22, thereby withdrawing any reservation made on Tunisia's behalf in this connection.
Turkey	Jan 25, 1988	Aug 2, 1988	Reservation Reservation: "The Government of Turkey declares in accordance with article 30, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article."	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: "The Government of Turkey declares, pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. The Government of Turkey declares, pursuant to article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention."
Turkmenistan	-	Jun 25, 1999	-
Tuvalu	-	Mar 25, 2024	Reservation “The Government of Tuvalu does not recognize paragraph 1 of article 30 of the Convention and therefore shall not be bound by this provision.”
Uganda	-	Nov 3, 1986	Reservation	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture 19 December 2001 "In accordance with Article 21 of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Uganda declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications submitted by another State party, provided that such other State Party has made a declaration under Article 21 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in regard to itself."
Ukraine	Feb 27, 1986	Feb 24, 1987	-
United Arab Emirates	-	Jul 19, 2012	Reservation RESERVATIONS: In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 28 of the Convention, the United Arab Emirates declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture referred to in article 20 of the Convention. In accordance with paragraph 2 of article 30 of the Convention, the United Arab Emirates does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 30 relating to arbitration in this Convention. DECLARATION: The United Arab Emirates also confirms that the lawful sanctions applicable under national law, or pain or suffering arising from or associated with or incidental to these lawful sanctions, do not fall under the concept of “torture” defined in article 1 of this Convention or under the concept of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment mentioned in this Convention.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	Mar 15, 1985	Dec 8, 1988	Reservation Upon signature: "The United Kingdom reserves the right to formulate, upon ratifying the Convention, any reservations or interpretative declarations which it might consider necessary." Objections: 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 Convention [against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment] on 23 June 2010, which read : 1. Article 3 – The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that provisions of Article 3 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the provisions of its laws relating to extradition and foreigners. 2. Article 8 – The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention, it does not take this Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States Parties. 3. Article 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 – The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of these Articles shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws. 4. Article 28 – In accordance with Article 28, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 20. 5. Article 30 – The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not consider itself bound by Article 30, paragraph 1 of the Convention. In the view of the United Kingdom a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention. Reservations which consist of a general reference to a constitutional provision, law or system of laws without specifying their contents do not do so. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore objects to the reservations made by the Government of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16. 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 Convention.” OBJECTION TO THE RESERVATION MADE BY LAO PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC UPON RATIFICATION The above action was effected on 24 September 2013. “The Government of the United Kingdom have examined the Declaration made by the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic in respect of Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Convention: ‘It is the understanding of the Governme nt of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic that the term ‘torture’ in Article 1, paragraph1 of the Convention means torture as defined in both national law and international law.’ The Government of the United Kingdom considers that the Declaration is capable of being understood as an attempt by the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to exclude or modify the definition of torture set out in under Article 1 of the Convention. To the extent that the Declaration is intended to exclude or modify the de finition of torture under Article 1 of the Convention, and is accordingly a reservation, the United Kingdom objects to the said reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.”	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: "The Government of the United Kingdom declares under article 21 of the said Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture 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 in regard to the United Kingdom, made a declaration under article 21 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in regard to itself."
United States of America	Apr 18, 1988	Oct 21, 1994	Reservation Upon signature : Declaration: "The Government of the United States of America reserves the right to communicate, upon ratification, such reservations, interpretive understandings, or declarations as are deemed necessary." Upon ratification : Reservations: "I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations: (1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. (2) That pursuant to article 30 (2) the United States declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 30 (1), but reserves the right specifically to agree to follow this or any other procedure for arbitration in a particular case. II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention: (1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. (b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender's custody or physical control. (c) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that `sanctions' includes judicially-imposed sanctions and other enforcement actions authorized by United States law or by judicial interpretation of such law. Nonetheless, the United States understands that a State Party could not through its domestic sanctions defeat the object and purpose of the Convention to prohibit torture. (d) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that the term `acquiescence' requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity. (e) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the Unites States understands that noncompliance with applicable legal procedural standards does not per se constitute torture. (2) That the United States understands the phrase, `where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,' as used in article 3 of the Convention, to mean `if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.' (3) That it is the understanding of the United States that article 14 requires a State Party to provide a private right of action for damages only for acts of torture committed in territory under the jurisdiction of that State Party. (4) That the United States understands that international law does not prohibit the death penalty, and does not consider this Convention to restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including any constitutional period of confinement prior to the imposition of the death penalty. (5) That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by the United States Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered by the Convention and otherwise by the state and local governments. Accordingly, in implementing articles 10-14 and 16, the United States Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units of the United States of America may take appropriate measures for the fulfilment of the Convention. III. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declarations: (1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing. 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 CAT. Pakistan has reserved to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, and 16 of the Convention, which address non-refoulement, criminalization of acts which constitute torture, arrest or apprehension of those suspected of committing torture, investigation of credible allegations of torture, the right to bring before and have examined by competent authorities allegations of torture and for protection of complainants and witnesses, and the prevention of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. At the same time, Pakistan has chosen not to participate in the Committee’s inquiry process under Article 20. The combination of Pakistan’s reservations and its decision not to participate in the Article 20 process raises serious concerns because the reservations obscure the extent to which Pakistan intends to modify its substantive obligations under the Convention, and preclude further inquiry by the Committee if well-founded indications of systematic torture do arise. As a result, the United States considers the totality of Pakistan’s reservations to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, and 16 to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the [Convention]. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the [Convention] 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 Committee against Torture: "The United States declares, pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. It is the understanding of the United States that, pursuant to the above-mentioned article, such communications shall be accepted and processed only if they come from a State Party which has made a similar declaration." 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.184.2014, dated April 9, 2014, regarding the purported accession of the ‘State of Palestine’ to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at New York, December 10, 1984. 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 Convention 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 Convention and affirms that it will not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship with the ‘State of Palestine’ under the Convention.”
Uruguay	Feb 4, 1985	Oct 24, 1986	-	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture: 27 July 1988 The Government of Uruguay recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications referring to the said articles [21 and 22].
Uzbekistan	-	Sep 28, 1995	-
Vanuatu	-	Jul 12, 2011	-
Venezuela	Feb 15, 1985	Jul 29, 1991	Reservation	Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture 26 April 1994 "The Government of the Republic of Venezuela recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture as provided for under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention."
Viet Nam	Nov 7, 2013	Feb 5, 2015	-
Yemen	-	Nov 5, 1991	-
Zambia	-	Oct 7, 1998	-

Total : 176

Refine your search New search