Print
Download XMLOptional Protocol to the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights
Parties with reservations, declarations and objections
| Party | Reservations / Declarations | Objections |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | Yes | No |
| Chile | Yes | No |
| Croatia | Yes | No |
| Denmark | Yes | No |
| El Salvador | Yes | No |
| France | Yes | No |
| Germany | Yes | No |
| Guatemala | Yes | No |
| Guyana | Yes | Yes |
| Iceland | Yes | No |
| Ireland | Yes | No |
| Italy | Yes | No |
| Kazakhstan | Yes | No |
| Luxembourg | Yes | No |
| Malta | Yes | No |
| Moldova | Yes | No |
| Norway | Yes | No |
| Poland | Yes | No |
| Romania | Yes | No |
| Russian Federation | Yes | No |
| Slovenia | Yes | No |
| Spain | Yes | No |
| Sri Lanka | Yes | No |
| Sweden | Yes | No |
| Trinidad and Tobago | Yes | Yes |
| Türkiye | Yes | No |
| Uganda | Yes | No |
| Venezuela | Yes | No |
Austria
10-12-1987
On the understanding that, further to the provisions of article 5 (2) of the Protocol, the Committee provided for in Article 28 of the Covenant shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has been ascertained that the same matter has not been examined by the European Commission on Human Rights established by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Chile
27-05-1992
In recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals, it is the understanding of the Government of Chile that this competence applies in respect of acts occurring after the entry into force for that State of the Optional Protocol or, in any event, to acts which began after 11 March 1990.
Croatia
12-10-1995
The Republic of Croatia interprets article 1 of this Protocol as giving the Committee
the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to
the jurisdiction of the Republic of Croatia who claim to be victims of a violation
by the Republic of any rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from
acts, omissions or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into
force for the Republic of Croatia.
With regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (a) of the Protocol, the Republic of Croatia
specifies that the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider a
communication from an individual if the same matter is being examined or has already
been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
Denmark
06-01-1972
With reference to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), the Government of Denmark makes a reservation with respect to the Competence of the Committee to consider a communication from an individual if the matter has already been considered under other procedures of international investigation.
El Salvador
06-06-1995
[...] That its provisions mean that the competence of the Human Rights Committee is recognized solely to receive and consider communications from individuals solely and exclusively in those situations, events, cases, omissions and legal occurrences or acts the execution of which began after the date of deposit of the instrument of ratification, that is, those which took place three months after the date of the deposit, pursuant to article 9, paragraph 2, of the Protocol; the Committee being also without competence to examine communications and/or complaints which have been submitted to other procedures of international investigation or settlement.
France
17-02-1984
France interprets article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee the competence
to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction
of the French Republic who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of any
of the rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions,
developments or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into
force for the Republic, or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments
or events after that date. With regard to article 7, France's accession to the Optional
Protocol should not be interpreted as implying any change in its position concerning
the resolution referred to in that article.
France makes a reservation to article 5, paragraph 2(a), specifying that the Human
Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual
if the same matter is being examined or has already been considered under another
procedure of international investigation or settlement.
Germany
25-08-1993
The Federal Republic of Germany formulates a reservation concerning article 5 paragraph
2 (a) to the effect that the competence of the Committee shall not apply to communications
a) which have already been considered under another procedure of international investigation
or settlement, or
b) by means of which a violation of rights is reprimanded having its origin in events
occurring prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the Federal Republic
of Germany.
Guatemala
28-11-2000
The Republic of Guatemala recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic who claim to be victims of a violation by Guatemala of any of the rights set forth in the International Covenant relating to acts, omissions, situations or events occurring after the date on which the Optional Protocol entered into force for the Republic of Guatemala or to decisions resulting from acts, omissions, situations or events after that date.
Guyana
05-01-1999
[...] Guyana re-accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights with a Reservation to article 6 thereof with the result
that the Human Rights Committee shall not be competent to receive and consider communications
from any persons who is under sentence of death for the offences of murder and treason
in respect of any matter relating to his prosecution, detention, trial, conviction,
sentence or execution of the death sentence and any matter connected therewith.
Accepting the principle that States cannot generally use the Optional Protocol as
a vehicle to enter reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights itself, the Government of Guyana stresses that its Reservation to the Optional
Protocol in no way detracts from its obligations and engagements under the Covenant,
including its undertaking to respect and ensure to all individuals within the territory
of Guyana and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the Covenant (in
so far as not already reserved against) as set out in article 2 thereof, as well as
its undertaking to report to the Human Rights Committee under the monitoring mechanism
established by article 40 thereof.
Objection Germany, 26-08-1999
The purpose of the Protocol is to strengthen the position of the individual under
the Covenant. While the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany welcomes the
decision of the Government of Guyana to reaccede to the Optional Protocol it holds
the view that the benefits of the Optional Protocol should not be denied to individuals
who are under the most severe sentence, the sentence of death. Furthermore, the Government
of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the view that denunciation of an international
human rights instrument followed by immediate reaccession under a far reaching reservation
may set a bad precedent.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the reservation. This
objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between
the Federal Republic of Germany and Guyana.
Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 22-10-1999
" [...]
2. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that this reservation,
which seeks to limit the obligations of the reserving State towards individuals under
sentence of death, raises doubts as to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol.
3. The Government of the Netherlands considers that the purpose of the Optional Protocol
[to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] is to strengthen the
position of the individual under the Covenant. Denying the benefits of the Optional
Protocol in relation to the Covenant to a group of individuals under the most severe
sentence is fundamentally in conflict with the object and purpose of the Optional
Protocol.
4. Also the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the procedure followed
by Guyana, of denouncing the Optional Protocol followed by a re-accession with reservations,
as contrary to the rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the formulation of reservations
after ratification. The procedure followed by Guyana circumvents such well-established
rules.
5. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforementioned
reservation made by the Government of Guyana to the Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
6. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol
between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Guyana.
Objection Spain, 01-12-1999
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this reservation raises doubts
about the commitment of the Republic of Guyana to the purpose and goal of the Optional
Protocol, which is to strengthen the position of the individual with regard to the
rights protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The
reservation, on the other hand, seeks to limit the international obligations of Guyana
towards individuals who are under sentence of death.
The Government of Spain also has doubts about the correctness of the procedure followed
by the Government of Guyana, inasmuch as denunciation of the Optional Protocol followed
by re-accession to it with a reservation prejudices the ratification process and undermines
the international protection of human rights.
Consequently, the Government of Spain objects to the aforesaid reservation made by
the Government of the Republic of Guyana to the Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between
the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Guyana.
Objection France, 28-01-2000
[...] While article 12, paragraph 1, of the Protocol provides that any State Party
may denounce the Protocol 'at any time', with the denunciation taking effect 'three
months after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General', denunciation
of the Protocol may not in any case be used by a State Party for the purpose of formulating
reservations to the Covenant well after the party has signed, ratified or acceded
thereto. Such a practice would call into question international commitments by a sort
of abuse of process; it would be a clear violation of the principle of good faith
that prevails in international law and would be incompatible with the rule of pacta
sunt servanda. The means used (denunciation and accession on the same day to the same
instrument but with a reservation) cannot but elicit a negative reaction.
Consequently, the Government of the French Republic expresses its objection to the
reservation made by Guyana.
Objection Finland, 17-03-2000
The Government of Finland is of the view that denying the rights recognised in the
Optional Protocol from individuals under the most severe sentence is in contradiction
with the object and purpose of the said Protocol.
Furthermore, the Government of Finland wishes to express its serious concern as to
the procedure followed by Guyana, of denouncing the Optional Protocol (to which it
did not have any reservations) followed by an immediate re-accession with a reservation.
The Government of Finland is of the view that such a procedure is highly undesirable
as circumventing the rule of the law of treaties that prohibits the formulation of
reservations after accession.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government
of Guyana to the said Protocol.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between
Guyana and Finland. The Optional Protocol will thus become operative between the two
states without Guyana benefitting from the reservation.
Objection Sweden, 27-04-2000
The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation to article 1 made by the Government
of Guyana at the time of its re-accession to the Optional Protocol. The Government
of Sweden notes that the Government of Guyana accepts the principle that States cannot
use the Optional Protocol as a vehicle to enter reservations to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights itself, and that it stresses that its reservation
in no way detracts from its obligations and engagements under the Covenant.
Nevertheless, the Government of Sweden has serious doubts as to the propriety of the
procedure followed by the Government of Guyana. While article 12, paragraph 1 of the
Protocol provides that any State Party may denounce the Protocol "at any time", the
denunciation may in no case be used by a State Party for the sole purpose of formulating
reservations to that instrument after having re-acceeded to it. Such a practice would
constitute a misuse of the procedure and would be manifestly contrary to the principle
of good faith. It further contravenes the rule of pacta sunt servanda. As such, it
undermines the basis of international treaty law and the protection of human rights.
The Government of Sweden therefore wishes to declare its grave concern over this method
of proceeding.
Furthermore, the reservation seeks to limit the international obligations of Guyana
towards individuals under sentence of death. The Government of Sweden is of the view
that the right to life is fundamental and that the death penalty cannot be accepted.
It is therefore of utmost importance that states that persist in this practice refrain
from further weakening the position of that group of individuals.
Objection Poland, 08-08-2000
The Government of the Republic of Poland believes that this reservation seeks to deny the benefits of the Optional Protocol towards a group of individuals under the sentence of death. This reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Protocol which is to strengthen the position of individuals in respect of the human rights protected by the Covenant. Furthermore the Government of the Republic of Poland considers the procedure followed by the Government of the Republic of Guyana in the denunciation of the Optional Protocol, and its subsequent re-accession with reservation as not consistent with the law of treaties and clearly undermining the Protocol. The Government of the Republic of Poland therefore objects to the above mentioned reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Guyana. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Guyana.
Iceland
22-08-1979
Iceland [...] accedes to the said Protocol subject to a reservation, with reference to article 5, paragraph 2, with respect to the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider a communication from an individual if the matter is being examined or has been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. Other provisions of the Covenant shall be inviolably observed.
Ireland
08-12-1989
Article 5, paragraph 2
Ireland does not accept the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider a
communication from an individual if the matter has already been considered under another
procedure of international investigation or settlement.
Italy
15-09-1978
The Italian Republic ratifies the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it being understood that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Protocol mean that the Committee provided for in article 28 of the Covenant shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being and has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
Kazakhstan
30-06-2009
The Republic of Kazakhstan, in accordance with article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Kazakhstan concerning actions and omissions by the State authorities or acts or decisions adopted by them following the entry into force of this Optional Protocol in the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Luxembourg
18-08-1983
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the understanding that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Protocol mean that the Committee established by article 28 of the Covenant shall not consider any communications from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined or has not already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
Malta
13-09-1990
1. Malta accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, on the understanding that the provisions of article 5, paragraph
2, of the Protocol mean that the Committee established by article 28 of the Covenant,
shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained
that the same matter is not being examined or has not already been examined under
another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
2. The Government of Malta interprets Article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee
the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to
the jurisdiction of Malta who claim to be victims of a violation by Malta of any of
the rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions, developments
or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol enters into force for Malta,
or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events after that
date.
Moldova
23-01-2008
Until the full re-establishment of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova,
the provisions of the [Protocol] will be applied only on the territory controlled
effectively by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova.
The Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to examine communications from
individuals referring to violations of any of the rights set forth in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights committed until the date of the enter into
force of the present Protocol for the Republic of Moldova.
According to the Article 5 paragraph (2) letter a) of the Protocol: the Human Rights
Committee shall not have competence to consider communications from an individual
if the matter is being or has already been examined by another international specialized
body.
Norway
13-09-1972
Subject to the following reservation to article 5, paragraph 2: "[...] The Committee shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter has already been examined under other procedures of international investigation or settlement."
Poland
07-11-1991
Poland accedes to the Protocol while making a reservation that would exclude the procedure set out in article 5 (2) (a), in cases where the matter has already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
Romania
20-07-1993
Romania considers that, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2(a) of the Protocol, the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider communications from an individual if the matter is being or has already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
Russian Federation
01-10-1991
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, pursuant to article 1 of the Optional Protocol, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in respect of situations or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the USSR. The Soviet Union also proceeds from the understanding that the Committee shall not consider any communications unless it has been ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and that the individual in question has exhausted all available domestic remedies.
Slovenia
16-07-1993
The Republic of Slovenia interprets article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee
the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to
the jurisdiction of the Republic of Slovenia who claim to be victims of a violation
by the Republic of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant which results either
from acts or omissions, developments or events occurring after the date on which the
Protocol entered into force for the Republic of Slovenia, or from a decision relating
to acts, omissions, developments or events after that date.
With regard to article 5, paragraph 2(a) of the Optional Protocol, the Republic of
Slovenia specifies that the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider
a communication from an individual if the same matter is being examined or has already
been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
Spain
25-01-1985
The Spanish Government accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the understanding that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of that Protocol mean that the Human Rights Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter has not been or is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
Sri Lanka
03-10-1997
The Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka pursuant to article (1) of the Optional Protocol recognises the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, who claim to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions, developments or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events after that date. The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka also proceeds on the understanding that the Committee shall not consider any communication from individuals unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined or has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
Sweden
06-12-1971
On the understanding that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Protocol signify that the Human Rights Committee provided for in article 28 of the said Covenant shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined or has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
Trinidad and Tobago
26-08-1998
[...] Trinidad and Tobago re-accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with a Reservation to article 1 thereof to
the effect that the Human Rights Committee shall not be competent to receive and consider
communications relating to any prisoner who is under sentence of death in respect
of any matter relating to his prosecution, his detention, his trial, his conviction,
his sentence or the carrying out of the death sentence on him and any matter connected
therewith.
Accepting the principle that States cannot use the Optional Protocol as a vehicle
to enter reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
itself, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago stresses that its Reservation to the
Optional Protocol in no way detracts from its obligations and engagements under the
Covenant, including its undertaking to respect and ensure to all individuals within
the territory of Trinidad and Tobago and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised
in the Covenant (in so far as not already reserved against) as set out in article
2 thereof, as well as its undertaking to report to the Human Rights Committee under
the monitoring mechanism established by article 40 thereof.
Objection Denmark, 06-08-1999
The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark finds that the reservation made by the Government
of Trinidad and Tobago at the time of its re-accession to the Optional Protocol to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights raises doubts as to the commitment
of Trinidad and Tobago to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol.
The reservation seeks to limit the obligations of the reserving State towards individuals
under sentence of death. The purpose of the Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is to strengthen the position of the individual
under the Covenant. Denying the benefits of the Optional Protocol to a group of individuals
under the most severe sentence is not in conformity with the object and purpose of
the Optional Protocol.
The procedure followed by Trinidad and Tobago, of denouncing the Optional Protocol
followed by a re-accession with a reservation circumvents the rules of the law of
treaties that prohibit the formulation of reservations after ratification. The Government
of the Kingdom of Denmark therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made
by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to the Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between
the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.
Objection Norway, 06-08-1999
The Government of Norway considers that the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol
is to contribute to securing the compliance with the provisions of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by strengthening the position of the individual
under the Covenant. Due to the universality of all Human Rights, the right to petition,
which is enshrined in article 1 of the Optional Protocol, must apply to all individuals
that are subject to the State Party's jurisdiction. Further, denying the benefits
of the Optional Protocol in relation to the Covenant to a vulnerable group of individuals
will contribute to further weakening of that group's position which the Government
of Norway considers to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol.
Further, the Government of Norway is concerned with regard to the procedure followed
by Trinidad and Tobago. The Government of Norway considers the denunciation of the
Optional Protocol followed by a re-accession upon which a reservation is entered,
as a circumvention of established rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the submission
of reservations after ratification.
For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservation made by Trinidad
and Tobago.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between
the Kingdom of Norway and Trinidad and Tobago.
Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 06-08-1999
1. [...]
2. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that this reservation,
which seeks to limit the obligations of the reserving State towards individuals under
sentence of death, raises doubts as to the commitment of Trinidad and Tobago to the
object and purpose of the Optional Protocol.
3. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the purpose of
the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
is to strengthen the position of the individual under the Covenant. Denying the benefits
of the Optional Protocol in relation to the Covenant to a group of individuals under
the most severe sentence is fundamentally in conflict with the object and purpose
of the Optional Protocol.
4. Also the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the procedure followed
by Trinidad and Tobago, of denouncing the Optional Protocol followed by a re-accession
with reservations, as contrary to the rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the
formulation of reservations after ratification. The procedure followed by Trinidad
and Tobago circumvents such well-established rules.
5. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforementioned
reservation made by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to the Protocol of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
6. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol
between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Trinidad and Tobago.
Objection Germany, 13-08-1999
The purpose of the Protocol is to strengthen the position of the individual under
the Covenant. While the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany welcomes the
decision of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to reaccede to the Optional Protocol
it holds the view that the benefits of the Optional Protocol should not be denied
to individuals who are under the most severe sentence, the sentence of death. Furthermore,
the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the view that denunciation
of an international human rights instrument followed by immediate reaccession under
a far reaching reservation may set a bad precedent.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the reservation. This
objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between
the Federal Republic of Germany and Trinidad and Tobago.
Objection Sweden, 17-08-1999
The Government of Sweden notes that the Government of Trinidad and Tobago accepts
the principle that States cannot use the Optional Protocol as a vehicle to enter reservations
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights itself, and it stresses
that its reservation in no way detracts from its obligations and engagements under
the Covenant.
Nevertheless the Government of Sweden has serious doubts as to the propriety of the
procedure followed by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago in that denunciation of
the Optional Protocol succeeded by re-accession with a reservation undermines the
basis of international treaty law as well as the international protection of human
rights. The Government of Sweden therefore wishes to declare its grave concern over
this method of proceeding.
Furthermore the reservation seeks to limit the international obligations of Trinidad
and Tobago towards individuals under sentence to death. The Government of Sweden is
of the view that the right to life is fundamental and that the death penalty cannot
be accepted.
It is therefore of utmost importance that states that persist in this practice refrain
from further weakening the position of that group of individuals.
Objection Ireland, 23-08-1999
1. [..]
2. The Government of Ireland is of the view that this reservation raises doubts as
to the commitment of Trinidad and Tobago to the object and purpose of the Optional
Protocol, which is to strengthen the position of the individual in respect of the
rights protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The
reservation on the contrary seeks to limit the international obligations of Trinidad
and Tobago towards individuals under sentence of death.
3. The Government of Ireland also has doubts as to the propriety of the procedure
followed by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago in that denunciation of the Optional
Protocol, succeeded by re-accession with a reservation, compromises the ratification
process and undermines the International protection of human rights.
4. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made
by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to the Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
5. The objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol
between Ireland and Trinidad and Tobago.
Objection Spain, 25-08-1999
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain believes that this reservation casts doubt
on the commitment of Trinidad and Tobago to the object and purpose of the Optional
Protocol, which is clearly to strengthen the individual's position with respect to
the rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
On the contrary, the aim of the reservation is to limit the international obligations
of Trinidad and Tobago towards individuals under sentence of death.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain also has reservations about whether the Government
of Trinidad and Tobago has followed the proper procedure; the denunciation of the
Optional Protocol, followed by re-accession to it with a reservation, prejudices the
ratification process and undermines the international protection of human rights.
Accordingly, the Government of Spain objects to this reservation made by the Government
of Trinidad and Tobago to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol as
between the Kingdom of Spain and Trinidad and Tobago.
Objection France, 09-09-1999
[...]While article 12, paragraph 1, of the Protocol provides that any State Party
may denounce the Protocol "at any time" and that the denunciation shall take effect
"three months after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General",
the denunciation of the Protocol may in no case be used by a State Party for the sole
purpose of formulating reservations to that instrument after having signed, ratified
or acceded to it. Such a practice would undermine international commitments by constituting
a form of misuse of procedure, would be manifestly contrary to the principle of good
faith prevailing in international law and would contravene the rule of pacta sunt
servanda. The means used (denunciation and accession on the same day to the same instrument,
but with a reservation) cannot but prompt a negative reaction, irrespective of the
doubts which may arise as to the compatibility of this reservation with the goal and
purpose of the treaty.
Consequently, the Government of the French Republic expresses its disapproval of the
reservation formulated by Trinidad and Tobago.
Objection Italy, 17-09-1999
The Government of the Italian Republic finds that the reservation made by the Government
of Trinidad and Tobago at the time of its re-accession to the Optional Protocol to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights raises doubts as to the commitment
of Trinidad and Tobago to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol which is
to strengthen the position of the individual in respect of the rights under the Covenant.
The reservation on the contrary seeks to limit the international obligations of Trinidad
and Tobago towards individuals under sentence of death. The Government of the Italian
Republic also has doubts as to the propriety of the procedure followed by the Government
of Trinidad and Tobago in that denunciation of the Optional Protocol, succeded by
a re-accession with a reservation compromises the ratification process and undermines
the international protection of human rights. The Government of the Italian Republic
therefore objects to the afore-mentioned reservation made by the Government of Trinidad
and Tobago to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol
between Italy and Trinidad and Tobago.
Türkiye
24-11-2006
The Republic of Turkey declares that the three declarations and the reservation made
by the Republic to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall
also apply to the present Optional Protocol.
The three declarations and the reservation made by the Republic of Turkey to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights read as follows:
The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement its obligations under the Covenant
in accordance to the obligations under the Charter of the United Nations (especially
Article 1 and 2 thereof).
The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of this Covenant
only to the States with which it has diplomatic relations.
The Republic of Turkey declares that this Convention is ratified exclusively with
regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative
order of the Republic of Turkey are applied.
The Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of
Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in accordance
with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey
and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes.
The Republic of Turkey interprets article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee
the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to
the jurisdiction of the Republic of Turkey who claim to be the victims of a violation
by the Republic of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant.
The Republic of Turkey formulates a reservation concerning article 5 paragraph 2 (a)
of the Protocol to the effect that the competence of the Committee:
a) shall not apply to communications from individuals if the same matter has already
been considered or is being considered under another procedure of international investigation
or settlement.
b) shall be limited to communications concerning alleged violations which result either
from acts, omissions, developments or events that may occur within the national boundaries
of the territory of the Republic of Turkey after the date on which the protocol enters
into force for the Republic of Turkey, or from a decision relating to acts, omissions,
developments or events that may occur within the national boundaries of the territory
of the Republic of Turkey after the date on which the Protocol enters into force for
the Republic of Turkey.
c) shall not apply to communications by means of which a violation of article 26 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is reprimanded, if and insofar
as the reprimanded violation refers to rights other than those guaranteed under the
aforementioned Covenant.
Uganda
14-11-1995
Article 5
The Republic of Uganda does not accept the competence of the Human Rights Committee
to consider a communication under the provisions of article 5 paragraph 2 from an
individual if the matter in question has already been considered under another procedure
of international investigation or settlement.
Venezuela
10-05-1978
Article 60, paragraph 5, of the Constitution of the Republic of Venezuela establishes that: "No person shall be convicted in criminal trial unless he has first been personally notified of the charges and heard in the manner prescribed by law. Persons accused of an offence against the res publica may be tried in absentia, with the guarantees and in the manner prescribed by law". Venezuela is making this reservation because article 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant makes no provision for persons accused of an offence against the res publica to be tried in absentia.