Gracias por leer la política de privacidad y cookies.

WhatConvention.org

International legal search engine

861 convenciones multilaterales sobre el derecho del medio ambiente, los derechos humanos, el derecho humanitario y el derecho del mar

Convención contra la tortura y otros tratos o penas crueles, inhumanos o degradantes, 1984

Entrada en vigor: domingo, 26 de julio de 1987

: 10 dic. 1984

: New York

: Secrétaire Général des Nations Unies

Firmado por 82 países, ratificado por 173 países

Ver la convención Evolución de las ratificaciones

Países signatarios

Países	Fecha de firma	Fecha de ratificación *	Reserva / Declaración	Comentarios
Afganistán	4 feb. 1985	1 abr. 1987	Reserva Ver el texto en frances o en ingles
Albania	-	11 may. 1994	-
Alemania	13 oct. 1986	1 oct. 1990	Reserva ver texto en frances o en ingles	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.
Andorra	5 ago. 2002	22 sept. 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	24 sept. 2013	2 oct. 2019	-
Antigua y Barbuda	-	19 jul. 1993	-
Arabia Saudita	-	23 sept. 1997	Reserva 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.
Argelia	26 nov. 1985	12 sept. 1989	Reserva	Declaración reconociendo la competencia del Comité contra la Tortura formuló en virtud de los artículos 21 y 22 Artículo 21 "El Gobierno de Argelia declara, de conformidad con el artículo 21 de la Convención, que reconoce la competencia del Comité contra la Tortura para recibir y examinar comunicaciones en las que un Estado Parte alegue que otro Estado Parte no está cumpliendo sus obligaciones en virtud del presente Convenio. " Artículo 22 "El Gobierno de Argelia declara, de conformidad con el artículo 22 de la Convención que reconoce la competencia del Comité para recibir y examinar comunicaciones de o en nombre de las personas sujetas a su jurisdicción que aleguen ser víctimas de una violación por un Estado Parte, las disposiciones de la Convención
Argentina	4 feb. 1985	24 sept. 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	-	13 sept. 1993	-
Australia	10 dic. 1985	8 ago. 1989	Reserva 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	14 mar. 1985	29 jul. 1987	Reserva 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.”
Azerbaiyán	-	16 ago. 1996	Reserva	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	16 dic. 2008	31 may. 2018	-
Bahrein	-	6 mar. 1998	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles
Bangladesh	-	5 oct. 1998	Reserva 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."
Belarús	19 dic. 1985	13 mar. 1987	Reserva
Bélgica	4 feb. 1985	25 jun. 1999	Reserva 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.
Belice	-	17 mar. 1986	-
Benin	-	12 mar. 1992	-
Bolivia	4 feb. 1985	12 abr. 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 y Herzegovina	-	1 sept. 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	8 sept. 2000	8 sept. 2000	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles
Brasil	23 sept. 1985	28 sept. 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	10 jun. 1986	16 dic. 1986	Reserva	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	-	4 ene. 1999	-
Burundi	-	18 feb. 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	-	4 jun. 1992	-
Camboya	-	15 oct. 1992	-
Camerún	-	19 dic. 1986	Reserva	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.
Canadá	23 ago. 1985	24 jun. 1987	Reserva 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'."
Chad	-	9 jun. 1995	-
Chile	23 sept. 1987	30 sept. 1988	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles	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	12 dic. 1986	4 oct. 1988	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles
Chipre	9 oct. 1985	18 jul. 1991	Reserva	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)."
Colombia	10 abr. 1985	8 dic. 1987	-
Comoras	22 sept. 2000	25 may. 2017	-
Congo	-	30 jul. 2003	-
Costa de Marfil	-	18 dic. 1995	-
Costa Rica	4 feb. 1985	11 nov. 1993	Reserva	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.
Croacia	-	12 oct. 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	27 ene. 1986	17 may. 1995	Reserva 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
Dinamarca	4 feb. 1985	27 may. 1987	Reserva 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	-	5 nov. 2002	-
Ecuador	4 feb. 1985	30 mar. 1988	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles	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.
Egipto	-	25 jun. 1986	-
El Salvador	-	17 jun. 1996	-
Emiratos Árabes Unidos	-	19 jul. 2012	Reserva 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.
Eritrea	-	25 sept. 2014	Reserva
es República Yugoslava de Macedonia	-	12 dic. 1994	-
Eslovaquia	-	28 may. 1993	Reserva 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."
Eslovenia	-	16 jul. 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."
España	4 feb. 1985	21 oct. 1987	Reserva 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.
Estados Unidos de América	18 abr. 1988	21 oct. 1994	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles	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.”
Estonia	-	21 oct. 1991	-
Etiopía	-	14 mar. 1994	-
Federación de Rusia	10 dic. 1985	3 mar. 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.
Fiji	1 mar. 2016	10 mar. 2016	Reserva
Filipinas	-	18 jun. 1986	-
Finlandia	4 feb. 1985	30 ago. 1989	Reserva 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."
Francia	4 feb. 1985	18 feb. 1986	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles	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.
Gabón	21 ene. 1986	8 sept. 2000	-
Gambia	23 oct. 1985	28 sept. 2018	-
Georgia	-	26 oct. 1994	Reserva	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."
Ghana	7 sept. 2000	7 sept. 2000	Reserva 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.”
Granada	-	26 sept. 2019	Reserva
Grecia	4 feb. 1985	6 oct. 1988	Reserva 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.
Guatemala	-	5 ene. 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	30 may. 1986	10 oct. 1989	-
Guinea Bissau	12 sept. 2000	24 sept. 2013	-
Guinea Ecuatorial	-	8 oct. 2002	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles
Guyana	25 ene. 1988	19 may. 1988	-
Haití	16 ago. 2013	-	-
Honduras	-	5 dic. 1996	-
Hungría	28 nov. 1986	15 abr. 1987	Reserva 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
India	14 oct. 1997	-	-
Indonesia	23 oct. 1985	28 oct. 1998	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles
Irak	-	7 jul. 2011	-
Irlanda	28 sept. 1992	11 abr. 2002	Reserva 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."
Islandia	4 feb. 1985	23 oct. 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.
Islas Marshall	-	12 mar. 2018	Reserva
Israel	22 oct. 1986	3 oct. 1991	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles	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.”
Italia	4 feb. 1985	12 ene. 1989	Reserva 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."
Japón	-	29 jun. 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.”
Jordania	-	13 nov. 1991	-
Kazajstán	-	26 ago. 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	-	21 feb. 1997	-
Kiribati	-	22 jul. 2019	Reserva
Kuwait	-	8 mar. 1996	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles
Lesotho	-	12 nov. 2001	-
Letonia	-	14 abr. 1992	Reserva 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.”
Líbano	-	5 oct. 2000	-
Liberia	-	22 sept. 2004	-
Libia	-	16 may. 1989	-
Liechtenstein	27 jun. 1985	2 nov. 1990	Reserva	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.
Lituania	-	1 feb. 1996	-
Luxemburgo	22 feb. 1985	29 sept. 1987	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles	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	1 oct. 2001	13 dic. 2005	-
Malawi	-	11 jun. 1996	-
Maldivas	-	20 abr. 2004	-
Malí	-	26 feb. 1999	-
Malta	-	13 sept. 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.
Marruecos	8 ene. 1986	21 jun. 1993	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles	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.
Mauricio	-	9 dic. 1992	-
Mauritania	-	17 nov. 2004	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles
México	18 mar. 1985	23 ene. 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.
Mónaco	-	6 dic. 1991	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles	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	-	24 ene. 2002	-
Montenegro	-	23 oct. 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."
Mozambique	-	14 sept. 1999	-
Namibia	-	28 nov. 1994	-
Nauru	12 nov. 2001	26 sept. 2012	-
Nepal	-	14 may. 1991	-
Nicaragua	15 abr. 1985	5 jul. 2005	-
Níger	-	5 oct. 1998	-
Nigeria	28 jul. 1988	28 jun. 2001	-
Noruega	4 feb. 1985	9 jul. 1986	Reserva 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."
Nueva Zelandia	14 ene. 1986	10 dic. 1989	Reserva Ver texto en ingles o en frances	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."
Omán	-	9 jun. 2020	Reserva 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.
Países Bajos	4 feb. 1985	21 dic. 1988	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles	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."
Pakistán	17 abr. 2008	23 jun. 2010	Reserva 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	20 sept. 2011	-	-
Panamá	22 feb. 1985	24 ago. 1987	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles
Paraguay	23 oct. 1989	12 mar. 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.
Perú	29 may. 1985	7 jul. 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.
Polonia	13 ene. 1986	26 jul. 1989	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles	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	4 feb. 1985	9 feb. 1989	Reserva 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	-	11 ene. 2000	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles
Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte	15 mar. 1985	8 dic. 1988	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles	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."
República Árabe Siria	-	19 ago. 2004	Reserva 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.
República Centroafricana	-	11 oct. 2016	Reserva
República Checa	-	22 feb. 1993	Reserva 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.
República de Corea	-	9 ene. 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
República Democratica del Congo	-	18 mar. 1996	-
República Democrática Popular Lao	21 sept. 2010	26 sept. 2012	Reserva 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.”
República Dominicana	4 feb. 1985	24 ene. 2012	-
República Kirguisa	-	5 sept. 1997	-
Repuública de Moldova	-	28 nov. 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.”
Rumania	-	18 dic. 1990	Reserva 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.”
Rwanda	-	15 dic. 2008	-
Saint Kitts y Nevis	-	21 sept. 2020	Reserva
Samoa	-	28 mar. 2019	Reserva “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	18 sept. 2002	27 nov. 2006	-
San Vicente y las Granadinas	-	1 ago. 2001	-
Santa Sede	-	26 jun. 2002	Reserva 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.
Santo Tomé y Príncipe	6 sept. 2000	10 ene. 2017	-
Senegal	4 feb. 1985	21 ago. 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	-	12 mar. 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	-	5 may. 1992	Reserva	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 Leona	18 mar. 1985	25 abr. 2001	-
Somalia	-	24 ene. 1990	-
Sri Lanka	-	3 ene. 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."
Sudáfrica	29 ene. 1993	10 dic. 1998	Reserva	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.
Sudán	4 jun. 1986	10 ago. 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.”
Sudán del Sur	-	30 abr. 2015	Reserva
Suecia	4 feb. 1985	8 ene. 1986	Reserva OBJECIÓN A LA RESERVA HECHA DE INGRESO EN LOS EMIRATOS ÁRABES UNIDOS El Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas, en su calidad de depositario, comunica lo siguiente: La acción tuvo efecto el 7 de marzo de 2013. El Gobierno de Suecia ha examinado la declaración y las reservas formuladas por los Emiratos Árabes Unidos en el momento de la adhesión a la Convención. El Gobierno de Suecia recuerda que el nombre asignado a una declaración de un Estado con objeto de excluir o modificar los efectos jurídicos de ciertas disposiciones de un tratado no es lo que determina si una reserva al tratado. Se considera que la declaración hecha por los Emiratos Árabes Unidos, en esencia constituye una reserva que pretende limitar el alcance de la Convención. El Gobierno de Suecia observa que la reserva, en virtud del cual "sanciones legítimas ley nacional aplicable, o el dolor y el sufrimiento que son causadas por estas sanciones se asocian o el resultado no está comprendida en el concepto de" tortura "define en el artículo I de la Convención y el concepto de penas o tratos crueles, inhumanos o degradantes se menciona en la Convención "tiene el efecto de hacer que la aplicación de la Convención a una reserva general que se refiere a las leyes de los Emiratos Árabes Unidos . El Gobierno de Suecia considera que esta reserva, que no especifica claramente el alcance de la excepción, serias dudas sobre la adhesión de los Emiratos Árabes Unidos con el objetivo y propósito de la Convención.
Suiza	4 feb. 1985	2 dic. 1986	Reserva 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.
Suriname	-	16 nov. 2021	Reserva
Swazilandia	-	26 mar. 2004	-
Tailandia	-	2 oct. 2007	Reserva 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."
Tayikistán	-	11 ene. 1995	-
Timor-Leste	-	16 abr. 2003	-
Togo	25 mar. 1987	18 nov. 1987	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles	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.
Túnez	26 ago. 1987	23 sept. 1988	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles	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.
Turkmenistán	-	25 jun. 1999	-
Turquía	25 ene. 1988	2 ago. 1988	Reserva Ver texto en frances o en ingles	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."
Tuvalu	-	25 mar. 2024	Reserva “The Government of Tuvalu does not recognize paragraph 1 of article 30 of the Convention and therefore shall not be bound by this provision.”
Ucrania	27 feb. 1986	24 feb. 1987	-
Uganda	-	3 nov. 1986	Reserva	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."
Uruguay	4 feb. 1985	24 oct. 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].
Uzbekistán	-	28 sept. 1995	-
Vanuatu	-	12 jul. 2011	-
Venezuela	15 feb. 1985	29 jul. 1991	Reserva	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	7 nov. 2013	5 feb. 2015	-
Yemen	-	5 nov. 1991	-
Zambia	-	7 oct. 1998	-

Total : 176

Ajustar su búsqueda Nueva búsqueda