International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Parties with reservations, declarations and objections

Party	Reservations / Declarations	Objections
Afghanistan	Yes	No
Algeria	Yes	Yes
Argentina	Yes	No
Armenia	Yes	No
Australia	Yes	Yes
Austria	Yes	No
Bahamas	Yes	No
Bahrain	Yes	Yes
Bangladesh	Yes	No
Barbados	Yes	No
Belarus	Yes	No
Belgium	Yes	No
Belize	Yes	No
Bosnia and Herzegovina	Yes	No
Botswana	Yes	Yes
Bulgaria	Yes	No
Cambodia	Yes	Yes
Canada	Yes	No
Chile	Yes	No
China	Yes	No
Colombia	Yes	No
Croatia	Yes	No
Cuba	Yes	No
Czech Republic	Yes	No
Czechoslovakia (<01-01-1993)	Yes	No
Democratic People's Republic of Korea	Yes	No
Denmark	Yes	No
Dominican Republic	Yes	No
Ecuador	Yes	No
Egypt	Yes	No
El Salvador	Yes	No
Estonia	Yes	No
Ethiopia	Yes	No
Finland	Yes	No
France	Yes	Yes
Gambia, The	Yes	No
Georgia	Yes	No
Germany	Yes	No
Ghana	Yes	No
Guatemala	Yes	No
Guinea	Yes	No
Guinea-Bissau	Yes	No
Guyana	Yes	No
Hungary	Yes	No
Iceland	Yes	No
India	Yes	Yes
Indonesia	Yes	No
Iraq	Yes	Yes
Ireland	Yes	No
Israel	Yes	No
Italy	Yes	No
Japan	Yes	No
Kuwait	Yes	Yes
Kyrgyzstan	Yes	No
Laos	Yes	Yes
Latvia	Yes	No
Libya	Yes	Yes
Liechtenstein	Yes	No
Luxembourg	Yes	No
Maldives	Yes	Yes
Malta	Yes	No
Mauritania	Yes	Yes
Mexico	Yes	No
Moldova	Yes	No
Monaco	Yes	No
Mongolia	Yes	No
Namibia	Yes	No
Netherlands, the Kingdom of the	Yes	No
New Zealand	Yes	No
Norway	Yes	No
Pakistan	Yes	Yes
Palestine	Yes	No
Paraguay	Yes	No
Peru	Yes	No
Philippines	Yes	No
Poland	Yes	No
Qatar	Yes	Yes
Republic of Korea, the	Yes	Yes
Republic of the Congo	Yes	Yes
Romania	Yes	No
Russian Federation	Yes	No
Samoa	Yes	No
San Marino	Yes	No
Senegal	Yes	No
Slovakia	Yes	No
Slovenia	Yes	No
South Africa	Yes	No
Spain	Yes	No
Sri Lanka	Yes	No
Sweden	Yes	No
Switzerland	Yes	No
Syria	Yes	Yes
Thailand	Yes	Yes
Togo	Yes	No
Trinidad and Tobago	Yes	Yes
Tunisia	Yes	No
Türkiye	Yes	Yes
Ukraine	Yes	No
United Kingdom	Yes	Yes
United States of America	Yes	Yes
Vietnam	Yes	No
Yemen	Yes	No
Zimbabwe	Yes	No

Afghanistan

24-01-1983

The presiding body of the Revolutionary Council of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan declares that the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, according to which some countries cannot join the aforesaid Covenants, contradicts the International character of the aforesaid Treaties. Therefore, according to the equal rights of all States to sovereignty, both Covenants should be left open for the purpose of the participation of all States.

Algeria

12-09-1989

[The Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Algeria] recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
1. The Algerian Government interprets article 1, which is common to the two Covenants, as in no case impairing the inalienable right of all peoples to self-determination and to control over their natural wealth and resources.
It further considers that the maintenance of the State of dependence of certain territories referred to in article 1, paragraph 3, of the two Covenants and in article 14 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, to the Charter of the Organization and to the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)].
2. The Algerian Government interprets the provisions of [...] article 22 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as making the law the framework for action by the State with respect to the organization and exercise of the right to organize.
[...]
4. The Algerian Government interprets the provisions of article 23, paragraph 4, of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights regarding the rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution as in no way impairing the essential foundations of the Algerian legal system.

Objection Germany, 25-10-1990

[The Federal Republic of Germany] interprets the declaration under paragraph 2 to mean that the latter is not intended to eliminate the obligation of Algeria to ensure that the rights guaranteed in article 8, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may be restricted only for the reasons mentioned in the said articles and that such restrictions shall be prescribed by law.
It interprets the declaration under paragraph 4 to mean that Algeria, by referring to its domestic legal system, does not intend to restrict its obligation to ensure through appropriate steps equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Objection Portugal, 26-10-1990

The Government of Portugal hereby presents its formal objection to the interpretative declarations made by the Government of Algeria upon ratification of the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Government of Portugal having examined the contents of the said declarations reached the conclusion that they can be regarded as reservations and therefore should be considered invalid as well as incompatible with the purposes and object of the Covenants.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenants between Portugal and Algeria

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 18-03-1991

In the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the interpretative declaration concerning article 23, paragraph 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 16 December 1966) must be regarded as a reservation to the Covenant. From the text and history of the Covenant it follows that the reservation with respect to article 23, paragraph 4 made by the Government of Algeria is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore considers the reservation unacceptable and formally raises an objection to it.
[This objection is] not an obstacle to the entry into force of [the Covenant] between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Algeria.

Argentina

08-08-1986

The Argentine Government states that the application of the second part of article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall be subject to the principle laid down in article 18 of the Argentine National Constitution.
The instrument contains a declaration under article 41 of the Covenant by which the Government of Argentina recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established by virtue of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

01-06-2020

On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of the new coronavirus as pandemic, following the increase in the number of people affected around the world and the number of deaths recorded. Since then, the crisis caused by COVID-19 has led to the saturation of health systems, the disruption of the global economy and to a widespread social paralysis.
In that context, the Argentine Republic, like other countries, is experiencing an exceptional situation, which has led its authorities to take a number of emergency measures to mitigate the spread of the disease, taking into account, in their actions, the unquestionable protection of human rights of all inhabitants of the country, in accordance with the appeals and recommendations of the regional and universal human rights protection system.
Accordingly, on 12 March 2020, pursuant to necessity and emergency Decree No. 260/2020, the public health emergency, declared under Act No. 27.541 of 21 December 2019, has been extended for a period of one year.
The recitals of the said Decree state “That, in recent days, the spread of cases of the new coronavirus COVID-19 has been observed in numerous countries on different continents, reaching our region and our country. That, in the current situation, it is necessary to adopt new appropriate, transparent, consensual measures based on scientific evidence, in addition to those already adopted since the beginning of this epidemiological situation, in order to mitigate its spread and health impact.”
Subsequently, on 19 March 2020, the National Executive Branch issued the necessity and emergency Decree No. 297/2020, which provided for a mandatory and preventive lockdown for all persons living or temporarily located in the country at the time of its issuance, in order to protect public health, which is an inalienable obligation of the State.
This decree provides that, during the mandatory and preventive lockdown, individuals must remain in their usual residences, refrain from going to their workplaces and from moving on roads, routes and public spaces, in order to prevent the spread and transmission of COVID-19 virus and the consequent impact on public health and other derived individual rights, such as the right to life and the right to physical integrity.
In addition, permanent checkpoints have been set up on roads, streets and public spaces, at access points and other strategic locations, in order to ensure compliance with the regulations adopted in the framework of the health emergency.
The recitals of the above-mentioned Decree refer to the exceptional nature of the situation:
“That we are facing a potential health and social crisis without precedent, and it is therefore necessary to take appropriate, transparent, consensual measures that are based on available evidence, in order to mitigate its spread and impact on the health system. That, while there is no effective antiviral treatment nor vaccines that could prevent the virus, the mandatory lockdown and social distancing measures play a role of vital importance in addressing the epidemiological situation and mitigating the health impact of COVID-19. That, bearing in mind the experience of countries in Asia and Europe where the SARSCoV-2 virus has spread earlier, it can be concluded that the success of the measures depends on the following variables: timeliness, intensity (drastic or gradual) and effective compliance with those measures.”
Likewise, Decree No. 297/2020 states “That article 14 of the national Constitution establishes that ‘all the inhabitants of the Nation are entitled to the following rights, in accordance with the laws that regulate their exercise, namely: to work and perform any lawful industry; to navigate and trade; to petition the authorities; to enter, remain in, travel through and leave the Argentine territory’. Although this is one of the fundamental pillars guaranteed in our legal order, it is subject to limitations for reasons of public order, security or public health. Indeed, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes in its article 12, paragraph 1, the ‘… right to liberty of movement…’, and article 12, paragraph 3, provides that the rights set forth therein ‘shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant’... That the measures established in the present Decree are essential, reasonable and proportionate to the threat and the health risk that we are facing.”
It should be noted that the measure provided for in Decree No. 297/2020 was initially established until 31 March 2020, but was then successively extended by Decree No. 325/2020 until 12 April 2020, Decree No. 355/2020 until 26 April 2020, Decree No. 408/2020 until 10 May 2020, and lastly by Decree No. 459/2020 which provided for its extension until 24 May 2020 included.
The described exceptional situation demonstrates the legitimacy of the aims to be preserved.
Indeed, the lockdown measures have been adopted in a reasonable manner, in accordance with medical information that demonstrated their importance for preventing the spread of the disease and the experience of other countries that had to address this serious situation earlier.
In this regard, it can be claimed that, after more than 50 days since the issuance of Decree No. 297/20, the mandatory and preventive lockdown ordered in Argentina has, to date, enabled the containment of the epidemic, a decrease in the speed of its spread being registered, preventing the saturation of the health system, as it happened in other parts of the world.
With regard to the proportionality of the measure, it should be noted that, from the beginning, movement of workers performing essential tasks was permitted in various situations, as well as for the assistance to children and adolescents, to elder persons and others who require it. Likewise, new exceptions to the lockdown and to the prohibition on movement were established, under complementary regulations, for persons performing different activities and services, so as not to interrupt the provision of essential services and to also include various economic activities. Since the issuance of the last decree – Decree No. 459/2020 – the lockdown has entered a new phase in which various activities in different regions of the country have been authorized, considering the favourable epidemiological trends in most part of the national territory. The conditions of the mandatory and preventive lockdown were not modified in large agglomerations, where the largest proportion of cases in our country is currently concentrated – more than 85%.
Without prejudice to the relevance of the measures set forth, the National Ministry of Health informed that, on 13 May 2020, 316 new cases of COVID-19 were confirmed in our country, bringing the total number of positive cases to 6,879. This demonstrates that, despite the effectiveness of the lockdown, we are still fighting the spread of the disease, without being possible to determine the exact moment when these circumstances will cease.
Furthermore, in addition to the mandatory and preventive lockdown, the Argentine Republic ordered a strict control of entry through the country’s borders, consistent with the restrictions established by other States.
Thus, necessity and emergency Decree No. 274/2020 of 16 March 2020 provided for the prohibition on entry into the national territory for non-resident foreign nationals, for a period of 15 days, through ports, airports, international border crossings, checkpoints and any other access points, in order to reduce the risks of infection. This period was successively extended by Decrees Nos. 331/2020, 365/2020, 409/2020 and 459/2020, until 24 May 2020 included.
Pursuant to necessity and emergency Decree No. 313/2020 of 26 March 2020, the National Executive Branch extended the scope of the prohibition on entry into the national territory to persons residing in the country and to Argentines residing abroad, through ports, airports, international border crossings, checkpoints and any other access points established under Decree No. 274/2020, while providing for various exceptions to this prohibition.
The recitals of the former provide “That the COVID-19 pandemic continues to escalate, and its community transmission is currently taking place; therefore, bearing in mind the inflow of Argentine nationals and residents analysed above as well as the mode of transmission of the virus, it is considered necessary to introduce measures, in addition to those already adopted, that are reasonable, temporary and proportionate to the risk under consideration, to contribute to safeguarding the health of individuals and their families, both nationals and residents who wish to enter the country and those currently in the country, by minimizing the entry into the national territory of possible cases of potential contagion through its various points of access, for the shortest possible period of time, in order to adapt sufficient safety measures for their re-entry.”
Likewise, the text of the same Decree No. 313/2020 states that the measure constitutes a decision of a transitory nature, which responds not only to the imperative need to protect those located in the national territory from the spread of coronavirus COVID-19, but also to establish at points of access to the country the conditions necessary, in terms of infrastructure and health care, to receive those who are still abroad and who have to travel to their homes or confine themselves in the place where they arrive.
Subsequently, pursuant to necessity and emergency Decree No. 331/2020 of 1 April 2020, the competent State authorities were instructed to establish the relevant timelines and coordinate the actions necessary to enable the gradual entry into the national territory of persons resident in the country and of the Argentines resident abroad that could not have entered while Decree No. 313/2020 was in effect, paying particular attention to persons belonging to at-risk groups.
Under the said Decree, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship was instructed to extend the validity of the Programme for the assistance of Argentines abroad in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, established pursuant to resolution MRECIC 62/2020 of 28 March 2020, in order to respond to the urgent needs for accommodation, food, health care and all other basic needs of the Argentines abroad, in all those cases where they are in a situation of vulnerability that does not allow them to resolve the issue by their own means. In that context, the respective funds were transferred to different consulates to respond to the above-mentioned needs, the State authorities making every effort to ensure the return of all persons who wish to re-enter the country in accordance with the aforementioned regulations.
At the same time, it should be noted that there are no restrictions at the land borders on Argentines or residents entering in private vehicles. On the other hand, the State regulates the number of Argentines and residents who may return on a daily basis to our country by air and by land using public transport, the entry of Argentines and residents following therefore an administered procedure.
Indeed, according to the information registered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship, as of 20 April 2020, approximately 90 % of Argentines who wanted to re-enter the country during the pandemic had been able to do so.
In this regard, 168,140 persons had returned to our country by air, land or river between 16 March and 17 April 2020, whereas an estimated total of 21,493 persons had expressed their intention to return to the country by 20 April 2020, therefore 90 % of all the Argentines or residents with intentions of returning to the country have already done so.
Thus, from the information reported, it is clear that the exceptional measures adopted by the national authorities to safeguard the rights to life and to health of the population of our country, limiting individual rights only to the extent strictly necessary, are proportionate, reasonable and relevant in the
context of the enormous difficulties and challenges imposed by the current global situation.
Lastly, it should be noted that the Senate of the Nation, in its first special remote session held in our country on 13 May 2020, approved all the necessity and emergency decrees issued by the National Executive Branch since the mandatory and preventive lockdown had been declared because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

10-09-2021

On 10 September 2021, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Argentina a communication dated 9 September 2021 informing about the issuance of Decree No. 167/2021 of 11 March 2021 2 which, inter alia, extends the health state of emergency until 31 December 2021.

Armenia

20-03-2020

[…] in response to the global outbreak and spread of the corona virus disease (COVID-19), on March 16, 2020 the Government of the Republic of Armenia adopted the decree 928-N declaring a 30-day state of emergency throughout the country starting from 18:30 of March 16, 2020, local time.
In accordance with Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Armenia would like to notify the Secretary-General that during the state of emergency the Government of the Republic of Armenia exercises the right of derogation from the obligations under Articles 9, 12 and 21 of the Covenant, concerning the right to liberty, the right to liberty of movement and the right of peaceful assembly, respectively. The Permanent Mission of Armenia kindly requests the Secretary-General to inform the other States Parties to the Covenant accordingly.
The Permanent Mission of Armenia will inform the Secretary-General about the future measures to be taken, and will notify, when the state of emergency is terminated and the provisions of the [Covenant] are in full implementation again.
[…]

17-04-2020

[…] has the honour to inform that, taking into account the continued threat to life and public health of society, posed by the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and its spread, on 13 April 2020 the Government of the Republic of Armenia adopted the decree 543-N further extending the State of Emergency throughout the country until 14 May 2020.

15-05-2020

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Armenia […] with reference to its Notes Verbal[es] UN/3101/067/2020, dated 20 March 2020, and UN/3101/089/2020, dated 17 April 2020, […] inform that, taking into account the continued threat to life and public health of society, posed by the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and its spread, on 14 May 2020 the Government of the Republic of Armenia adopted the decree 729-N further extending the State of Emergency throughout the country until 13 June 2020.
[…]

12-06-2020

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Armenia […] with reference to its Notes Verbal[es] UN/3101/067/2020, dated 20 March 2020, UN/3101/089/2020, dated 17 April 2020, and UN/3101/111/2020, dated 15 May 2020, has the honour to inform that, taking into account the continued threat to life and public health of society, posed by the Coronavirus disease(COVID-19) and its spread, on 12 June 2020 the Government of the Republic of Armenia adopted the decree 933-N further extending the State of Emergency throughout the country until 13 July 2020.
[…]

14-07-2020

[…] with reference to its Notes Verbal[es] UN/3101/067/2020, dated 20 March 2020, UN/3101/089/2020, dated 17 April 2020, UN/3101/111/2020, dated 15 May, 2020, and UN/3101/131/2020, dated 12 June, 2020, has the honour to inform that, taking into account the continued threat to life and public health of society, posed by the Coronavirus disease(COVID-19) and its spread, on 13 July 2020 the Government of the Republic of Armenia adopted the decree 1161-N further extending the State of Emergency throughout the country until 12 August 2020.
[…]

16-09-2020

[…] with reference to its Note Verbal UN/3101/188/2020, dated 13 August 2020 has the honour to inform that, the State of Emergency extended by the decree 1319-N of the Government of the Republic of Armenia, dated 12 August 2020, has been terminated as of 11 September 2020 and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are in full implementation again. The Permanent Mission of Armenia kindly requests the Secretary-General to inform the other States Parties to the Covenant accordingly.
[…]

05-10-2020

[…] has the honour to inform that, taking into account the military operations launched by the armed forces of the Republic of Azerbaijan against the Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh Republic) and targeting of civilian population and settlements, including the capital city of Stepanakert and the imminent threat of armed attack against the Republic of Armenia, the Government of Armenia adopted the decree 1586-N, declaring martial law in the entire territory of the Republic of Armenia on 27 September 2020.
In accordance with Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Armenia would like to notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations that during the martial law the Government of the Republic of Armenia exercises the right of derogation from the obligations under Articles 12, 17, 19 and 21 of the Covenant, concerning the right to liberty of movement, right to privacy, right to freedom of expression and the right of peaceful assembly, respectively. The Permanent Mission of Armenia kindly requests the Secretary-General to inform the other States Parties to the Covenant accordingly.
The Permanent Mission of Armenia will inform the Secretary-General about the future measures to be taken, and will notify when the martial law is terminated and the provisions of the [Covenant] are in full implementation again.
[…]

Australia

13-08-1980

Reservations:
Article 10
In relation to paragraph 2 (a) the principle of segregation is accepted as an objective to be achieved progressively. In relation to paragraph 2 (b) and 3 (second sentence) the obligation to segregate is accepted only to the extent that such segregation is considered by the responsible authorities to be beneficial to the juveniles or adults concerned.
Article 14
Australia makes the reservation that the provision of compensation for miscarriage of justice in the circumstances contemplated in paragraph 6 of article 14 may be by administrative procedures rather than pursuant to specific legal provision.
Article 20
Australia interprets the rights provided for by articles 19, 21 and 22 as consistent with article 20; accordingly, the Common wealth and the constituent States, having legislated with respect to the subject matter of the article in matters of practical concern in the interest of public order (ordre public), the right is reserved not to introduce any further legislative provision on these matters.
Declaration:
Australia has a federal constitutional system in which legislative, executive and judicial powers are shared or distributed between the Commonwealth and the constituent States. The implementation of the treaty throughout Australia will be effected by the Commonwealth, State and Territory authorities having regard to their respective constitutional powers and arrangements concerning their exercise.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 17-09-1981

I. Reservation by Australia regarding articles 2 and 50
The reservation that article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, and article 50 shall be given effect consistently with and subject to the provisions in article 2, paragraph 2, is acceptable to the Kingdom on the understanding that it will in no way impair Australia's basic obligation under international law, as laid down in article 2, paragraph 1, to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
II. Reservation by Australia regarding article 10
The Kingdom is not able to evaluate the implications of the first part of the reservation regarding article 10 on its merits, since Australia has given no further explanation on the laws and lawful arrangements, as referred to in the text of the reservation. In expectation of further clarification by Australia, the Kingdom for the present reserves the right to raise objection to the reservation at a later stage.
III. Reservation by Australia regarding `Convicted Persons'
The Kingdom finds it difficult, for the same reasons as mentioned in its commentary on the reservation regarding article 10, to accept the declaration by Australia that it reserves the right not to seek amendment of laws now in force in Australia relating to the rights of persons who have been convicted of serious criminal offences. The Kingdom expresses the hope it will be possible to gain a more detailed insight in the laws now in force in Australia, in order to facilitate a definitive opinion on the extent of this reservation.

06-11-1984

The Government of Australia notifies the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservations and declarations made upon ratification with regard to articles 2 and 50, 17, 19, 25 and to partially withdraw its reservations to articles 10 and 14.

28-01-1993

The Government of Australia declares that it recognizes, for and on behalf of Australia, the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the aforesaid Convention.

Austria

10-09-1978

1. Article 12, paragraph 4, of the Covenant will be applied provided that it will not affect the Act of April 3, 1919, State Law Gazette No. 209, concerning the Expulsion and the Transfer of Property of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine as amended by the Act of October 30, 1919, State Law Gazette No. 501, the Federal Constitutional Act of July 30, 1925, Federal Law Gazette No. 292, and the Federal Constitutional Act of January 26, 1928, Federal Law Gazette No. 30, read in conjunction with the Federal Constitutional Act of July 4, 1963, Federal Law Gazette No. 172.
2. Article 9 and article 14 of the Covenant will be applied provided that legal regulations governing the proceedings and measures of deprivation of liberty as provided for in the Administrative Procedure Acts and in the Financial Penal Act remain permissible within the framework of the judicial review by the Federal Administrative Court or the Federal Constitutional Court as provided by the Austrian Federal Constitution.
3. Article 10, paragraph 3, of the Covenant will be applied provided that legal regulations allowing for juvenile prisoners to be detained together with adults under 25 years of age who give no reason for concern as to their possible detrimental influence on the juvenile prisoner remain permissible.
4. Article 14 of the Covenant will be applied provided that the principles governing the publicity of trials as set forth in article 90 of the Federal Constitutional Law as amended in 1929 are in no way prejudiced and that
(a) paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (d) is not in conflict with legal regulations which stipulate that an accused person who disturbs the orderly conduct of the trial or whose presence would impede the questioning of another accused person, of a witness or of an expert can be excluded from participation in the trial;
(b) paragraph 5 is not in conflict with legal regulations which stipulate that after an acquittal or a lighter sentence passed by a court of the first instance, a higher tribunal may pronounce conviction or a heavier sentence for the same offence, while they exclude the convicted person's right to have such conviction or heavier sentence reviewed by a still higher tribunal;
(c) paragraph 7 is not in conflict with legal regulations which allow proceedings that led up to a person's final conviction or acquittal to be reopened.
5. Articles 19, 21 and 22 in connection with article 2 (1) of the Covenant will be applied provided that they are not in conflict with legal restrictions as provided for in article 16 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
6. Article 26 is understood to mean that it does not exclude different treatment of Austrian nationals and aliens, as is also permissible under article 1, paragraph 2, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
[The Government of the Republic of Austria] declares under article 41 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that Austria recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Bahamas

23-12-2008

The Government of The Bahamas recognizes and accepts the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment contained in paragraph 6 of article 14, but the problems of implementation are such that the right not to apply that principle is presently reserved.

Bahrain

04-12-2006

1. The Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain interprets the Provisions of Article 3, (18) and (23) as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah.
2. The Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain interprets the provisions of Article (9), Paragraph (5) as not detracting from its right to layout the basis and rules of obtaining the compensation mentioned in this Paragraph.
3. The Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain interprets Article (14) Paragraph (7) as no obligation arise from it further those set out in Article (10) of the Criminal Law of Bahrain which provides:
'Legal Proceedings cannot be instated against a person who has been acquitted by Foreign Courts from offenses of which he is accused or a final judgement has been delivered against him and the said person fulfilled the punishment or the punishment has been abolished by prescription.'

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 27-07-2007

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since the reservations were made after the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations were too late and therefore inconsistent with article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Furthermore, the reservation with respect to articles 3, 18 and 23 of the Covenant is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the Islamic Shariah. This makes it unclear to what extent the Kingdom of Bahrain considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to all of the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain since they were made after accession, and specifically objects to the content of the reservation on articles 3, 18 and 23 made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Bahrain.

Objection Latvia, 13-08-2007

The Government of the Republic of Latvia has noted that the reservation made by the
Kingdom of Bahrain is submitted to the Secretary General on 4 December 2006, but the consent to be bound by the said Covenant by accession is expressed on 20 September 2006. In accordance with Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties reservations might be made upon signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. Taking into considerations the aforementioned, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the said reservation is not in force since its submission.

Objection Portugal, 29-08-2007

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has carefully examined the reservations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Government of the Portuguese Republic notes that the reservations were made after the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant and is of the view that the practice of late reservations should be discouraged.
According to the first part of the reservation, the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain interprets the provisions of articles 3, 18 and 23 as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah. These provisions deal namely with the questions of equality between men and women, freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the protection of family and marriage.
Portugal considers that these articles are fundamental provisions of the Covenant and the first reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Kingdom of Bahrain considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant, raises concerns as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the object and purpose of the Covenant and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international law.
It is in the common interest of all States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under these treaties.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic, therefore, objects to the above mentioned reservation made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the ICCPR.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Bahrain.

Objection Estonia, 12-09-2007

The Government of Estonia has carefully examined the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since the reservations were made after the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant, the Government of Estonia considers that the reservations were late and therefore inconsistent with international customary law as codified into Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Furthermore, the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to Articles 3, 18 and 23 of the Covenant make a general reference to the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah. The Government of Estonia is of the view that in the absence of any further clarification, the reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Kingdom of Bahrain considers itself bound by the obligations of the Convention and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

Therefore, the Government of Estonia objects to all of the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since they were made after the accession, and specifically objects to the content of the reservations to Articles 3, 18 and 23.

Nevertheless, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as between Estonia and the Kingdom of Bahrain.

Objection Czech Republic, 12-09-2007

The Government of the Czech Republic has carefully examined the contents of reservation made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, in respect of Articles 3, 18 and 23 thereof. Since the reservation was made after the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant, the Government of the Czech Republic considers that the reservation was too late and therefore inconsistent with article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Furthermore the Government of the Czech Republic is of the opinion that the aforementioned reservation is in contradiction with the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a State party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform according to the obligations set out by the treaty. Furthermore, the reservation consists of a general reference to the Constitution without specifying its content and as such does not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Covenant.
The Government of the Czech Republic recalls that it is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Czech Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Czech Republic and the Kingdom of Bahrain, without the Kingdom of Bahrain benefiting from its reservation.

Objection Australia, 18-09-2007

The Government of Australia has examined the reservation made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As the reservations were made after the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant, the Government of Australia considers that the reservations were late and therefore inconsistent with article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
The Government of Australia considers that the reservation with respect to articles 3, 18 and 23 of the Covenant is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of 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.
The Government of Australia considers that the Kingdom of Bahrain is, through this reservation, purporting to make the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights subject to Islamic Shariah law. As a result, it is unclear to what extent the Kingdom of Bahrain considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Australia recalls the general principle of treaty interpretation, codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
Further, as regards the reservation with respect to article 18, the Government of Australia recalls that according to article 4 (2) of the Covenant, no derogation of article 18 is permitted.
The Government of Australia objects to all of the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain as they were made after accession, and specifically objects to the content of the reservation on article 3, 18 and 23 made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Australia and the Kingdom of Bahrain.

Objection Canada, 18-09-2007

The Government of Canada has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain upon acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with which the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain 'interprets the Provisions of Article 3, 18 and 23 as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah'.
The Government of Canada notes that these declarations constitute in reality reservations and that they should have been lodged at the time of accession by Bahrain to the Covenant.
The Government of Canada considers that by making the interpretation of articles 3, 18 and 23 of the Covenant subject to the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah, the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain is formulating reservations with a general, indeterminate scope, such that they make it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant, which they purport to introduce and they 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 Canada notes that the reservations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain, addressing some of the most essential provisions of the Covenant, and aiming to exclude the obligations under those provisions, are in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Covenant. In addition, article 18 of the Covenant is among the provisions from which no derogation is allowed, according to article 4 of the Covenant.
The Government of Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Canada and the Kingdom of Bahrain.

Objection Ireland, 27-09-2007

The Government of Ireland has examined the reservations made on 4 December 2006 by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of Ireland notes that the reservation was not made by the Kingdom of Bahrain at the time of its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 20 September 2006.

The Government of Ireland further notes that the Kingdom of Bahrain subjects application of Articles 3, 18 and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah. The Government of Ireland is of the view that a reservation which consists of a general reference to religious law may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. The Government of Ireland is furthermore of the view that such a general reservation may undermine the basis of international treaty law and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Ireland also notes that the Kingdom of Bahrain does not consider that Article 9 (5) detracts from its right to layout the basis and rules of obtaining the compensation mentioned therein. The Government of Ireland is of the view that a reservation which is vague and general in nature as to the basis and rules referred to may similarly make it unclear to what extent the reserving State considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant.

The Government of Ireland further notes that the Kingdom of Bahrain considers that no obligation arises from Article 14 (7) beyond those contained in Article 10 of its national Criminal Law. The Government of Ireland is of the view that such a reservation may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant and may undermine the basis of international treaty law.

The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and the Kingdom of Bahrain.

Objection Italy, 01-11-2007

The Government of Italy has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain to Articles 3, 18 and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of Italy considers that the reservation of the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain, whereby it excludes any interpretation of the provisions of Articles 3, 18 and 23, which would affect the prescription of the Islamic Shariah, does not clearly define the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligation under these Articles.

This reservation raises serious doubts about the real extent of the commitment undertaken by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain and is capable of contravening the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Italy therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain. This objection, however, shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Government of Italy and the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain.

Objection Poland, 03-12-2007

The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain after its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966, hereinafter called the Covenant, in respect of article 3, article 9 paragraph 5, article 14 paragraph 7, article 18 and article 23.
The Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain are so called late reservations, since they were made after the date of accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant. Therefore the reservations are inconsistent with article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which provides for the possibility of formulation of reservations only when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty.

Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers that as a result of reservations with respect to articles 3, 18 and 23 of the Covenant, the implementation of provisions of these articles by the Kingdom of Bahrain is made subject to the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah, with the result that the extent to which the Kingdom of Bahrain has accepted the obligations of the said articles of the Covenant is not defined precisely enough for the other State Parties. The Republic of Poland considers that these reservations lead to differentiation in enjoyment of the rights warranted in the Covenant, which is incompatible with the purpose and object of the Covenant and therefore not permitted (article 19 c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

The Government of the Republic of Poland therefore objects to the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain.

However this objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Poland and the Kingdom of Bahrain.”

Objection Sweden, 03-12-2007

The Government of Sweden notes that the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain were made after its accession to the Covenant. Since these reservations were formulated late they are to be considered inconsistent with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda as well as customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Furthermore the Government of Sweden notes that the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain has made a reservation with respect to articles 3, 18 and 23 giving precedence to the provisions of Islamic Shariah and national legislation over the application of the provisions of the Covenant. This reservation does not, in the opinion of the Government of Sweden, clearly specify the extent of the derogation by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain from the provisions in question and raises serious doubts as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Sweden would like to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations 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 a party, are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to all of the reservations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as they were made after accession, and specifically objects to the content of the reservations on articles 3, 18 and 23 made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant, and considers them null and void.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant [in] its entirety between the Kingdom of Bahrain and Sweden, without the Kingdom of Bahrain benefiting from its reservations.

Objection Hungary, 04-12-2007

The Government of the Republic of Hungary has carefully examined the contents of the reservation made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, in respect of Articles 3, 18 and 23 thereof. Since the reservation was made after the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant, the Government of the Republic of Hungary considers that the reservation was too late and therefore inconsistent with article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Furthermore the Government of the Republic of Hungary is of the opinion that the aforementioned reservation is in contradiction with the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a State party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform according to the obligations set out by the treaty. Furthermore, the reservation consists of a general reference to the Constitution without specifying its content and as such does not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Covenant.

The Government of the Republic of Hungary recalls that it is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Republic of Hungary therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Hungary and the Kingdom of Bahrain.

Objection Mexico, 13-12-2007

With regard to the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrein to various provisions, including articles 3, 18 and 23, the Permanent Mission of Mexico would like to state that the Government of Mexico has studied the content of Bahrain’s reservation and is of the view that it should be considered invalid because it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The reserve formulated, if applied, would have the unavoidable result of making implementation of the articles mentioned subject to the provisions of Islamic Shariah, which would constitute discrimination in the enjoyment and exercise of the rights enshrined in the Covenant; this is contrary to all the articles of this international instrument. The principles of the equality of men and women and non-discrimination are enshrined in the preamble and article 2, paragraph 2 of the Covenant and in the preamble and Article 1, paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations.
The objection of the Government of Mexico to the reservation in question should not be interpreted as an impediment to the entry into force of the Covenant between Mexico and the Kingdom of Bahrain.

Objection Slovakia, 18-12-2007

The Government of Slovakia has carefully examined the content of the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain upon its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of Slovakia is of the opinion that the reservation of the Kingdom of Bahrain, whereby it excludes any interpretation of the provisions of Articles 3, 18 and 23, which would affect the prescription of the Islamic Shariah, does not clearly define the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligation under these Articles. This reservation is too general and raises serious doubts as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the object and the purpose of the Covenant.

For these reasons, the Govemment of Slovakia objects to the above mentioned reservations made by the Govemment of the Kingdom of Bahrain upon its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Slovakia and the Kingdom of Bahrain. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between Slovakia and the Kingdom of Bahrain without the Kingdom of Bahrain benefiting from its reservations.

Objection United Kingdom, 27-12-2007

The United Kingdom objects to Bahrain's reservations as they were made after the date of Bahrain's accession to the Covenant.
The United Kingdom further objects to the substance of Bahrain's first reservation, to Articles 3, 18 and 23. In the view of the United Kingdom a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. A reservation which consists of a general reference to a system of law without specifying its contents does not do so.
These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Bahrain. However on account of their lateness the reservations shall have no effect as between Bahrain and the United Kingdom.

28-12-2006

Depositary communication.
In keeping with the depositary practice followed in similar cases, the Secretary-General proposed to receive the reservation in question for deposit in the absence of any objection on the part of any of the Contracting States, either to the deposit itself or to the procedure envisaged, within a period of 12 months from the date of the relevant depositary notification. In the absence of any such objection, the above reservation would be accepted in deposit upon the expiration of the above-stipulated 12 month period, that is on 28 December 2007. In view of the above and in keeping with the depositary practice followed in such cases, the Secretary-General is not in a position to accept the reservation made by Bahrain for deposit.

Bangladesh

06-09-2000

Reservation:
Article 14
The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh reserves the right not to apply paragraph 3 (d) of Article 14 in view of the fact, that, while the existing laws of Bangladesh provide that, in the ordinary course a person, shall be entitled to be tried in his presence, it also provides for a trial to be held in his absence if he is a fugitive offender, or is a person, who being required to appear before a court, fails to present himself or to explain the reasons for non-appearance to the satisfaction of the court.
Declarations:
Article 10:
So far as the first part of paragraph 3 of Article 10 relating to reformation and social rehabilitation of prisoners is concerned, Bangladesh does not have any facility to this effect on account of financial constraints and for lack of proper logistics support. The last part of this paragraph relating to segregation of juvenile offenders from adults is a legal obligation under Bangladesh law and is followed accordingly.
Article 11:
Article 11 providing that "no one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation," is generally in conformity with the Constitutional and legal provisions in Bangladesh, except in some very exceptional circumstances, where the law provides for civil imprisonment in case of willful default in complying with a decree. The Government of People's Republic of Bangladesh will apply this article in accordance with its existing municipal law.
Article 14:
So far as the provision of legal assistance in paragraph 3(d) of Article 14 is concerned, a person charged with criminal offences is statutorily entitled to legal assistance if he does not have the means to procure such assistance.
The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, notwithstanding its acceptance of the principle of compensation for miscarriage of justice, as stipulated in Article 14, paragraph 6, is not in a position to guarantee a comprehensive implementation of this provision for the time being. However, the aggrieved has the right to realise compensation for miscarriage of justice by separate proceedings and in some cases, the court suo moto grants compensation to victims of miscarriage of justice. Bangladesh, however, intends to ensure full implementation of this provision in the near future.

Barbados

05-01-1973

The Government of Barbados states that it reserves the right not to apply in full, the guarantee of free legal assistance in accordance with paragraph 3 (d) of Article 14 of the Covenant, since, while accepting the principles contained in the same paragraph, the problems of implementation are such that full application cannot be guaranteed at present.

Belarus

30-09-1992

The Republic of Belarus declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Human Rights in accordance with article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

Belgium

21-04-1983

Reservations:
[...]
2. The Belgian Government considers that the provision of article 10, paragraph 2 (a), under which accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons is to be interpreted in conformity with the principle, already embodied in the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners [resolution (73) 5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of 19 January 1973], that untried prisoners shall not be put in contact with convicted prisoners against their will [rules 7 (b) and 85 (1)]. If they so request, accused persons may be allowed to take part with convicted persons in certain communal activities.
3. The Belgian Government considers that the provisions of article 10, paragraph 3, under which juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status refers exclusively to the judicial measures provided for under the régime for the protection of minors established by the Belgian Act relating to the protection of young persons. As regards other juvenile ordinary-law of- fenders, the Belgian Government intends to reserve the option to adopt measures that may be more flexible and be designed precisely in the interest of the persons concerned.
4. With respect to article 14, the Belgian Government considers that the last part of paragraph 1 of the article appears to give States the option of providing or not providing for certain derogations from the principle that judgements shall be made public. Accordingly, the Belgian constitutional principle that there shall be no exceptions to the public pronouncements of judgements is in conformity with that provision. Paragraph 5 of the article shall not apply to persons who, under Belgian law, are convicted and sentenced at second instance following an appeal against their acquittal of first instance or who, under Belgian law, are brought directly before a higher tribunal such as the Court of Cassation, the Appeals Court or the Assize Court.
5. Articles 19, 21 and 22 shall be applied by the Belgian Government in the context of the provisions and restrictions set forth or authorized in articles 10 and 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, by the said Convention.
Declarations:
6. The Belgian Government declares that it does not consider itself obligated to enact legislation in the field covered by article 20, paragraph 1, and that article 20 as a whole shall be applied taking into account the rights to freedom of thought and religion, freedom of opinion and freedom of assembly and association proclaimed in articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in articles 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant.
7. The Belgian Government declares that it interprets article 23, paragraph 2, as meaning that the right of persons of marriageable age to marry and to found a family presupposes not only that national law shall prescribe the marriageable age but that it may also regulate the exercise of that right.

05-03-1987

The Kingdom of Belgium declares that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

18-06-1987

The Kingdom of Belgium declares, under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Belgium, made a declaration under article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself.

Belize

10-06-1996

Reservations:
(a) The Government of Belize reserves the right not to apply paragraph 2 of article 12 in view of the statutory provisions requiring persons intending to travel abroad to furnish tax clearance certificates;
(b) The Government of Belize reserves the right not to apply in full the guarantee of free legal assistance in accordance with paragraph 3 (d) of article 14, since, while it accepts the principle contained in that paragraph and at present applies it in certain defined cases, the problems of implementation are such that full application cannot be guaranteed at present;
(c) The Government of Belize recognizes and accepts the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment contained in paragraph 6 of article 14, but the problems of implementation are such that the right not to apply that principle is presently reserved.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

01-09-1993

The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in accordance with article 41 of the said Covenant, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

Botswana

08-09-2000

The Government of the Republic of Botswana considers itself bound by:
a) Article 7 of the Covenant to the extent that "torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" means torture inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment prohibited by Section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana.
b) Article 12 paragraph 3 of the Covenant to the extent that the provisions are compatible with Section 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana relating to the imposition of restrictions reasonably required in certain exceptional instances.

Objection Sweden, 25-07-2001

The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by Botswana upon signature of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and confirmed upon ratification, regarding articles 7 and 12 (3) of the Covenant.
The Government of Sweden notes that the said articles of the Covenant are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing legislation in Botswana.
The Government of Sweden is of the view that, in the absence of further clarification, this reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to the object and purpose of the Covenant and would like to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted,
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Botswana to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Botswana and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Botswana benefiting from its reservation.

Objection Portugal, 26-07-2001

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966).
The Government of the Portuguese Republic is of the view that, according to article 4 (2) of the Covenant, the said reservation is incompatible with its object and purpose.
Furthermore, this reservation goes against the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a State party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform according to the obligations set out by the said treaty. It is the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the Government of the Republic of Botswana, by limiting its responsibilities under the Covenant by invoking general principles of its Constitutional Law, may create doubts on its commitment to the Covenant and, moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of International Law.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to article 7 of the Covenant. This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Botswana.

Objection Denmark, 04-10-2001

The Government of Denmark has examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of Botswana to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reservations refer to legislation in force in Botswana as regards the scope of application of two core provisions of the Covenant, Articles 7 and 12 para.3. The Government of Denmark considers that the reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to fulfill her obligations under the Covenant and are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
For these reasons, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations made by the Government of Botswana. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant in its entirety between Botswana and Denmark without Botswana benefiting from the reservations.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 09-10-2001

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Government of Botswana upon signature of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and confirmed upon ratification, regarding articles 7 and 12, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the said articles of the Covenant are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing legislation in Botswana.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that, in the absence of further clarification, these reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Botswana as to the object and purpose of the Covenant and would like to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all Parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Botswana to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Botswana.

Objection Spain, 09-10-2001

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation made on 16 December 2000 by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which makes its adherence to that article conditional by referring to the current content of Botswana's domestic legislation.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this reservation, by referring to domestic law, affects one of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Covenant (prohibition of torture, right to physical integrity), from which no derogation is permitted under article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. The Government of Spain also considers that the presentation of a reservation referring to domestic legislation, in the absence of further clarifications, raises doubts as to the degree of commitment assumed by the Republic of Botswana in becoming a party to the Covenant.
Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to article 7 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966.
This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Botswana.

Objection Ireland, 11-10-2001

The Government of Ireland have examined the reservations made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to Article 7 and to Article 12, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
These reservations invoke provisions of the internal law of the Republic of Botswana. The Government of Ireland are of the view that such reservations may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Furthermore, the Government of Ireland are of the view that such reservations may undermine the basis of international treaty law.
The Government of Ireland therefore object to the reservations made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to Article 7 and Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Covenant.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and the Republic of Botswana.

Objection Norway, 11-10-2001

The Government of Norway has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The reservation's reference to the national Constitution without further description of its contents, exempts the other States Parties to the Covenant from the possibility of assessing the effects of the reservation. In addition, as the reservation concerns two of the core provisions of the Covenant, it is the position of the Government of Norway that the reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. Norway therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Botswana.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Botswana. The Covenant thus becomes operative between Norway and Botswana without Botswana benefiting from the said reservation.

Objection France, 15-10-2001

The Government of the French Republic has studied Botswana's reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The purpose of the two reservations is to limit Botswana's commitment to articles 7 and 12, paragraph 3, of the Covenant to the extent to which these provisions are compatible with sections 7 and 14 of the Constitution of Botswana. The Government of the French Republic considers that the first reservation casts doubt upon Botswana's commitment and might nullify article 7 of the Covenant which prohibits in general terms torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Consequently, the Government of the French Republic objects to the Government of Botswana's reservation to article 7 of the Covenant.

Objection Austria, 17-10-2001

Austria has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana upon signature of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and confirmed upon ratification, regarding Articles 7 and 12 para. 3 of the Covenant.
The fact that Botswana is making the said articles subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing national legislation, in the absence of further clarification raises doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to the object and purpose of the Covenant. According to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. In Austria's view the reservation in question is therefore inadmissible to the extent that its application could negatively affect the compliance by Botswana with its obligations under Articles 7 and 12 para. 3 of the Covenant.
For these reasons, Austria objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant in its entirety between Botswana and Austria, without Botswana benefiting from its reservation.

Objection Italy, 20-12-2001

The Government of the Italian Republic has examined the reservations made by the Republic of Botswana upon signature of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and confirmed upon ratification, regarding articles 7 and 12, paragraph 3 of the Covenant.
The Government of the Italian Republic notes that the aforesaid articles of the Covenant are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of exisiting legislation in Botswana. The Government of the Italian Republic is of the view that, in the absence of further clarification, these reservations referring to international legislation raise doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to fulfill its obligation under the Covenant.
The Government of the Italian Republic considers these reservations to be incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Covenant according to article 19 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. These reservations do not fall within the rule of article 20, paragraph 5, and can be objected at any time.
Therefore, the Italian Government objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Republic of Botswana to the Covenant.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Italy and Botswana.

Bulgaria

21-09-1970

"The People's Republic of Bulgaria deems it necessary to underline that the provisions of article 48, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and article 26, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, under which a number of States are deprived of the opportunity to become parties to the Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature. These provisions are inconsistent with the very nature of the Covenants, which are universal in character and should be open for accession by all States. In accordance with the principle of sovereign equality, no State has the right to bar other States from becoming parties to a covenant of this kind."

12-05-1993

The Republic of Bulgaria declares that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

Cambodia

17-10-1980

Depositary communication.
Although Democratic Kampuchea had signed both [the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] on 17 October 1980) the Government of Cambodia deposited an instrument of accession to the said Covenants.

Objection Mongolia, 05-11-1980

The Government of the Mongolian People's Republic considers that only the People's Revolutionary Council of Kampuchea as the sole authentic and lawful representative of the Kampuchean people has the right to assume international obligations on behalf of the Kampuchean people. Therefore the Government of the Mongolian People's Republic considers that the signature of the Human Rights Covenants by the representative of the so-called Democratic Kampuchea, a régime that ceased to exist as a result of the people's revolution in Kampuchea, is null and void.
The signing of the Human Rights Covenants by an individual, whose régime during its short period of reign in Kampuchea had exterminated about 3 million people and had thus grossly violated the elementary norms of human rights, each and every provision of the Human Rights Covenants is a regrettable precedence, which discredits the noble aims and lofty principles of the United Nations Charter, the very spirit of the above-mentioned Covenants, gravely impairs the prestige of the United Nations.

Objection Germany, 11-12-1980

The Government of the German Democratic Republic considers that only the People's Revolutionary Council of Kampuchea as the sole authentic and lawful representative of the Kampuchean people has the right to assume international obligations on behalf of the Kampuchean people. Therefore the Government of the German Democratic Republic considers that the signature of the Human Rights Covenants by the representative of the so-called Democratic Kampuchea, a régime that ceased to exist as a result of the people's revolution in Kampuchea, is null and void.
The signing of the Human Rights Covenants by an individual, whose régime during its short period of reign in Kampuchea had exterminated about 3 million people and had thus grossly violated the elementary norms of human rights, each and every provision of the Human Rights Covenants is a regrettable precedence, which discredits the noble aims and lofty principles of the United Nations Charter, the very spirit of the above-mentioned Covenants, gravely impairs the prestige of the United Nations.

Objection Poland, 12-12-1980

The Government of Poland considers that only the People's Revolutionary Council of Kampuchea as the sole authentic and lawful representative of the Kampuchean people has the right to assume international obligations on behalf of the Kampuchean people. Therefore the Government of Poland considers that the signature of the Human Rights Covenants by the representative of the so-called Democratic Kampuchea, a régime that ceased to exist as a result of the people's revolution in Kampuchea, is null and void.
The signing of the Human Rights Covenants by an individual, whose régime during its short period of reign in Kampuchea had exterminated about 3 million people and had thus grossly violated the elementary norms of human rights, each and every provision of the Human Rights Covenants is a regrettable precedence, which discredits the noble aims and lofty principles of the United Nations Charter, the very spirit of the above-mentioned Covenants, gravely impairs the prestige of the United Nations.

Objection Ukraine, 16-12-1980

The Government of Ukraine considers that only the People's Revolutionary Council of Kampuchea as the sole authentic and lawful representative of the Kampuchean people has the right to assume international obligations on behalf of the Kampuchean people. Therefore the Government of Ukraine considers that the signature of the Human Rights Covenants by the representative of the so-called Democratic Kampuchea, a régime that ceased to exist as a result of the people's revolution in Kampuchea, is null and void.
The signing of the Human Rights Covenants by an individual, whose régime during its short period of reign in Kampuchea had exterminated about 3 million people and had thus grossly violated the elementary norms of human rights, each and every provision of the Human Rights Covenants is a regrettable precedence, which discredits the noble aims and lofty principles of the United Nations Charter, the very spirit of the above-mentioned Covenants, gravely impairs the prestige of the United Nations.

Objection Hungary, 19-01-1981

The Government of Hungary considers that only the People's Revolutionary Council of Kampuchea as the sole authentic and lawful representative of the Kampuchean people has the right to assume international obligations on behalf of the Kampuchean people. Therefore the Government of Hungary considers that the signature of the Human Rights Covenants by the representative of the so-called Democratic Kampuchea, a régime that ceased to exist as a result of the people's revolution in Kampuchea, is null and void.
The signing of the Human Rights Covenants by an individual, whose régime during its short period of reign in Kampuchea had exterminated about 3 million people and had thus grossly violated the elementary norms of human rights, each and every provision of the Human Rights Covenants is a regrettable precedence, which discredits the noble aims and lofty principles of the United Nations Charter, the very spirit of the above-mentioned Covenants, gravely impairs the prestige of the United Nations.

Objection Bulgaria, 29-01-1981

The Government of Bulgaria considers that only the People's Revolutionary Council of Kampuchea as the sole authentic and lawful representative of the Kampuchean people has the right to assume international obligations on behalf of the Kampuchean people. Therefore the Government of Bulgaria considers that the signature of the Human Rights Covenants by the representative of the so-called Democratic Kampuchea, a régime that ceased to exist as a result of the people's revolution in Kampuchea, is null and void.
The signing of the Human Rights Covenants by an individual, whose régime during its short period of reign in Kampuchea had exterminated about 3 million people and had thus grossly violated the elementary norms of human rights, each and every provision of the Human Rights Covenants is a regrettable precedence, which discredits the noble aims and lofty principles of the United Nations Charter, the very spirit of the above-mentioned Covenants, gravely impairs the prestige of the United Nations.

Objection Belarus, 18-02-1981

The Government of Belarus considers that only the People's Revolutionary Council of Kampuchea as the sole authentic and lawful representative of the Kampuchean people has the right to assume international obligations on behalf of the Kampuchean people. Therefore the Government of Belarus considers that the signature of the Human Rights Covenants by the representative of the so-called Democratic Kampuchea, a régime that ceased to exist as a result of the people's revolution in Kampuchea, is null and void.
The signing of the Human Rights Covenants by an individual, whose régime during its short period of reign in Kampuchea had exterminated about 3 million people and had thus grossly violated the elementary norms of human rights, each and every provision of the Human Rights Covenants is a regrettable precedence, which discredits the noble aims and lofty principles of the United Nations Charter, the very spirit of the above-mentioned Covenants, gravely impairs the prestige of the United Nations.

Objection Russian Federation, 18-02-1981

The Government of the Russian Federation considers that only the People's Revolutionary Council of Kampuchea as the sole authentic and lawful representative of the Kampuchean people has the right to assume international obligations on behalf of the Kampuchean people. Therefore the Government of the Russian Federation considers that the signature of the Human Rights Covenants by the representative of the so-called Democratic Kampuchea, a régime that ceased to exist as a result of the people's revolution in Kampuchea, is null and void.
The signing of the Human Rights Covenants by an individual, whose régime during its short period of reign in Kampuchea had exterminated about 3 million people and had thus grossly violated the elementary norms of human rights, each and every provision of the Human Rights Covenants is a regrettable precedence, which discredits the noble aims and lofty principles of the United Nations Charter, the very spirit of the above-mentioned Covenants, gravely impairs the prestige of the United Nations.

Objection Czechoslovakia (<01-01-1993), 10-03-1981

The Government of Czechoslovakia considers that only the People's Revolutionary Council of Kampuchea as the sole authentic and lawful representative of the Kampuchean people has the right to assume international obligations on behalf of the Kampuchean people. Therefore the Government of Czechoslovakia considers that the signature of the Human Rights Covenants by the representative of the so-called Democratic Kampuchea, a régime that ceased to exist as a result of the people's revolution in Kampuchea, is null and void.
The signing of the Human Rights Covenants by an individual, whose régime during its short period of reign in Kampuchea had exterminated about 3 million people and had thus grossly violated the elementary norms of human rights, each and every provision of the Human Rights Covenants is a regrettable precedence, which discredits the noble aims and lofty principles of the United Nations Charter, the very spirit of the above-mentioned Covenants, gravely impairs the prestige of the United Nations.

Canada

29-10-1979

The Government of Canada declares, under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the said Covenant to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Canada, made a declaration under article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself.

14-05-2014

The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Secretary-General's communication of 9 April 2014, numbered C.N.181.2014.TREATIES-IV.4, relating to that treaty.
The Permanent Mission of Canada notes that this communication was made pursuant to the Secretary General's capacity as Depositary for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Permanent Mission of Canada notes the technical and administrative role of the Depositary, and that it is for States Parties to a treaty, not the Depositary, to make their own determination with respect to any legal issues raised by instruments circulated by a depositary.
In that context, the Permanent Mission of Canada notes that 'Palestine' does not meet the criteria of a state under international law and is not recognized by Canada as a state. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the Permanent Mission of Canada wishes to note its position that in the context of the purported Palestinian accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 'Palestine' is not able to accede to this convention, and that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not enter into force, or have an effect on Canada's treaty relations, with respect to the 'State of Palestine'.

Chile

07-09-1990

As from the date of this instrument, the Government of Chile recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with article 41 thereof, with regard to all actions which may have been initiated since 11 March 1990.

25-03-2020

[…] pursuant to article 4 of the [International] Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on 18 March of this year, the President of the Republic of Chile, using the powers conferred on him under article 41 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile, declared a country-wide state of emergency, owing to a public disaster. This is in response to the worldwide spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, the effects of which have also been felt on the territory of Chile and which pose a health hazard. A copy of the relevant decree is attached.
The state of emergency allows for the adoption of a number of measures restricting freedom of assembly and movement, such as the establishment of quarantines or curfews, and also allows for the imposition of requisitions or other measures restricting the right to property.
The state of emergency also allows the Armed Forces to cooperate in order to face the crisis, and enables the appointment of national defence chiefs, who will assume command of the forces of law and order and public security in the corresponding areas, enforce law and order, and repair or prevent any damage or threat to national security, observing the instructions given by the President of the Republic and the health measures ordered by the competent authorities of the Ministry of Health.
By an express provision (article 44 of the Constitution), the actions of the executive branch remain subject to the checks and balances of the other branches of Government because its functioning is in no way altered by these measures. Furthermore, the exercise of individual fundamental rights continues to be protected by the courts (article 45, paragraph one of the Constitution), and its respect and promotion remain the duty of State bodies.
Thus, in order to protect the life, health and safety of the population, and in the context of the declaration of a state of emergency, the competent authorities, in accordance with the instructions given by the President of the Republic, have restricted the exercise of two rights set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: liberty of movement (article 12) and freedom of assembly (article 21). The text of the administrative instruments through which these restrictions have been imposed is attached.
As you know, the Government of Chile is fully committed to democracy, the respect for and promotion of human rights and the rule of law, as the pillars of social coexistence. The restrictions on the rights outlined above are fully in line with current international human rights conventions, because they are limited to what is strictly necessary to protect the life, health and safety of the population.
Those restrictions will be lifted as soon as normality is restored, and even before the end of the state of emergency, if possible.
Finally, it should be noted that the state of emergency will be in force for 90 days and came into effect at midnight on 19 March 2020; the President of the Republic may request its extension or a new declaration if the underlying circumstances persist. The National Congress may rescind the declaration 180 days from that date if the reasons behind the declaration no longer exist. However, the resident of the Republic may only declare a state of emergency for a period exceeding one year with the agreement of the National Congress.
[...]

18-06-2020

[…]
... the President of the Republic, using the powers conferred on him under article 41 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile, has extended for 90 days the state of emergency, owing to a public disaster, declared in the Chilean territory through Supreme Decree No. 104, of 18 March 2020, of the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, and its amendments. The foregoing is due to the persistence of the circumstances that led to the declaration of the said state of emergency, owing to a public disaster, given the spread and effects of the COVID-19 outbreak in the national territory, qualified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization.
Decree No. 269 of the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, extending the state of emergency, owing to a public disaster, issued on 12 June 2020 and published in the Official Gazette on 16 June 2020, and implementing concrete measures in the framework of the aforementioned regulation, is attached to this letter.
As reported in note No. [19/2020], of [25] March 2020, the state of emergency, owing to a public disaster, enables the adoption of a number of measures, including the restriction of meetings in public spaces, ensuring the distribution of basic goods and services, ordering the establishment of reserves of food and other goods necessary for the care and livelihood of the population, the issuance of measures for the protection of public utility services, and the limitation of transport or movement of persons as well as the establishment of quarantines or curfews. The latter measure may be adopted in accordance with the powers conferred on the Head of area under article 43 of the Constitution and article 5 of the Constitutional Organic Law No. 18.415 on the states of emergency, relating to the right to freedom of movement.
Furthermore, the extended state of emergency allows the Armed Forces to cooperate in order to face the crisis and provides for the appointment of national defence chiefs who will assume command of the forces of law and order and public security in the corresponding areas, being in charge of order and repairing or preventing any damage or threat to national security. The powers conferred on under this state of emergency and the corresponding specific measures will be adopted gradually, depending on the development of the virus, and the population will be informed accordingly in a timely manner.
Constitutional states of emergency are regulated by the Political Constitution of the Republic and the corresponding Constitutional Organic Law (COL No. 18.415).
Fundamental and human rights are safeguarded by express constitutional provision (articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 19 §26, 20, 21 and 45 of the Constitution). The respect and promotion thereof remain the duty of State bodies and the actions of the executive branch remain subject to the checks and balances of other branches of Government, whose functioning is in no way altered by these measures.
As you know, the Government of Chile is strongly committed to democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights, as the pillars of social coexistence. The above restrictions on the freedom of movement and right to assembly are fully in line with international human rights conventions currently in force, since they are limited to what is strictly necessary to protect the health and safety of the population of Chile and help combat the pandemic. Consequently, those restrictions will be lifted as soon as this situation ends.
[…]

17-09-2020

[…]
… the President of the Republic, using the powers conferred on him under article 41 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile, has considered necessary to extend for a further 90 days the constitutional state of emergency, owing to a public disaster, declared in the Chilean territory through Supreme Decree No. 104, of 18 March 2020, of the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, and its amendments. The foregoing is due to the persistence of the circumstances that led to the declaration of the said state of emergency, given the spread and effects of the COVID-19 outbreak in the national territory, qualified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization.
Decree No. 400 of the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, extending for the second time the declaration of the constitutional state of emergency, owing to a public disaster, issued on 10 September and published in the Official Gazette on 12 September 2020, and implementing concrete measures in the aforementioned regulatory framework, is attached to this letter.
As reported in notes No. 19 and No. 28 of 25 March and 18 June 2020, respectively, the constitutional state of emergency in question allows for the adoption of a number of measures, including the restriction of meetings in public spaces, ensuring the distribution of basic goods and services, ordering the establishment of reserves of food and other goods necessary for the care and livelihood of the population, the issuance of measures for the protection of public utility services, and the limitation of transport or movement of persons, as well as the establishment of quarantines or curfews. The latter measure, affecting the right to freedom of movement, may be adopted in accordance with the powers conferred on the Chief of area under article 43 of the Constitution and article 5 of the Constitutional Organic Law No. 18.415 on the states of emergency.
This exceptional regime also allows the Armed Forces to cooperate in order to face the crisis.
Consequently, the appointments of members of the Armed Forces as defence chiefs in each region of the country have been renewed for the same period of time.
Constitutional states of emergency are regulated by the Political Constitution of the Republic and the corresponding Constitutional Organic Law (COL No. 18.415).
Fundamental and human rights remain safeguarded by express constitutional provisions (articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 19 paragraph 26, 20, 21 and 45 of the Constitution). The respect and promotion thereof remain the duty of State bodies and the actions of the executive branch remain subject to the checks and balances of the other branches of the State, whose functioning is in no way altered by these measures.
It should be noted that the above restrictions on the freedom of movement and right to assembly are fully in line with the international human rights conventions in force, since they are limited to what is strictly necessary to protect the health and safety of the population of Chile and help combat the pandemic. Consequently, those restrictions will be lifted as soon as this situation ends.
[…]

15-12-2020

[…] the President of the Republic, using the powers conferred on him under article 41 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile, has considered necessary to extend for a further 90 days the constitutional state of emergency, owing to a public disaster, declared in the Chilean territory through Supreme Decree No. 104, of 18 March 2020, of the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, and its amendments. The foregoing is due to the persistence of the circumstances that led to the declaration of the said state of emergency, given the spread and effects of the COVID-19 outbreak in the national territory, qualified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization.
Decree No. 646 of the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, issued on 9 December 2020 and published in the Official Gazette on 12 December 2020, extending the state of emergency owing to a public disaster and implementing concrete steps pursuant to the aforementioned instruments, is attached.
As reported in note No. 19/20 of 25 March 2020, the constitutional state of emergency in question allows for the adoption of a number of measures, including the restriction of meetings in public spaces, ensuring the distribution of basic goods and services, ordering the establishment of reserves of food and other goods necessary for the care and livelihood of the population, the issuance of measures for the protection of public utility services, and the limitation of transport or movement of persons, as well as the establishment of quarantines or curfews. The latter measure, affecting the right to freedom of movement, may be adopted in accordance with the powers conferred on the Chief of area under article 43 of the Constitution and article 5 of the Constitutional Organic Law No. 18.415 on the states of emergency, which concern the right to freedom of movement.
The state of emergency also allows the Armed Forces to cooperate in order to face the crisis and calls for the appointment of defence chiefs. The defence chiefs are responsible for controlling the law enforcement and security forces in their respective areas and for maintaining law and order and identifying and preventing any harm or threat to national security. The powers allowing for the state of emergency and the corresponding specific measures will be adopted gradually, as the pandemic develops, and the population will be provided with timely information.
Constitutional states of emergency are regulated by the Political Constitution of the Republic and the corresponding Constitutional Organic Law (COL No. 18.415).
Fundamental and human rights remain safeguarded by express constitutional provisions (articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 19 paragraphs 26, 20, 21 and 45 of the Constitution). The respect and promotion thereof remain the duty of State bodies and the actions of the executive branch remain subject to the checks and balances of the other branches of the State, whose functioning is in no way altered by these measures.
As you know, the Government of Chile is fully committed to democracy, the rule of law and the defence of human rights, as the pillars of social coexistence. The above restrictions on the freedom of movement and right to assembly are fully in line with current international human rights conventions, because they are limited to what is strictly necessary to protect the health and safety of the population and help to combat the pandemic. Those restrictions will be lifted as soon as this situation ends.
[…]

China

05-10-1998

The signature that the Taiwain authorities affixed, by usurping the name of "China", to the [Convention] on 5 October 1967, is illegal and null and void.

03-12-1999

1. The application of the Covenant, and its article 1 in particular, to the Macao Special Administrative Region shall not affect the status of Macao as defined in the Joint Declaration and in the Basic Law.
2. The provisions of the Covenant which are applicable to the Macao Special Administrative Region shall be implemented in Macao through legislation of the Macao Special Administrative Region.
The residents of Macao shall not be restricted in the rights and freedoms that they are entitled to, unless otherwise provided for by law. In case of restrictions, they shall not contravene the provisions of the Covenant that are applicable to the Macao Special Administrative Region.
Within the above ambit, the Government of the People's Republic of China will assume the responsibility for the international rights and obligations that place on a Party to the Covenant.

Colombia

25-03-2020

In compliance with article 16 of Act No. 137 of 1994, regulating states of emergency in Colombia, and article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the Republic of Colombia through Act No. 74 of 1968, I have the honour to report on the issuance of the decrees listed below1 in connection with the declaration of an economic, social and ecological emergency throughout the territory of the Republic of Colombia, of which you were informed through Diplomatic Note No. 20-351-E of 19 March 2020. As reported, the state of emergency to address the COVID-19 crisis shall be in effect for 30 days from 17 March to 16 April 2020.
The preamble to Decree No. 417 of 20201, declaring an economic, social and ecological emergency in Colombia, sets out the conditions necessary for the adoption of the extraordinary measure, namely:
- Paragraph 1 “Factual basis”.
- Paragraph 2 “Assessed basis”.
- Paragraph 3 “Justification for the declaration of a state of emergency”.
To date, the following decrees have been issued:
DECREES ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DECLARATION OF AN ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ECOLOGICAL EMERGENCY - DECREE NO. 417 OF 17 MARCH 2020
1. DECREE NO. 434 OF 19 MARCH 2020 – setting special deadlines for the renewal of commercial registration and registration with the Unified National Register of Payment Order Operators (RUNEOL) and other registers that make up the Single Business and Social Register (RUES), as well as for general meetings of stockholders and other collegiate bodies, to mitigate the economic effects of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in the national territory.
2. DECREE NO. 438 OF 19 MARCH 2020 – setting out transitional tax measures under the state of economic, social and ecological emergency, in accordance with Decree No. 417 of 2020.
3. DECREE NO. 439 OF 20 MARCH 2020 – suspending the disembarkation for the purposes of entry or connection in Colombian territory of passengers coming from abroad, by air.
4. DECREE NO. 440 OF 20 MARCH 2020 – setting out emergency measures concerning public procurement, as a result of the state of economic, social and ecological emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
5. DECREE NO. 441 OF 20 MARCH 2020 – setting out provisions concerning water supply, sewerage and sanitation to address the state of economic, social and ecological emergency declared through Decree No. 417 of 2020.
6. DECREE NO. 444 OF 21 MARCH 2020 – creating the Emergency Mitigation Fund (FOME) and setting out provisions regarding resources, under the state of economic, social and ecological emergency.
7. DECREE NO. 458 OF 22 MARCH 2020 – setting out measures for poor households throughout the national territory, under the state of economic, social and ecological emergency.
8. DECREE NO. 460 OF 22 MARCH 2020 – setting out measures for the provision of services by family protection units, under the state of economic, social and ecological emergency.
9. DECREE NO. 461 OF 22 MARCH 2020 – temporarily authorizing governors and mayors to redirect income and reduce rates of territorial taxes, under the economic, social and ecological emergency declared by Decree No. 417 of 2020.
10. DECREE NO. 464 OF 23 MARCH 2020 – setting out measures to address the economic, social and ecological emergency situation declared through Decree No. 417 of 2020.
11. DECREE NO. 467 OF 23 MARCH 2020 – setting out emergency measures concerning aid for beneficiaries of the Colombian Institute of Educational Credit and Technical Studies Abroad (ICETEX), under the state of economic, social and ecological emergency.
12. DECREE NO. 468 OF 23 MARCH 2020 – authorizing new transactions for the Financiera de Desarrollo Territorial S.A. (Territorial Development Bank) (Findeter) and the Banco de Comercio Exterior de Colombia S.A. (Foreign Trade Bank of Colombia) (Bancoldex), under the economic, social and ecological emergency declared through Decree No. 417 of 2020.
13. DECREE NO. 469 OF 23 MARCH 2020 – setting out a measure to ensure the continuation of the functions of the constitutional court, under the state of economic, social and ecological emergency.
In the light of the aforementioned decrees, I have the honour to report that the Government of Colombia has the power to temporarily suspend articles 12, 13, 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as permitted under article 4 and the aforementioned articles of the instrument.

20-04-2020

In compliance with article 16 of Act No. 137 of 1994, regulating states of emergency in Colombia, and article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, approved by the Republic of Colombia through Act No. 74 of 1968, I have the honour to inform you that, with effect from Thursday, 16 April 2020, Decree No. 417 of 17 March 2020 has expired. Through the said decree, the Government of Colombia declared a state of economic, social and ecological emergency throughout the country for thirty (30) days, in order to address the COVID-19 crisis.
I should be grateful for your good offices in transmitting this note to the other States parties to the Covenant, in follow-up to note No. 20-351-E, whereby the entry into force of Decree No. 417 of 17 March 2020 was notified, and which was sent to your Office by the Government of Colombia on 19 March 2020.
The decrees related to the state of emergency that were issued by the President of the Republic of Colombia during the effective period of Decree No. 417 of 2020 can be consulted at the following links: […]
[Links to the aforementioned decrees of the Republic of Colombia are available on the UNTC website, document Reference: C.N.141.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 (Depositary Notification).]
[…]

07-05-2020

05-06-2020

In compliance with article 16 of Act No. 137 of 1994, regulating states of emergency in Colombia, and the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, approved by the Republic of Colombia through Act No. 74 of 1968, I have the honour to inform you that, as of 4 June 2020, Decree 637 of 6 May 2020 has expired. Through the said decree, the Government of Colombia declared a state of economic, social and ecological emergency throughout the national territory for thirty (30) days, in order to address the COVID-19 crisis.
I should be grateful for your good offices in transmitting this note to the other States parties to the Covenant, in follow-up to letter 20-497-E, whereby the entry into force of Decree 637 of 6 May 2020 was notified, and which was sent to your Office by the Government of Colombia on 7 May 2020.
The decrees issued by the President of the Republic of Colombia relating to the state of emergency, while Decree 637 of 2020 was in effect, can be consulted at the following links:
https://dapre.presidencia.gov.co/normativa/decretos-2020/decretos-mayo-2020 https://dapre.presidencia.gov.co/normativa/decretos-2020/decretos-iunio-2020
[…]

Croatia

12-10-1995

The Government of the Republic of Croatia declares under article 41 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that the Republic of Croatia recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Cuba

28-02-2008

The Republic of Cuba hereby declares that it was the Revolution that enabled its people to enjoy the rights set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America and its policy of hostility and aggression against Cuba constitute the most serious obstacle to the Cuban people's enjoyment of the rights set out in the Covenant.
The rights protected under this Covenant are enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic and in national legislation.
The State's policies and programmes guarantee the effective exercise and protection of these rights for all Cubans.
With respect to the scope and implementation of some of the provisions of this international instrument, Cuba will make such reservations or interpretative declarations as it may deem appropriate.

Czech Republic

22-02-1993

[The Czech and Slovak Federal Republic] recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established on the basis of article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

Czechoslovakia (<01-01-1993)

12-03-1991

Democratic People's Republic of Korea

12-11-1997

Depositary communication.
On 25 August 1997, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea a notification of withdrawal from the Covenant, dated 23 August 1997.
As the Covenant does not contain a withdrawal provision, the Secretariat of the United Nations forwarded on 23 September 1997 an aide-mémoire to the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea explaining the legal position arising from the above notification.
As elaborated in this aide-mémoire, the Secretary-General is of the opinion that a withdrawal from the Covenant would not appear possible unless all States Parties to the Covenant agree with such a withdrawal.

Denmark

06-01-1972

1.The Government of Denmark makes a reservation in respect of Article 10, paragraph 3, second sentence. In Danish practice, considerable efforts are made to ensure appropriate age distribution of convicts serving sentences of imprisonment, but it is considered valuable to maintain possibilities of flexible arrangements.
2. (a). Article 14, paragraph 1, shall not be binding on Denmark in respect of public hearings. In Danish law, the right to exclude the press and the public from trials may go beyond what is permissible under this Covenant, and the Government of Denmark finds that this right should not be restricted.
(b). Article 14, paragraphs 5 and 7, shall not be binding on Denmark.
The Danish Administration of Justice Act contains detailed provisions regulating the matters dealt with in these two paragraphs. In some cases, Danish legislation is less restrictive than the Covenant (e.g. a verdict returned by a jury on the question of guilt cannot be reviewed by a higher tribunal, cf. paragraph 5); in other cases, Danish legislation is more restrictive than the Coven ant (e.g. with respect to resumption of a criminal case in which the accused party was acquitted, cf. paragraph 7).
3. Reservation is further made to Article 20, paragraph 1. This reservation is in accordance with the vote cast by Denmark in the XVI General Assembly of the United Nations in 1961 when the Danish Delegation, referring to the preceding article concerning freedom of expression, voted against the prohibition against propaganda for war.

19-04-1983

[The Government of Denmark] recognizes, in accordance with article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature in New York on December 19, 1966, the competence of the Committee referred to in article 41 to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

02-04-2014

Modification of reservation made at ratification to Article 14, paragraphs 5 and 7:
b) (i) Article 14, paragraph 5, shall be applied in such a manner that:
- An unlimited right to appeal does not have to be instituted in cases where the conviction concerns a minor offence and the sentence imposed is a fine and/or confiscation below a certain amount to be laid down by law.
- A right to a further appeal does not have to be instituted in cases where the accused person, having been acquitted by a lower court, is convicted for the first time by a higher court hearing an appeal of the acquittal.
- A right to appeal does not have to be instituted in criminal proceedings against a Member of Government or any other person brought before the High Court of the Realm (Rigsretten).
(ii) Article 14, paragraph 7, shall be applied in such a manner that criminal proceedings which led to a final conviction or acquittal may be reopened in certain circumstances to be laid down by law.

Dominican Republic

25-06-2020

... on behalf of the Dominican Government, that owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government declared a state of emergency on 19 March 2020 through Decree No. 134-20, as authorized by the National Congress in resolution No. 62-20, of the same date, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Dominican Republic and Act No. 21-18 of 25 May 2018 on the regulation of the states of emergency contemplated. Given the prevailing circumstances, it has been necessary to extend the said state of emergency until 27 June 2020.
This notification is being made pursuant to article 17 of the above-mentioned Act No. 21-18, which provides as follows: “Once the state of emergency has been declared, and if it provides for a suspension of guarantees, the other States parties to the duly ratified international human rights treaties referred to in this Act shall be informed immediately, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States, respectively, of the legal provisions whose application has been suspended and the reasons for such suspension. Similar communications shall be made once the suspension is terminated.” Likewise, the international human rights treaties ratified by the Dominican State are taken into consideration, and the fact that at least one of the fundamental rights, the right to freedom of movement, association and assembly, is affected by the aforementioned state of emergency.
In this regard, I wish to inform you, for all pertinent purposes, of the temporary restrictions on the following rights:
(a) Freedom of movement, enshrined in article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 15 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
(b) Freedom of association, enshrined in article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
(c) Right of assembly, enshrined in article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The executive branch, headed by His Excellency Mr. Danilo Medina Sánchez, President of the Republic, in collaboration with the other powers of the State, is doing its utmost efforts to contain the spread of the aforementioned pandemic, assuring that the declared state of emergency will be of the shortest duration possible.
[…]

31-07-2020

... on behalf of the Dominican Government, that owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government declared a state of emergency on 20 July 2020 through Decrees No. 265-20 and No. 266-20, as authorized by the National Congress in resolution No. 70-20, of the 19 July 2020, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Dominican Republic and Act No. 21-18 of 25 May 2018 on the regulation of the states of emergency. The state of emergency was declared for a period of 45 days, starting on 20 July 2020.
This notification is being made pursuant to article 17 of the above-mentioned Act No. 21-18, which provides as follows: “Once the state of emergency has been declared, and if it provides for a suspension of guarantees, the other States parties to the duly ratified international human rights treaties referred to in this Act shall be informed immediately, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States, respectively, of the legal provisions whose application has been suspended and the reasons for such suspension. Similar communications shall be made once the suspension is terminated.” Likewise, the international human rights treaties ratified by the Dominican State are taken into consideration, and the fact that at least one of the fundamental rights, the right to freedom of movement, association and assembly, is affected by the aforementioned state of emergency.
In this regard, I wish to inform you, for all pertinent purposes, of the temporary restrictions on the following rights:
(a) Freedom of movement, enshrined in article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 15 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
(b) Freedom of association, enshrined in article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
(c) Right of assembly, enshrined in article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The executive branch, headed by His Excellency Mr. Danilo Medina Sánchez, President of the Republic, in collaboration with the other powers of the State, is doing its utmost efforts to contain the spread of the aforementioned pandemic, assuring that the declared state of emergency will be of the shortest duration possible.
[…]

08-09-2020

…, on behalf of the Dominican Government, that owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government extended the state of emergency on 1 September 2020 through Decree No. 431-20, as authorized by the National Congress in resolution No. 221-20, of 28 August 2020, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Dominican Republic and Act No. 21-18 of 25 May 2018 on the regulation of the states of emergency. The state of emergency was extended for a period of twenty-five days, starting on 3 September 2020.
This notification is being made pursuant to article 17 of the above-mentioned Act No. 21-18, which provides as follows: “Once the state of emergency has been declared, and if it provides for a suspension of guarantees, the other States parties to the duly ratified international human rights treaties referred to in this Act shall be informed immediately, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States, respectively, of the legal provisions whose application has been suspended and the reasons for such suspension. Similar communications shall be made once the suspension is terminated.” Likewise, the international human rights treaties ratified by the Dominican State are taken into consideration, and the fact that at least one of the fundamental rights, the right to freedom of movement, association and assembly, is affected by the aforementioned state of emergency.
In this regard, I wish to inform you, for all pertinent purposes, of the temporary restrictions on the following rights:
(a) Freedom of movement enshrined in article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 15 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
(b) Freedom of association, enshrined in article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
(c) Right of assembly, enshrined in article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The executive branch, headed by His Excellency Mr. Luís Abinader, President of the Republic, in collaboration with the other powers of the State, is doing its utmost efforts to contain the spread of the aforementioned pandemic, assuring that the declared state of emergency will be of the shortest duration possible.
[…]

05-02-2021

…, on behalf of the Government of the Dominican Republic, that, on 20 July 2020, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and through Decree No. 265-20, as authorized by the National Congress in resolution No. 70-20 of 19 July 2020, in accordance with the Constitution of the Dominican Republic and Act No. 21-18 of 25 May 2018, which regulates the different types of states of emergency, the Government had deemed it necessary to declare a state of emergency for a period of 45 days, starting on 20 July 2020.
That state of emergency has been extended as follows:
- By Decree No. 430-20 of 1 September 2020, as authorized by the National Congress in resolution No. 221-20 of 28 August 2020, the state of emergency was extended for a period of 45 days, starting on 3 September 2020;
- By Decree No. 553-20 of 15 October 2020, as authorized by the National Congress in resolution No. 228-20 of 14 October 2020, the state of emergency was extended for a period of 45 days, starting on 18 October 2020;
- By Decree No. 683-20 of 30 November 2020, as authorized by the National Congress in resolution No. 235-20 of 27 November 2020, the state of emergency was extended for a period of 45 days, starting on 2 December 2020;
- By Decree No. 6-21 of 8 January 2021, as authorized by the National Congress in resolution No. 2-21 of 7 January 2021, the state of emergency was extended for a period of 45 days, starting on 16 January 2021.
This notification is being made pursuant to article 17 of the above-mentioned Act No. 21-18, which provides as follows: “Once a state of emergency has been declared, and if it provides for a suspension of guarantees, the other States parties to the duly ratified international human rights treaties referred to in this Act shall be informed immediately, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States, respectively, of the legal provisions whose application has been suspended and the reasons for such suspension. Similar notifications shall be sent once the suspension has been lifted.” Based on the international human rights treaties ratified by the Dominican Republic, at least one of the fundamental rights – the right to freedom of movement, association and assembly – is affected by the state of emergency.
I therefore wish to inform you, for all pertinent purposes, that temporary restrictions have been placed on the following rights:
(a) Liberty of movement, as enshrined in article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 15 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women;
(b) Freedom of association, as enshrined in article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;
(c) Right of assembly, as enshrined in article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The executive branch, headed by His Excellency Mr. Luis Abinader, President of the Republic, in collaboration with the other branches of Government, is doing its utmost to contain the pandemic and gives its assurances that the state of emergency will be of the shortest duration possible.
[…]

10-05-2021

…, on behalf of the Government of the Dominican Republic, that, on 14 April 2021, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and through Decree No. 230-21, as authorized by the National Congress in resolution No. 112-21 of 13 April 2021, in accordance with the Constitution of the Dominican Republic and Act No. 21-18 of 25 May 2018, which regulates the different types of states of emergency, the Government had deemed it necessary to extend the state of emergency in the national territory for a period of forty-five days, starting on 16 April 2021.
This notification is being made pursuant to article 17 of the above-mentioned Act No. 21-18, which provides as follows: “Once a state of emergency has been declared, and if it provides for a suspension of guarantees, the other States parties to the duly ratified international human rights treaties referred to in this Act shall be informed immediately, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States, respectively, of the legal provisions whose application has been suspended and the reasons for such suspension. Similar notifications shall be sent once the suspension has been lifted.” Based on the international human rights treaties ratified by the Dominican Republic, at least one of the fundamental rights – the right to freedom of movement, association and assembly – is affected by the aforementioned state of emergency.
I therefore wish to inform you¸ for all pertinent purposes, that temporary restrictions have been placed on the following rights:
(a) Liberty of movement, as enshrined in article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 15 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women;
(b) Freedom of association, as enshrined in article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
(c) Right of assembly, as enshrined in article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The executive branch, headed by His Excellency Mr. Luis Abinader, President of the Republic, in collaboration with the other branches of Government, is doing its utmost to contain the pandemic and gives its assurances that the state of emergency will be of the shortest duration possible.
[…]

09-06-2021

…, on behalf of the Government of the Dominican Republic, that, on 26 May 2021, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and through Decree No. 345-21, as authorized by the National Congress in resolution No. 117-21 of 26 May 2021, in accordance with the Constitution of the Dominican Republic and Act No. 21-18 of 25 May 2018, which regulates the different types of states of emergency, the Government had deemed it necessary to extend the state of emergency in the national territory for a period of forty-five days, starting on 30 May 2021.
This notification is being made pursuant to article 17 of the above-mentioned Act No. 21-18, which provides as follows: “Once a state of emergency has been declared, and if it provides for a suspension of guarantees, the other States parties to the duly ratified international human rights treaties referred to in this Act shall be informed immediately, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States, respectively, of the legal provisions whose application has been suspended and the reasons for such suspension. Similar notifications shall be sent once the suspension has been lifted.” Based on the international human rights treaties ratified by the Dominican Republic, at least one of the fundamental rights – the right to freedom of movement, association and assembly – is affected by the aforementioned state of emergency.
I therefore wish to inform you¸ for all pertinent purposes, that temporary restrictions have been placed on the following rights:
(a) Liberty of movement, as enshrined in article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
(b) Freedom of association, as enshrined in article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
(c) Right of assembly, as enshrined in article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The executive branch, headed by His Excellency Mr. Luis Abinader, President of the Republic, in collaboration with the other branches of Government, is doing its utmost to contain the pandemic and gives its assurances that the state of emergency will be of the shortest duration possible.
[…]

Ecuador

06-08-1984

The Government of Ecuador recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the aforementioned Covenant, as provided for in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of that article.
This recognition of competence is effective for an indefinite period and is subject to the provisions of article 41, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

24-03-2020

[…] that the Government of the Republic of Ecuador, on the basis of the powers conferred on it under the Constitution of the Republic, has declared by Executive Decree No. 1017, of 16 March 2020, a state of emergency throughout the national territory, “in the light of the confirmed cases of coronavirus and the announcement of a COVID-19 pandemic by the World Health Organization, posing a high risk of contagion for all citizens and affecting the rights to health and to peaceful coexistence in the State, and in order to control the health emergency, thereby ensuring the rights of persons in the face of the imminent presence of the COVID-19 virus in Ecuador”. That state of emergency will remain in effect for 60 days following the signature of the Executive Decree.
The Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations notifies that that Executive Decree No. 1017 has suspended the following rights set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: article 12, paragraphs 1 and 3 (liberty of movement), article 21 (right of assembly); and article 22, paragraphs 1 and 2 (freedom of association).
In accordance with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations respectfully requests the Secretariat to inform all States parties to the Covenant of the above-mentioned suspensions.
[…]

17-06-2020

[…] to make reference to note verbale No. 4-2-27/2020, of 18 March 2020, and note verbale No. 4-2-42/2020, of 16 May 2020, concerning Executive Decrees No. 1017 and No. 1052, through which the state of emergency was declared and extended, respectively, throughout the national territory.
In this regard, the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations wishes to inform that, on the basis of the powers conferred on it by the Constitution of the Republic, the Government of Ecuador has declared, by Executive Decree No. 1074, of 15 June 2020, the state of emergency for sixty days “owing to the nationwide public disaster, the presence of COVID-19 in Ecuador and to the economic emergency resulting from the health emergency the Ecuadorian State is experiencing, in order to be able, on the one hand, to continue containing the disease through exceptional measures necessary to mitigate its massive contagion; and, on the other hand, to establish emerging mechanisms that enable to address the economic recession as well as the fiscal crisis, and to generate the foundations to initiate the economic recovery process of the Ecuadorian State”.
The Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations notifies that Executive Decree No. 1074 has suspended the following rights set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: article 12, paragraphs 1 and 3 (liberty of movement), article 21 (right of assembly); and, article 22, paragraphs 1 and 2 (freedom of association).
In accordance with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations respectfully requests the Secretariat to inform all States parties to this international instrument accordingly.
[…]

23-12-2020

[...] that the Government of the Republic of Ecuador, based on the powers conferred by the Constitution of the Republic, issued Executive Decree No. 1217 on 21 December 2020, declaring a 30-day state of emergency “owing to the nationwide public disaster resulting from the sharp uptick in the number of cases of the coronavirus disease pandemic (COVID-19) attributable to gatherings and exposure to a more deadly mutation of the virus imported from the United Kingdom, in order to contain the spread of the virus and its negative consequences on public health”.
The Permanent Mission of Ecuador wishes to inform the Secretariat that the following rights set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been suspended through Executive Decree No. 1052: liberty of movement (article 12, paragraphs 1 and 3), freedom of assembly (article 21); and freedom of association (article 22, paragraphs 1 and 2).
In accordance with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations respectfully requests the Secretariat to inform all the States parties to the Covenant accordingly.
[…]

19-01-2021

The Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretariat and has the honour to refer to Note No. 4-2-136/2020 of 23 December 2020, requesting, in accordance with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that the States parties to the Covenant be informed of the state of emergency declared by the Government of Ecuador through Executive Decree No. 1217, dated 21 December 2020.
In that regard, the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations wishes to inform the Secretariat that, by Decision No. 7-20-EE/20, the Constitutional Court (“Corte Constitucional”), in plenary session, declared the aforementioned Executive Decree unconstitutional. As a result, Executive Decree No. 1217 has been repealed.
The Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations would be grateful if the Secretariat could inform the States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights accordingly.
[...]

05-04-2021

... that the Government of the Republic of Ecuador, on the basis of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution of the Republic, has issued Executive Decree No. 1282, whereby a state of emergency has been declared in eight provinces (Azuay, El Oro, Esmeraldas, Guayas, Loja, Manabí, Pichincha and Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas), owing to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.
Executive Decree No. 1282 shall enter into force, upon signature, on 1 April 2021, for 30 days.
The Permanent Mission of Ecuador wishes to inform the Secretariat that the following rights set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been suspended through Executive Decree No. 1282: liberty of movement (article 12, paragraphs 1 and 3); freedom of assembly (article 21); and freedom of association (article 22, paragraphs 1 and 2).
In accordance with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Ecuador respectfully requests the Secretariat to inform all the States parties to the Covenant accordingly.
[...]

23-04-2021

… that the Government of the Republic of Ecuador, on the basis of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution of the Republic, has issued Executive Decree No. 1291, declaring “a state of emergency from 8 p.m. on 23 April 2021 until 11.59 p.m. on 20 May 2021, owing to the public disaster in the provinces of Azuay, Imbabura, Loja, Manabí, Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas, Guayas, Pichincha, Los Ríos, Esmeraldas, Santa Elena, Tungurahua, Carchi, Cotopaxi, Zamora Chinchipe, El Oro and Sucumbíos; and owing to the rapid spread and impact among groups requiring priority care of the new variants of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The Government took that measure also owing to social disorder in the aforementioned provinces as a result of the saturation of the health system and shortage of the medicines and medical supplies necessary for urgent treatment of the disease because of the worsening of the pandemic in the aforementioned provinces of Ecuador, in order to mitigate and reduce the rate of the spread and decongest the public health system in relation to COVID-19 care provision”.
In article 5, the Government declared a “curfew in the provinces of Azuay, Imbabura, Loja, Manabí, Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas, Guayas, Pichincha, Los Ríos, Esmeraldas, Santa Elena, Tungurahua, Carchi, Cotopaxi, Zamora Chinchipe, El Oro and Sucumbíos, which shall come into effect from 23 April 2021, as follows: from Monday to Thursday, the curfew shall begin at 8 p.m. and end at 5 a.m.; on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, an absolute restriction on movement shall be applied through an uninterrupted curfew, beginning at 8 p.m. on Friday and ending at 5 a.m. on Monday”. Pursuant to the same article, a group of persons and activities are exempt from the aforementioned restriction.
In compliance with the obligation to supply the necessary information, the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations wishes to inform the Secretariat that the following rights set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been suspended through Executive Decree No. 1291: liberty of movement (article 12, paragraphs 1 and 3), right of assembly (article 21); and freedom of association (article 22, paragraphs 1 and 2).
In accordance with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Ecuador respectfully requests the Secretariat to inform all the States parties to the Covenant accordingly.
[…]

29-07-2021

... that the Government of the Republic of Ecuador, based on the powers conferred by the Constitution of the Republic, issued Executive Decree No. 140 declaring a state of emergency in the province of El Oro and the city of Guayaquil, owing to the situation caused by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the detection of the Delta and Delta Plus K417N (AY.1) variants.
Executive Decree No. 140 renews the state of emergency declared through Executive Decree No. 116 of 14 July 2021, which was in force from 14 July until 28 July 2021. Both decrees are attached for filing with the Secretariat. The state of emergency renewed through Executive Decree No. 140 shall be in force from 29 July 2021 at midnight until 27 August 2021 at 11.59 p.m.
The Permanent Mission of Ecuador duly informs the Secretariat that the following rights set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been suspended through Executive Decree No. 140: freedom of movement (article 12, paragraphs 1 and 3), freedom of assembly (article 21) and inviolability of the home (article 17.1).
In accordance with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations respectfully requests the Secretariat to inform all the States parties to the Covenant accordingly.
[...]

Egypt

14-01-1982

[...] Taking into consideration the provisions of the Islamic Sharia and the fact that they do not conflict with the text annexed to the instrument, we accept, support and ratify it [...].

El Salvador

14-04-2020

[…] based on the obligation established in article 4, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Republic of El Salvador informed that, since March 14th of this current year, the Legislative Assembly has declared a national state of emergency, public calamity and disaster, for a period of 30 days, due to the imminent risk of the evolving COVID-19 pandemic.
In order to meet the specific requirements provided by the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, I would like to bring to your attention the following information that consolidates the most important issues that were outlined in the aforementioned letters:
- The Republic of El Salvador reaffirms the importance of the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and the recognition of the inherent dignity, equal and inalienable rights of all humans as a foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
- In this sense, article one of the Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador states that: ‘El Salvador recognizes the individual as the source and object of the activity of the State, which is organized for the attainment of justice, legal security and the common good’ (first paragraph).
Furthermore, article 65 establishes that health of the inhabitants of the Republic constitutes a common good, therefore the State and the people are obligated to safeguard its conservation and restoration.
- In light of the statement from the World Health Organization (WHO) that declared COVID- 19 pandemic, my Government committed to adopt the appropriate measures in order to reassure the protection of this fundamental right within its territory from any internal or external risks.
- On that basis and in view of international obligations, the Republic of El Salvador informed - through letter dated 26th March - that the Legislative Assembly had declared a national state of emergency, public calamity and disaster for a period of 30 days, effective since March 14th, due to the imminent risk of COVID-19 pandemic.
- The aforesaid provision is regulated in Legislative Decree No. 593, published in Official Journal No. 52, Volume 426 of 14 March 2020, which inter alia states that:
a) The Ministry of Health will execute all necessary actions in order to implement the National Plan of Prevention, Containment and Response to the COVID-19 pandemic, therefore it should provide the necessary public services to avoid its spread among the inhabitants of the Republic;
b) Any natural person, whatever their means of transport, should limit their circulation among affected areas which are properly identified by the sanitary cordons;
c) Crowd gatherings are prohibited and so are any public entertainment events, meetings or events that might put into risk the health of the inhabitants;
d) Salvadoran Consumer Protection Authority must control the prices set upon any article, goods and services that are related to the prevention, treatment, containment and attention to the COVID-19 pandemic in order to avoid any illegal hoarding upon them;
e) The Ministry of Health will provide medical examination, with trained and qualified personnel, to any suspected person who might show symptoms of the disease, anyone who has been exposed or tested positive for COVID-19. In this case, the Ministry has the responsibility to appoint this person into a compulsory quarantine according to the international health standards.
f) Quarantine facilities and centers must guard proper health conditions and infrastructure in order to provide medical assistance with dignity to everyone who is in them, considering their physical and mental health.
- Additionally, Executive Decree No. 12 emitted by the Ministry of Health, published in Official Journal No. 59, volume 426 of 21 March 2020, establishes extraordinary measures of prevention and containment of COVID-19 such as: a) the recognition of all national territory as an area subject to health inspection; b) Limitation of the freedom of movement to any natural person due to the rapidly evolving risk of the COVID-19, except those who gather the specific conditions defined within the provisions of the aforementioned Decree;
c) A list of legal persons that are considered as an exception to such prohibition as long as their activities are focused to satisfy the need and health of all inhabitants: textile industry, call centers focused on supermarket home delivery schemes, food delivery, airline services, electricity, bank, financial and medical services; security and transport services.
- On 29th March 2020, the Legislative Assembly voted on a new Law on the Temporary Restriction of Specific Constitutional Rights due to the imminent risk of the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar to the aforesaid Legislative Decree No. 593, this norm expressed in a more detailed manner that the temporary restriction will remain in force for 15 days, meaning its application will be lifted on 13th April 2020.
- According to these new provisions, the temporary restriction applies on the following fundamental rights: 1) freedom of transit, 2) the right to assemble peacefully without arms for lawful ends, and 3) the right of not being forced to change domicile or residence.
- The respect of International Law on Human Rights, in particular, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights is essential to fully accomplish these provisions; therefore, the Republic of El Salvador acknowledges that such temporary restriction can only be executed within the context of the emergency declared due to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic situation and on the instruction of several principles, specifically, the principle of notification which compels the Government to notify immediately the Secretary-General of the United Nations and Secretary-General of the Organization of American States (OAS) about the circumstances relating to the restriction of rights protected under international human rights law.
- Furthermore, the new provisions rule other important principles to be accomplished when applying such restriction: principle of non-discrimination, proportionality, temporality, exceptional threat, necessity, legality, good faith, accountability of State officials, and legal reservation.
- Finally, as for the institutional framework that is created within this exceptional state of emergency, the aforementioned Law commends the Government to elaborate a protocol of integral application that guarantees the accomplishment of all provisions enclosed in such norm. In this regard, institutions such as the National Civil Police, Office of the Procurator for the Protection of Human Rights; Armed Forces and the General Inspectorate of Public Security will undertake functions in order to provide order and safety to all inhabitants and strictly supervise the respect of human rights.
In view of the foregoing, as provided in article 4, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Republic of El Salvador wishes to avail itself the right of temporarily derogate its obligation under article 12 (the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence) and article 21 (the right of peaceful assembly) of the aforementioned treaty, due to the provisional measures that are being adopted by our Government related to the prevention, treatment, containment and attention to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic. Such temporary restriction will obey the legal deadlines defined by the decrees that were referenced above.
However, rest assure that El Salvador is highly committed to the protection of human dignity, even in the amid of these extraordinary circumstances. My Government recognizes that the international community is facing challenging times; so, it is now, more than ever, when States must focus all their efforts in reassuring the protection of human and fundamental rights in light of this pandemic.
The Government of the Republic of El Salvador reaffirms its willingness to maintain the respect of international law and human rights principles; therefore, it is our highest interest to respect all other fundamental rights and to inform you about subsequent provisions that will be adopted in this matter.
[...]

16-04-2020

I have the honour to write to you in reference to my letters dated 26 and 31 March and 14 April 2020, in which I notified you of the national state of emergency, public calamity and natural disaster that the Republic of El Salvador declared over its national territory, and of the corresponding measures limiting certain constitutional rights, in order to prevent, address and control the risk and imminent impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Republic of El Salvador hereby wishes to report that pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 622, dated 12 April 2020, published on the same date in Official Gazette No. 73, Volume No. 427, the validity of Decree No. 593, on the national state of emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, has been extended. The extension was approved for a further four days; therefore, its legal effects shall expire on 16 April 2020.
In this regard, during the legally determined period indicated above, the restrictions on certain constitutional rights, such as: freedom of movement, the right to assemble peacefully without arms for lawful ends, and the right of not being forced to change domicile or residence, shall remain in force.
In addition, under Decree No. 19 emitted by the Ministry of Health on 13 April 2020, the special prevention and containment measures taken to declare the national territory as an area subject to health control, in order to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, are reinforced. The measures extended include the following:
- The declaration of the entire national territory as an epidemic area subject to health control in order to contain the impact and prevent the spread of COVID-19;
- A mandatory stay-at-home order for everybody except those defined in the aforementioned decree, such as: persons who need to buy groceries, who may only go out up to twice a week; persons going to work in the cases permitted under Decree No. 19, namely, public employees working in the health, economic, agricultural and livestock sectors, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Office of the President of the Republic, the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, the Fire Department, the Solidarity Fund for Health, the Civil Aviation Authority, among others; employees in the transportation sector, companies in the food industry, the financial sector, and other bodies defined in the said decree.
- The prohibition of entry into the national territory of any person who visited or travelled from a foreign country during a period of thirty days prior to arrival in El Salvador, except for Salvadorans by birth or naturalization, resident aliens, members of a diplomatic mission and consular office accredited in the country, and their family members, who will be evaluated by the International Health Office to determine the health measures that should be taken, in accordance with the respective protocols.
- The mandatory use of masks for persons authorized to circulate within the national territory.
Furthermore, Executive Decree No. 20, dated 13 April 2020, was also approved, specifying the conditions, duration and manner of compliance for the quarantine, monitoring or observation of persons subject to such control measures, as determined by the Ministry of Health.
[…]
In view of the foregoing, and as provided in article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the State of El Salvador wishes to avail again itself of the right of derogation from its obligation under article 12 and 21 of the Covenant, due to the provisional measures adopted by the Government of El Salvador to prevent, address and control the risk and imminent impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, solely within the periods defined by law in the aforementioned decrees and always preserving the paramount interest of protecting human dignity and other guarantees.
For further information, I have the honour to attach the decrees containing the aforementioned measures.
[Links to the aforementioned decrees of the Republic of El Salvador are available on the UNTC website, document Reference: C.N.138.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 (Depositary Notification).]

17-04-2020

I have the honour to write to you in reference to my letters dated 26 and 31 March and 14 and 16 April 2020, in which I notified you of the national state of emergency, public calamity and natural disaster that the Republic of El Salvador declared over its national territory, and of the corresponding measures limiting certain constitutional rights, in order to prevent, address and control the risk and imminent impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Republic of El Salvador hereby wishes to inform that the Legislative Assembly adopted Decree No. 631 on 16 April 2020, published on the same date in Official Gazette No. 77, Volume No. 247, which provides as follows:
“The validity of Legislative Decree No. 593 of 14 March 2020 on the national state of emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, published on the same date in Official Gazette No. 52, Volume No. 426, and its subsequent amendments, is hereby extended for fifteen days, starting from the entry into force of this Decree.”
Consequently, the legal effects of the restrictions on certain constitutional rights shall remain in force until 1 May 2020. During the extension of the state of emergency, the constitutional rights that are therefore restricted include: freedom of movement, the right to assemble peacefully without arms for lawful ends, and the right of not being forced to change domicile or residence.
[…]
Pursuant to article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Salvadorian State wishes to avail again itself of the right of derogation from its obligations under article 12 and 21 of the said Covenant, due to the provisional measures adopted by the Government of El Salvador to prevent, address and control the risk and imminent impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, solely within the period defined by law in the aforementioned decree, and always preserving the paramount interest of protecting human dignity and other rights.
[…]
[Link to the official publication of the abovementioned Decree No. 631 of the Republic of El Salvador is available on the UNTC website, document Reference: C.N.143.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 (Depositary Notification).]
[…]

07-05-2020

I have the honour to write to you in reference to my letters dated 26 and 31 March and 14, 16 and 17 April 2020, in which I notified you of the national state of emergency, public calamity and natural disaster that the Republic of El Salvador declared over its national territory, and of the corresponding measures limiting certain constitutional rights, in order to prevent, address and control the risk and imminent impact of the COVD-19 pandemic.
The Republic of El Salvador hereby wishes to inform that Legislative Assembly adopted Decree No. 634 on 30 April 2020, published on the same date in Official Gazette No. 87, Volume No. 427, which provides as follows:
“The validity of Legislative Decree No. 593 of 14 March 2020 on the national state of emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, published on the same date in Official Gazette No. 52, Volume No. 426, and its subsequent amendments, is hereby extended for fifteen days, starting from the entry into force of this Decree. This decree shall enter into force on 2 May 2020, following publication in the Official Gazette, and its effects shall terminate on 16 May 2020.”
Consequently, the restrictions on certain constitutional rights shall remain in force until 16 May 2020. During the extension of the state of emergency, the constitutional rights that are restricted include: freedom of movement, the right to assemble peacefully without arms for lawful ends, and the right of not being forced to change domicile or residence.
Furthermore, I wish to inform that, taking into account the international obligation to guarantee the necessary conditions for the realization of the population’s right to health, the executive branch, through the Presidency of the Republic of El Salvador, adopted Executive Decree No. 22 on 6 May 2020, which aims at prescribing additional causes to those provided for in article 8 of the Act on the regulation of isolation, quarantine, observation and surveillance due to COVID-19, that regulate, with respect to certain persons, the right of movement during quarantine.
In this respect, the measures established pursuant to the above-mentioned Executive Decree include, inter alia, the following:
■ The movement of employees and contractors of businesses, industries and entities engaged in home delivery of food and pharmaceutical products, medical services, nursing and all health-related services, including dental and hearing emergencies, pharmacies, drugstores and pharmaceutical and clinical laboratories, will be authorized.
■ The movement of employees and contractors working in private transportation; the agroindustry and its distribution chain; agriculture, livestock, beekeeping and fisheries; public and private drinking water services, among other activities listed in the attached document, will also be authorized.
■ In order to allow the supply of food, purchase of medicines or transactions in bank agencies, the movement of persons will be authorized according to the last digit of their identity card, passport or aliens’ residency card.
■ The Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare has been granted the authority to supervise the occupational safety and health protocols applicable to companies that are authorized to carry out their activities pursuant to the decree.
■ Cooperation with municipal governments, namely mayors, municipal councils, municipal agencies and members of the civil protection commission of such local governments, is strengthened.
■ Individuals must also collaborate and abide by the restrictions indicated above, without prejudice to the corresponding criminal and civil liabilities. This measure is based on preambular paragraph XXI of the Executive Decree which refers to article 14, paragraph 1, of the Act on administrative procedures that prescribes to all persons or authorities to collaborate with the public administration when required to do so.
■ Finally, Executive Decree No. 22 will be in force for 17 days starting from the day following its publication in the Official Gazette.
[…]
Therefore, and pursuant to article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Salvadorian State wishes to avail itself of the right of derogation from its obligations under articles 12 and 21 of the said Covenant, due to the provisional measures adopted by the Government of El Salvador to prevent, address and control the risk and imminent impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, solely within the period defined by law in the aforementioned decrees.
In that regard, the Republic of El Salvador reaffirms its paramount interest of protecting human dignity and other rights, through the application of the standard of proportionality as reflected in the measures provided for by the above-mentioned decrees, and always recognizing the importance of respecting the principles of international human rights law, which are applicable to all persons, without any discrimination.
For further information, I have the honour to attach the official publication of Legislative Decree No. 634 of 30 April 2020, and the Decree No. 22 of 6 May 2020 as approved by the executive branch.
[…]

21-05-2020

I have the honour to write to you in reference to my letters dated 26 and 31 March; 14, 16 and 17 April; and [7] May 2020, in which I notified you of the national state of emergency, public calamity and natural disaster that the Republic of El Salvador declared over its national territory, and of the corresponding measures limiting certain constitutional rights, in order to prevent, address and control the risk and imminent impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Republic of El Salvador hereby wishes to inform that, in order to guarantee the right to health of its population, specifically the prevention and treatment of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases, referred to in article 12 (2) (c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and in view of the powers granted under article 24 of the Civil Protection and Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Act, the executive branch adopted Decree No. 19 of 19 May 2020, published on the same date in Official Gazette No. 101, Volume No. 427, and which provides, in its first article, as follows:
“A national state of emergency is hereby declared throughout the territory of the Republic, within the framework established in the Constitution, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
According to the second article of the said decree, the declared state of emergency shall remain in effect to counter the adverse consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic nationwide and that, as a result, priority is given to the obligation set forth in article 65 of the Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador, pursuant to which the health of the inhabitants of the Republic constitutes a common good, the State and the people being therefore obligated to safeguard its conservation and restoration.
The aforementioned decree responds to the need to guarantee the principle of legal certainty for the population and ensures that the expiration of Legislative Decree No. 593, which previously declared the state of national emergency, does not harm the life, health, economy, and employment stability of the Salvadoran people.
During the extension of the state of emergency, the constitutional rights that are restricted include: freedom of movement, the right to assemble peacefully without arms for lawful ends, and the right of not being forced to change domicile or residence. This restriction is maintained for up to fifteen days, starting on 19 May 2020, the date the aforementioned Executive Decree No. 19 entered into force.
Furthermore, I wish to inform you that Executive Decree No. 22, which addressed additional causes to those provided for in article 8 of the Act on the regulation of isolation, quarantine, observation and surveillance due to COVID-19, was repealed by Executive Decree No. 26, issued by the health sector of the executive branch, on 19 May 2020, and published in Official Gazette No. 102, Volume No. 427, on 20 May 2020.
In accordance with the latter regulation, the proportionality rules that regulate the conditions, time and manner of enforcing the quarantine, surveillance or observation of persons subject to such control measures, as determined by the Ministry of Health due to the COVID-19 pandemic, shall remain in force.
Considering that, to date, El Salvador had a total of 1,640 confirmed COVID-19 cases, the decree maintains the Salvadoran territory as an epidemic zone subject to health control; as such, all the inhabitants shall be subject to an obligatory stay-at-home order and may only leave their homes or residences when so authorized under the aforementioned decree, in accordance with the rule that allows the movement of persons in order to purchase food, medicines or for transactions in bank agencies, according to the last digit of their identity card, passport or aliens’ residency card, thereby ensuring that the rules of social distancing are respected. These measures shall remain in effect until 6 June 2020.
[…], Therefore, and pursuant to article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Salvadoran State wishes to avail itself of the right of derogation from its obligations under articles 12 and 21 of the said Covenant, due to the provisional measures adopted by the Government of El Salvador to prevent, address and control the risk and imminent impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, solely within the period defined by law in the aforementioned decrees.
In that regard, the Republic of El Salvador reaffirms its paramount interest in protecting human dignity, the right to health and the general welfare of the population, as well as their related guarantees; and will therefore continue to ensure the adoption of proportional measures, such as those set forth in the above-mentioned decrees, and to always recognize the importance of preserving a framework of legal certainty and respect for principles of international human rights law, which are applicable to all persons without any discrimination.
[…]
[The texts of Executive Decrees No. 19 and No. 26, attached to “Reference: C.N.180.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 (Depositary Notification)”, both dated 19 May 2020, are on file with the Secretary-General and available for consultation.]

24-05-2020

I have the honour to write to you in reference to my letters dated 26 and 31 March; 14, 16 and 17 April; and [7] and 21 May 2020, in which I notified you of the national state of emergency, public calamity and natural disaster that the Republic of El Salvador declared over its national territory, and of the corresponding measures limiting certain constitutional rights, in order to prevent, address and control the risk and imminent impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Republic of El Salvador hereby wishes to inform that, through decision No. 63-2020 of 22 May 2020, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in the exercise of the powers conferred on it by article 172, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador, ordered the suspension of Executive Decree No. 19 of 19 May 2020, which was notified to you in my previous communication.
In this regard, and considering the criteria of urgency, adequacy, reasonableness, necessity and proportionality, the said Chamber ordered the legal reviviscence of Legislative Decree No. 593, adopted by the Legislative Assembly on 14 March 2020 and published in Official Gazette No. 52, Volume No. 426 of 14 March 2020.
This measure, unless a new law is adopted before, shall be in force until 29 May 2020, period within which the Constitutional Chamber ordered the executive and legislative branches to seek the necessary consensus for the creation of a new regulation that guarantees the fundamental rights of the inhabitants of the Republic and mitigates risks generated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Consequently, in accordance with the above-mentioned decision, the Republic of El Salvador is once again applying the legal effects derived from Legislative Decree No. 593, pursuant to which, the following constitutional rights are restricted during the extension of the state of emergency: freedom of movement, the right to assemble peacefully without arms for lawful ends, and the right of not being forced to change domicile or residence.
[…]
Therefore, and pursuant to article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Salvadoran State wishes to avail itself of the right of derogation from its obligations under articles 12 and 21 of the said Covenant, due to the provisional measures adopted by the Salvadoran State to prevent, address and control the risk and imminent impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, solely within the period defined by law in the aforementioned decrees.
In that regard, the Republic of El Salvador reaffirms its paramount interest in protecting human dignity, the right to health of all Salvadorans, as well as their related guarantees. The executive branch will continue to ensure the adoption of proportional and reasonable measures whose main purpose is to preserve a framework of legal certainty, the unrestricted respect for the democratic state based on the
rule of law and respect for principles of international human rights law, which are applicable to all persons without any discrimination. Likewise, the executive branch is promoting dialogue with the other branches of government and different sectors in order to protect the general welfare of the population during this emergency.
[...]
[The text of Executive Decree No. 593, attached to “Reference: C.N.182.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 (Depositary Notification)” of 24 May 2020, is on file with the Secretary-General and available for consultation.]

Estonia

20-03-2020

[…]
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Estonia informs that following the announcement of the World Health Organization of 11 March 2020 that COVID-19 has been confirmed as pandemic, and taking into account the significant danger the spread of COVID-19 has posed to public health, on 12 March 2020, the Government of the Republic of Estonia declared emergency situation in the entire territory of the Republic of Estonia.
The declaration of emergency situation was necessary to combat the spread of the corona virus in Estonia in the most efficient manner. The state must be able to provide its citizens with clear and, if necessary, mandatory instructions to help limit the spread of the virus, which threatens the life of the nation. Te emergency situation commenced on 12 March 2020, and, unless decreed otherwise by the Government, remains in force until 1 May 2020.
Among the measures adopted by the Government of Estonia, regular class-room studies in primary, basic, secondary and vocational schools as well as higher education establishments and universities have been suspended as of 16 March 2020 and switched over to remote and home studying. Also hobby education was suspended. All public gatherings are prohibited, museums, theatres and cinemas will be closed to visitors, all performances, concerts and conferences, as well as sports competitions are prohibited. Social welfare institutions, hospitals, and detention facilities will be subject to a visiting ban.
On 14 March 2020, additional movement restrictions for several Estonian islands were introduced. Only people who have a permanent residence on the islands were allowed to travel to the territories if they do not show symptoms of COVID-19. The people currently on the islands were allowed to return home. Restrictions were also imposed on spending leisure time. All sports halls, sports clubs, gyms, spas, swimming pools, water centres, day centres, and children's play rooms were ordered to be closed. Hotels and other accommodation providers were ordered to close their gyms, swimming pools, saunas and spas. The restriction did not apply to the provision of social and health care services.
On 15 March 2020, it was decided to restrict crossing of the Schengen internal and external border temporarily and reintroduce border controls in order to contain the spread of the coronavirus as of 17 March 2020. Only citizens of Estonia and holders of Estonian residency permit or right of residence could enter Estonia, as well as foreign citizens whose family member lives in Estonia. At the border control, travel documents and medical symptoms are checked. The requirement of a two-week quarantine for everyone entering the country has also been imposed.
Some of these measures may involve a derogation from certain obligations of Estonia under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and particular its Articles 9, 12, 14, 17, 21 and 22. The measures adopted by the Government are required by the exigencies of the situation and are not inconsistent with other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Estonia attaches to this note the unofficial translations of the order No. 76 of Government of Estonia of 12 March 2020 ‘On the Declaration of Emergency Situation in the territory of Estonia’ and subsequent orders Nos. 77 and 78 of 13 March 2020 and 15 March 2020 and ruling No. 15 ‘On the temporary reintroduction of border control and surveillance of internal borders’ of 15 March 2020 issued by the Government of Estonia. Also translations of orders 26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35 issued by the Prime Minister as the person in charge of emergency situation are appended as well as the recommendations of the Council for Administration of Courts on the administration of justice during the emergency situation, issued on 16 March 2020.
Pursuant to Article 4(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Estonia herby informs the other States Parties, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which Estonia has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication will be made on the date on which Estonia terminates such derogation.
[…]

18-05-2020

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Estonia to the United Nations in New York […] and with reference to its Note 15.2-4/125, dated 20 March 2020, of the declaration of an emergency situation in Estonia and its implementation measures under Article 4(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has the honour to convey the following.
The emergency situation commenced on 12 March 2020 and initially remained in force until 1 May 2020. On 24 April 2020 the Government of Estonia prolonged the emergency situation until 17 May 2020.
Pursuant to Article 4(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights the Permanent Mission of Estonia notifies the Secretary-General about termination of the emergency situation and withdrawal of the derogation of certain obligation under the Covenant, with effect from 18 May 2020.
[…]

Ethiopia

09-06-2020

I am writing this letter, upon instruction from my Government, to notify you about the declaration of a nationwide State of Emergency by the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, effective from 8 April 2020 for a duration of five months, with the objective of reinforcing the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.
As we are all aware, the rapid global spread of the coronavirus and its adverse impact on livelihoods necessitated the implementation of numerous measures to counter and mitigate potential damages to our social fabrics and economic activities. In Ethiopia and the wider region, we are instituting coordinated efforts to raise public awareness about COVID-19 and strengthen precautionary measures. Unfortunately, these measures cannot be implemented through the normal system of government and using regular law enforcement.
In this context, and in accordance with Article 93 of the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Government of Ethiopia has declared a nationwide state of emergency. Some of the measures prescribed by the decree and the subsequent implementation of related regulations may involve a partial derogation from the obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular the right to freedom of movement, the right to peaceful assembly, the freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs, as well as the visitation rights of accused and convicted persons.
These measures come out of absolute necessity and the implementation of regulations does not totally abrogate rights, rather puts certain limitations on the enjoyment of these rights in the interest of public health and public safety proportional to the enormous challenge of containing the spread and mitigating the adverse impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
I would, therefore, kindly request Your Excellency to consider that this letter constitutes a notification for the purpose of Article 4 of the Covenant, which obliges a State Party to inform other State Parties to the Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
The related proclamations and implementation regulation are attached herewith.
[…]

Additional information:
… the Permanent Mission of Ethiopia would like to further communicate the following explanations, particularly on the domestic decree and the specific articles of the Covenant that are being subject to derogation of rights.
1. The proclamations on the decree of the nationwide state of emergency as well as regulation for its implementation are (a) Proclamation No. 3/2020 State of Emergency Proclamation Enacted to Counter and Control the Spread of COVID-19 and Mitigate its Impact; (b) Proclamation No. 1189/2020 issued to approve the State of Emergency and (c) Regulation No. 466/2020 providing the implementation directives and procedures for Proclamation No. 3/2020.
2. Some of the measures prescribed by the decree and the subsequent regulation for its implementation may involve a partial derogation from the obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular the right to liberty of movement (Article 12), the right to peaceful assembly (Article 21), the freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs (Article 18 (3)) as well as the visitation rights of accused and convicted persons.
3. As stated in the Note Verbale of the Permanent Mission […] above, the regulation for the implementation of the decree does not abrogate all the rights. Rather, the regulation stipulates, how certain limitations on the enjoyment of the rights in the interest of public health and public safety shall be executed with utmost precautions…

Finland

19-08-1975

With respect to article 10, paragraph 2 (b) and 3, of the Covenant, Finland declares that although juvenile offenders are, as a rule, segregated from adults, it does not deem appropriate to adopt an absolute prohibition not allowing for more flexible arrangements;
With respect to article 14, paragraph 7, of the Covenant, Finland declares that it is going to pursue its present practice, according to which a sentence can be changed to the detriment of the convicted person, if it is established that a member or an official of the court, the prosecutor or the legal counsel have through criminal or fraudulent activities obtained the acquittal of the defendant or a substantially more lenient penalty, or if false evidence has been presented with the same effect, and according to which an aggravated criminal case may be taken up for reconsideration if within a year until then unknown evidence is presented, which would have led to conviction or a substantially more severe penalty;
With respect to article 20, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, Finland declares that it will not apply the provisions of this paragraph, this being compatible with the standpoint Finland already expressed at the 16th United Nations General Assembly by voting against the prohibition of propaganda for war, on the grounds that this might endanger the freedom of expression referred in article 19 of the Covenant.
Finland declares, under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the said Covenant, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Covenant.

29-03-1985

The Government of Finland notifies the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservations made upon ratification with respect to articles 13 and 14 (1) (the notification indicates that the withdrawal was effected because the relevant provisions of the Finnish legislation have been amended as to correspond fully to articles 13 and 14 (1) of the Covenant).

26-07-1990

The Government of Finland notifies the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservations made upon ratification with respect to articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (d), respectively.

France

04-11-1980

(1) The Government of the Republic considers that, in accordance with Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations, in case of conflict between its obligations under the Covenant and its obligations under the Charter (especially Articles 1 and 2 thereof), its obligations under the Charter will prevail.
(2) The Government of the Republic enters the following reservation concerning article 4, paragraph 1: firstly, the circumstances enumerated in article 16 of the Constitution in respect of its implementation, in article 1 of the Act of 3 April 1978 and in the Act of 9 August 1849 in respect of the declaration of a state of siege, in article 1 of Act No. 55-385 of 3 April 1955 in respect of the declaration of a state of emergency and which enable these instruments to be implemented, are to be understood as meeting the purpose of article 4 of the Covenant; and, secondly, for the purpose of interpreting and implementing article 16 of the Constitution of the French Republic, the terms "to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation" cannot limit the power of the President of the Republic to take "the measures required by circumstances".
(3) The Government of the Republic enters a reservation concerning articles 9 and 14 to the effect that these articles cannot impede enforcement of the rules pertaining to the disciplinary régime in the armies.
(4) The Government of the Republic declares that article 13 cannot derogate from chapter IV of Order No. 45-2658 of 2 November 1945 concerning the entry into, and sojourn in, France of aliens, nor from the other instruments concerning the expulsion of aliens in force in those parts of the territory of the Republic in which the Order of 2 November 1945 does not apply.
(5) The Government of the Republic interprets article 14, paragraph 5, as stating a general principle to which the law may make limited exceptions, for example, in the case of certain of- fences subject to the initial and final adjudication of a police court and of criminal offences. However, an appeal against a final decision may be made to the Court of Cassation which rules on the legality of the decision concerned.
(6) The Government of the Republic declares that articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant will be implemented in accordance with articles 10, 11 and 16 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950.
(7) The Government of the Republic declares that the term "war", appearing in article 20, paragraph1, is to be understood to mean war in contravention of international law and considers, in any case, that French legislation in this matter is adequate.
(8) In the light of article 2 of the Constitution of the French Republic, the French Government declares that article 27 is not applicable so far as the Republic is concerned.

Objection Germany, 23-04-1982

The Federal Government refers to the declaration on article 27 made by the French Government and stresses in this context the great importance attaching to the rights guaranteed by article 27. It interprets the French declaration as meaning that the Constitution of the French Republic already fully guarantees the individual rights protected by article 27.

22-03-1988

The Government of France notifies the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw, with effect from 22 March 1988, its reservation with regard to article 19 made upon accession to the said Covenant.

26-07-2012

Partial withdrawal of reservation to article 14(5) of the Covenant.The reservation shall henceforth read as follows:
"The Government of the Republic interprets article 14, paragraph 5, as stating a general principle to which the law may make limited exceptions, for example, in the case of certain offences subject to the initial and final adjudication of a police court. However, an appeal against a final decision may be made to the Court of Cassation which rules on the legality of the decision concerned."

Gambia, The

22-03-1979

For financial reasons free legal assistance for accused per- sons is limited in our constitution to persons charged with capital offences only. The Government of the Gambia therefore wishes to enter a reservation in respect of article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant in question.

09-06-1988

The Government of the Gambia hereby declares that the Gambia recognises the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the present Covenant.

Georgia

21-03-2020

[…] that Georgia exercises the right of derogation from its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the entire territory of Georgia.
The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations informs that following the announcement of the World Health Organization of 11 March 2020 that COVID-19 has been confirmed as pandemic, and taking into account the significant danger the spread of COVID-19 has posed to public health, on 21 March, 2020 the President of Georgia declared the State of Emergency in the entire territory of Georgia, which was approved by the Resolution N5864-IIs of the Parliament of Georgia on the same day.
Since the first case of COVID-19 was detected on the territory of Georgia on 26 February 2020, the Government has been taking concrete measures to protect public health, including suspension of education process, shifting of public servants to remote work and issuing same recommendations to public sector, gradual restriction of air as well as land traffic, establishment of quarantine procedures and self-isolation, closure of ski-resorts, cancellation of various large-scale cultural and sporting events, closure of all retail facilities apart from those designated within the framework of strategic infrastructure, as well as grocery shops. However, the increase in number of infected persons necessitated adoption of additional measures.
The Decree N1 of 21 March 2020 of the President of Georgia on the Measures to be Taken in Relation to the Declaration of the State of Emergency in the Entire Territory of Georgia adopted in accordance with the Georgian Constitution and the Law of Georgia on State of Emergency, includes the emergency measures considered necessary in order to limit the spread of the virus and ensure public health. The measures adopted by the Decree include establishment of special rules of isolation and quarantine, suspension of international passenger air, land and sea traffic, suspension of visiting of penitentiary institutions, restriction of assembly, manifestation and gathering, establishment rules and conditions of education other than those established by the relevant laws of Georgia, restrictions on the right to property. The application of these measures gives reasons for the necessity to derogate from certain obligations of Georgia under Articles 9, 12, 17, and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations attaches to this note the unofficial translations of the Order N1 of the President of Georgia on the Declaration of the State of Emergency in the Entire Territory of Georgia of 21 March 2020, the Decree N1 on the Measures to be Taken in Relation to the Declaration of the State of Emergency in the Entire Territory of Georgia of 21 March 2020, the Resolution N5864-IIs of the Parliament of Georgia on the Approval of the Order N1 of the President of Georgia of 21 March 2020 on the Declaration of the State of Emergency in the Entire Territory of Georgia and the Resolution N5865-IIs of the Parliament of Georgia on the Approval of the Decree N1 of the President of Georgia on the Measures to be Taken in Relation to the Declaration of the State of Emergency in the Entire Territory of Georgia of 21 March 2020.
The State of Emergency has been instituted for a period of 30 days, the emergency situation commenced on 21 March 2020 and shall remain into force until 21 April 2020. Pursuant to Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations shall inform H.E. Mr. Antonio Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations about future developments with regard to the State of Emergency, and will notify the Secretary-General when these measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are fully implemented again.

22-04-2020

[...] in addition to its Note N[o] 19/9860, dated 21 March 2020 and pursuant to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has the honour to inform on the development with regard to the State of Emergency declared on 21 March 2020 by the Presidential Order N1 in the entire territory of Georgia due to the spread of COVID-19.
Following the growing dynamics of the spread of COVID-19 in Georgia, the country has entered the level of massive internal transmission. Taking into account the significant danger posed to public health, by the Order N2 of President of Georgia of 21 April 2020, the State of Emergency has been extended to 22 May 2020 (included). This Order of the President of Georgia has been approved by the Resolution N5866 of the Parliament of Georgia of 22 April 2020. Pursuant to the Decree N1 of the President of Georgia of 21 March 2020 on the Measures to be Taken in Relation to the Declaration of the State of Emergency in the Entire Territory of Georgia, the restrictions imposed by it shall remain in force for the whole period of the State of Emergency.
Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations shall inform H.E. Mr. Antonio Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations about future developments with regard to the State of Emergency and shall notify the Secretary-General when these measures have ceased to operate.
[…]
[The unofficial translations of the Order N2 of the President of Georgia of 21 April 2020 on the Declaration of the State of Emergency in the Entire Territory of Georgia and the Resolution N5866 of the Parliament of Georgia of 22 April 2020 on the approval of the Order N2 of the President of Georgia of 21 April 2020 on the Declaration of the State of Emergency in the Entire Territory of Georgia are available on the UNTC website, document Reference: C.N.142.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 (Depositary Notification).]
[…]

23-05-2020

The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations [...] pursuant to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has the honor to inform on the developments with respect to the measures already notified by Notes No. 19/9860, dated 21 March 2020 and No. 19/11359, dated 22 April 2020.
As follows, the special regulations imposed by the Government, on the basis of the Presidential Decrees N1 and N2 of 21 March and 21 April 2020, enabled the authorities to successfully control the epidemic situation with the coronavirus in Georgia. On 22 May 2020, the Presidential Decrees enabling the Government to impose certain restrictions expired and in order to ensure further containment of the spread of the virus, on the same day the Parliament of Georgia adopted and the President promulgated special emergency legislation, namely: 1) amendments to the ‘Law on Public Health’ and 2) amendments to Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia which established the remote court hearings and nabled the Government to introduce special rules of isolation and quarantine until 15 July 2020. The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations attaches to this note the unofficial translations of the amendments to Law of Georgia on ‘Public Health’ and Criminal procedure Code of Georgia.
For these reasons, it is submitted hereby that Georgia extends the derogations from certain obligations under Articles 9, 12, 14, 17 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and [P]olitical Rights until 15 July 2020. As underscored in our previous communications, these derogations apply to the obligations only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the persisting situation with the coronavirus limited to the scope of the amended “Law on Public Health” and Criminal Procedure Code of 22 May 2020. Notably, the Government of Georgia has already started gradual lifting of certain restrictions since 27 April 2020.
The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations shall inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations when these measures cease to operate.
[…]

15-07-2020

The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations [...] and pursuant to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has the honor to inform on the developments with respect to the measures already notified by Notes N19/9860, dated 21 March 2020, N19/11359, dated 22 April 2020 and N19/13537, dated 23 May 2020.
As your Excellency has been already informed, upon expiry of the Presidential Decrees enabling the Government to impose certain restrictions regarding COVID-19, on 22 May 2020 the Parliament of Georgia adopted and the President promulgated special emergency legislation:
1) amendments to the “Law on Public Health” and 2) amendments to Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia which established the remote court hearings and allowed the Government to introduce special rules of isolation and quarantine until 15 July 2020.
Despite the fact that the overall pandemic situation in Georgia remains stable and the Government is gradually lifting the restrictions, in order to maintain the successful results achieved and to effectively combat the coronavirus which still exists in the region and elsewhere, representing a common threat for the whole world, on 14 July 2020 the Parliament of Georgia extended the application of the emergency legislation until 1 January 2021.
For these reasons, it is submitted hereby that Georgia retains the already notified derogations from certain obligations under Articles 9, 12, 14, 17 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and [P]olitical Rights until 1 January 2021. As underscored in our previous communications, these derogations apply to the obligations only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the persisting situation with the coronavirus. As noted above, the Government of Georgia has already started gradual lifting of certain restrictions since 27 April 2020.
The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations attaches to this note the unofficial translations of the amendments to Law of Georgia on “Public Health” and Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia dated 14 July 2020.
The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations shall inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations when these measures cease to operate.
[...]

31-12-2020

The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations […] and pursuant to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has the honor to inform that the emergency legislation already notified by previous Note N19/18571 dated 15 July 2020 has been extended until 1 July 2021.
In particular, since the global and the local threat of COVID-19 still remains significant, on 29 December 2020, the Parliament of Georgia adopted and the President of Georgia approved the prolongation of the special emergency legislation until 1 July 2021.
For these reasons, it is submitted hereby that Georgia retains the already notified derogations from certain obligations under Articles 9, 12, 14, 17 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights until 1 July 2021. As underscored in our previous communications, these derogations apply to the obligations only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the persisting situation with the coronavirus.
The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations attaches to this Note the unofficial translations of the amendments to Law of Georgia on “Public Health” and Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia dated 29 December 2020.
The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations shall inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations when these measures cease to operate.
[…]

30-06-2021

The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations [...] and pursuant to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has the honor to inform that the emergency legislation already notified by previous Note N19/18571, dated 15 July 2020 and the subsequent Note N19/34515, dated 31 December 2020 has been extended until 1 January 2022.
In particular, since the global and the local threat of COVID-19 still remains significant, on 22 June 2021, the Parliament of Georgia adopted and the President of Georgia approved the prolongation of the special emergency legislation until 1 January 2022.
For these reasons, it is submitted hereby that Georgia retains the already notified derogations from certain obligations under Articles 9, 12, 14, 17 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights until 1 January 2022. As underscored in our previous communications, these derogations apply to the obligations only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the persisting situation with the coronavirus.
The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations attaches to this Note the unofficial translations of the amendments to Law of Georgia on ‘Public Health’ and Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia dated 22 June 2021.
The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations shall inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations when these measures cease to operate.
[...]

30-12-2021

The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations […] and pursuant to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has the honor to inform that the emergency legislation already notified by previous Note N19/18571, dated 15 July 2020 and the subsequent Notes N19/34515, dated 31 December 2020 and N19/18004, dated 30 June 2021 has been extended until 1 January 2023.
In particular, since the global and the local threat of COVID-19 still remains significant on 22 December 2021, the Parliament of Georgia adopted and the President of Georgia approved the prolongation of the special emergency legislation until 1 January 2023.
For these reasons, it is submitted hereby that Georgia retains the already notified derogations from certain obligations under Articles 9, 12, 14, 17 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights until 1 January 2023. As underscored in our previous communications, these derogations apply to the obligations only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the persisting situation with the corona virus.
The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations attaches to this Note the unofficial translations of the amendments to Law of Georgia on ‘Public Health’ and Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia dated 22 December 2021.
The Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations shall inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations when these measures cease to operate.
[…]

Germany

17-12-1973

1. Articles 19, 21 and 22 in conjunction with Article 2 (1) of the Covenant shall be applied within the scope of Article 16 of the Convention of 4 November 1950 for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
2. Article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant shall be applied in such manner that it is for the court to decide whether an accused person held in custody has to appear in person at the hearing before the court of review (Revisionsgericht).
3. Article 14 (5) of the Covenant shall be applied in such manner that:
(a) A further appeal does not have to be instituted in all cases solely on the grounds the accused person having been acquitted by the lower court-was convicted for the first time in the proceedings concerned by the appellate court.
(b) In the case of criminal offences of minor gravity the re- view by a higher tribunal of a decision not imposing imprisonment does not have to be admitted in all cases.
4. Article 15 (1) of the Covenant shall be applied in such manner that when provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty the hitherto applicable law may for certain exceptional categories of cases remain applicable to criminal offences committed before the law was amended.

22-03-1988

The Government of Germany indicates that it wishes to call attention to the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Germany upon ratification of the Covenant with regard to articles 19, 21 and 22 in conjunction with articles 2 (1), 14 (3), 14 (5) and 15 (1).

27-12-2001

The Federal Republic of Germany now recognizes for an unlimited period the competence of the Human Rights Committee under Article 41(1) of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that at State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

Ghana

07-09-2000

The Government of the Republic of Ghana recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider complaints brought by or against the Republic in respect of another State Party which has made a Declaration recognising the competence of the Committee at least twelve months before Ghana becomes officially registered as Party to the Covenant.
[The Government of the Republic of Ghana] interprets Article 41 as giving the Human Rights Committee the competence to receive and consider complaints in respect of violations by the Republic of any rights set forth in the said Covenant which result from decisions, acts, commissions, developments or events occurring AFTER the date on which Ghana becomes officially regarded as party to the said Covenant and shall not apply to decisions, acts, omissions, developments or events occurring before that date.

Guatemala

23-03-2020

[…] on 21 March 2020, by Government Decree No. 6-2020, Mr. Alejandro Eduardo Giammattei Falla, President of the Republic of Guatemala, in the Council of Ministers, proceeded to amend Government Decree No. 5-2020, by which a state of public calamity was declared throughout the national territory in the light of the announcement by the World Health Organization of the coronavirus epidemic (COVID-19) as a public health emergency of international concern and by the National Coronavirus (COVID-19) Prevention, Containment and Response Plan of the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance.
In this regard, measures have been adopted that restrict the application of articles 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with regard to the right of assembly and the right to freedom of movement, since Government Decree No. 6-2020 limits the right to freedom of movement in accordance with strict provisions, including that “freedom of movement of the inhabitants of the Republic of Guatemala is hereby limited, and this limitation includes the transit and movement of persons, crew, passengers, vehicles or any type of land transport between 4 p.m. and 4 a.m. the following day. This restriction will be in force from Sunday, 22 March 2020 until and including Sunday, 29 March of this year. Should the health situation caused by the effects of COVID-19 require an extension of the measure restricting movement and transit, the corresponding notice shall be issued by presidential order”.
In view of the foregoing, I should be grateful if you would inform the other States parties to the Covenant accordingly.

26-03-2020

[…]
that on 24 March 2020, by Government Decree No. 7-2020 adopted by the Cabinet, Mr. Alejandro Eduardo Giammattei Falla, President of the Republic of Guatemala, extended the state of public disaster declared throughout the country after the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus epidemic (COVID-19) a public health emergency of international concern and in the light of the National Coronavirus (COVID-19) Prevention, Containment and Response Plan of the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance, for an additional period of thirty days.
The measure was adopted to protect the health, welfare and safety of persons, extending the state of public disaster declared through Government Decree No. 5-2020, which is set to expire on 3 April 2020.
The measures restricting the application of articles 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with regard to right of assembly and liberty of movement, will therefore remain in force.
In view of the foregoing, I should be grateful if you would inform the other States parties to the Covenant accordingly.
[…]

30-04-2020

[…] that on 20 April 2020, Mr. Alejandro Eduardo Giammattei Falla, President of the Republic of Guatemala, issued a Cabinet decree extending the state of public disaster throughout the country because the effects, consequences and spread of COVID-19 persist and are worsening; because the life and health of individuals is a fundamental right that the State of Guatemala must protect; and because it is vital that the measures to avoid serious consequences for the inhabitants of the Republic of Guatemala remain in effect.
The measure was adopted to protect the health, well-being and safety of people by extending the state of public disaster declared through Government Decree No. 7-2020, which is set to expire on 3 May 2020. A 30-day extension period has been established through Government Decree No. 8-2020, published today.
The measures restricting the application of articles 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with regard to right of assembly and liberty of movement, remain in force.
In view of the foregoing, I should be grateful if you would inform the other States parties to the Covenant accordingly.
[…]

17-05-2020

I have the honour to write to you, pursuant to article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to inform you in accordance with Government Decrees Nos. 5-2020, 6-2020, 7-2020 and 8-2020 of the President of the Republic adopted in the Council of Ministers, and Decrees Nos. 8-2020, 9-2020 and 21-2020 of the Congress of the Republic, approving, amending and extending the state of public disaster throughout the country to monitor and enforce the National Coronavirus (COVID-19) Prevention, Containment and Response Plan in Guatemala, and the new coronavirus care and response protocol - epidemiological surveillance of acute respiratory infection by COVID-19, issued by the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance.
In this regard, I wish to convey that the presidential regulations in the event of public disaster and measures for strict compliance issued, on 14 May 2020, by the President of the Republic of Guatemala, Dr. Alejandro Eduardo Giammattei Falla, were adopted under the principles of public health and social justice, in accordance with the purpose of the State to serve the common good. These presidential regulations amend the measures restricting the application of articles 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with regard to right of assembly and liberty of movement, and came into effect on Friday, 15 May 2020, at midnight.
In view of the foregoing, I should be grateful if you would inform the other States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights accordingly.
[…]
In a communication dated 18 May 2020, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Guatemala to the United Nations informed the Secretary-General that the measures restricting the application of
articles 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in accordance with the presidential regulations of 14 May 2020 would be in effect from Friday, 15 May 2020, at midnight to Monday, 18 May 2020, at 5 a.m.

29-05-2020

[…] to transmit the notification by the Government of Guatemala in accordance with article 4, paragraph 3, of the said Covenant.
In this regard, I wish to inform you, pursuant to article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of the content of the Government Decrees Nos. 5-2020, 6-2020, 7-2020 and 8-2020 of the President of the Republic adopted in the Council of Ministers, and Decrees Nos. 8-2020, 9-2020 and 21-2020 of the Congress of the Republic, approving, amending and extending the state of public disaster throughout the country to monitor and enforce the National Coronavirus (COVID-19) Prevention, Containment and Response Plan in Guatemala and the new coronavirus care and response protocol - epidemiological surveillance of acute respiratory infection by COVID-19, issued by the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance.
In this respect and in reference to note verbale J/1/1116 of 17 May 2020, I wish to convey that the presidential regulations in the event of public disaster and measures for strict compliance issued, on 14 May 2020, by the President of the Republic of Guatemala, Dr. Alejandro Eduardo Giammattei Falla, were adopted under the principles of public health and social justice, in accordance with the purpose of the State to serve the common good. These presidential regulations amend the measures restricting the application of articles 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with regard to right of assembly and liberty of movement, and have come into effect from 5 p.m. on Friday, 22 May to 5 a.m. on Monday, 25 May and from 5 p.m. on Friday, 29 May to 5 a.m. on Monday, 1 June.
In view of the foregoing, I should be grateful if you would inform the other States parties accordingly.
[…]

02-06-2020

[…] to inform you in accordance with Government Decrees Nos. 5-2020, 6-2020, 7-2020 and 8-2020 of the President of the Republic adopted in the Council of Ministers, and Decrees Nos. 8-2020, 9-2020 and 21-2020 of the Congress of the Republic, approving, amending and extending the state of public disaster throughout the national territory to monitor and enforce the National Coronavirus (COVID-19) Prevention, Containment and Response Plan in Guatemala, and the new coronavirus care and response protocol - epidemiological surveillance of acute respiratory infection by COVID-19, issued by the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance.
In this regard, I wish to convey that the President of the Republic of Guatemala, Dr. Alejandro Eduardo Giammattei Falla, decided in the Council of Ministers, on 24 May 2020, to extend the state of public disaster for thirty additional days insofar as, to date, the spread of COVID-19 and its consequences are increasing, the risks to the life and health of individuals are increasing and the State must continue to adopt the health and economic measures required to avoid serious consequences for the inhabitants of the Republic of Guatemala.
Furthermore, I wish to inform you that the presidential regulations in the event of public disasters and measures for strict compliance issued on 31 May 2020 by the President of the Republic of Guatemala were adopted under the principles of public health and social justice, in accordance with the purpose of the State to serve the common good. These presidential regulations amend the measures restricting the application of articles 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with regard to right of assembly and liberty of movement, and came into effect on Friday, 15 May 2020, at midnight.
In view of the foregoing, I should be grateful if you would inform the other States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights accordingly.
[…]

03-06-2020

[…] to inform you that, in accordance with Government Decree No. 10-2020, Dr. Alejandro Eduardo Giammattei Falla, President of the Republic of Guatemala, decided in the Council of Ministers on 29 May 2020, to declare a state of siege throughout the territory of the municipalities of Nahualá, Santa Catarina Ixtahuacán and Santa Lucía Utatlán, in the Department of Sololá, Republic of Guatemala, for a period of thirty days from the date of entry into force of the said Decree.
The above-mentioned measure was declared since a number of actions occurred recently that affect the order, governance and security of the inhabitants of the aforementioned municipalities, because of disputes over territory, demands for possession rights, ownership claims and other related conflicts, endangering the life, liberty, justice, security, peace and the integral and property development of the inhabitants of those municipalities, and, in order to prevent further consequences, it is necessary to implement, as a matter of urgency, all appropriate measures to restore and guarantee the security and life of the inhabitants and authorities of those municipalities.
In this regard, measures have been adopted restricting the application of articles 9, 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with regard to right to liberty, liberty of movement and right of assembly.
In view of the foregoing, I should be grateful if you would inform the other States parties to the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] accordingly.
[…]

06-07-2020

I have the honour to write to you, pursuant to article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to inform you in accordance with Government Decrees Nos. 5-2020, 6-2020, 7-2020, 8-2020 and 9-2020 of the President of the Republic adopted in the Council of Ministers, and Decrees Nos. 8-2020, 9-2020, 21-2020 and 22-2020 of the Congress of the Republic, declaring, approving and extending the state of public disaster throughout the national territory to enforce the National Coronavirus (COVID-19) Prevention, Containment and Response Plan in Guatemala of the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance.
In this regard, I wish to convey that the President of the Republic of Guatemala, Dr. Alejandro Eduardo Giammattei Falla, decided in the Council of Ministers, on 23 June 2020, to extend the state of public disaster for thirty additional days insofar as the spread of COVID-19 and its consequences are increasing, the risks to the life and health of individuals are increasing and the State must continue to adopt the health and economic measures required to avoid serious consequences for the inhabitants of the Republic of Guatemala.
In this respect, I reiterate that the measures adopted restrict the application of articles 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with regard to right of assembly and liberty of movement, and came into effect on Friday, 3 July 2020.
[…]

06-07-2020

[…] to inform you that, in accordance with Government Decree No. 11-2020, Dr. Alejandro Eduardo Giammattei Falla, President of the Republic of Guatemala, decided in the Council of Ministers on 23 June 2020 to extend for a further thirty days the state of siege declared, under Government Decree No. 10-2020 of 29 May 2020, throughout the territory of the municipalities of Nahualá, Santa Catarina Ixtahuacán and Santa Lucía Utatlán, in the Department of Sololá of the Republic of Guatemala.
The above-mentioned measure was declared because the circumstances that had led to the issuance of Government Decree No. 10-2020 continue to exist, such as violent acts and armed attacks against private individuals or the authorities between the communities of the aforementioned municipalities of Sololá, resulting from disputes over territories and which cause conflicts and endanger the life, liberty, justice, social development, peace and security of the inhabitants of that region.
Therefore, it is necessary to continue with the appropriate measures provided for by constitutional law and already applied in this region. It is worth noting that Decree No. 11-2020 was translated into K’iche, the local language spoken in the municipalities of Nahualá, Santa Catarina Ixtahuacán and Santa Lucía Utatlán in the Department of Sololá.
In this regard, the measures that have been adopted restrict the application of articles 9, 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with regard to the right to liberty, liberty of movement and right of assembly.
In view of the foregoing, I should be grateful if you would inform the other States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights accordingly.

24-07-2020

I have the honour to write to you, pursuant to article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to inform you that, in accordance with Government Decree No. 13-2020 of the President of the Republic of Guatemala, it was decided in the Council of Ministers on 18 July 2020, to declare a state of siege throughout the territory of the municipalities of El Estor, Morales and Livingston, in the Department of Izabal, and in the municipalities of Panzós and Santa Catalina La Tinta, in the Department of Alta Verapaz, for a period of thirty days from the date of entry into force of the said Decree.
The above-mentioned measure was declared since a number of actions occurred recently that affect the order, governance and security of the inhabitants of the aforementioned municipalities, due to the fact that individuals and armed groups have committed violent acts against the security forces and the freedom of movement of the inhabitants, which have impacted the individuals, families and the community, by endangering the life, liberty, justice, security, peace and the integral and property development of the inhabitants of those municipalities, and, in order to prevent further consequences, it is necessary to implement, as a matter of urgency, all appropriate measures to restore and guarantee the security and life of the inhabitants and authorities of those municipalities.
In this regard, measures have been adopted restricting the application of articles 9, 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with regard to right to liberty, liberty of movement and right of assembly.
In view of the foregoing, I should be grateful if you would inform the other States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights accordingly.
[…]

03-08-2020

I have the honour to write to you, pursuant to article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to inform you in accordance with Government Decrees Nos. 5-2020, 6-2020, 7-2020, 8-2020, 9-2020 and 12-2020 of the President of the Republic adopted in the Council of Ministers, and Decrees Nos. 8-2020, 9-2020, 21-2020 and 22-2020 of the Congress of the Republic, declaring, approving and extending the state of public disaster throughout the national territory to enforce the National Coronavirus (COVID-19) Prevention, Containment and Response Plan in Guatemala of the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance.
In this regard, I wish to convey that the President of the Republic of Guatemala, Dr. Alejandro Eduardo Giammattei Falla, decided in the Council of Ministers, by Government Decree 15-2020 of 26 July 2020, to extend the state of public disaster for thirty additional days insofar as the spread of COVID-19 and its consequences are increasing, the risks to the life and health of individuals are increasing and the State must continue to adopt the health and economic measures required to avoid serious consequences for the inhabitants of the Republic of Guatemala. The presidential regulations in case of public disaster and measures for strict compliance, issued on 26 July 2020, are attached to this letter.
In this respect, I reiterate that the measures adopted restrict the application of articles 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with regard to right of assembly and liberty of movement, and will enter into force on 2 August 2020.
In view of the foregoing, I should be grateful if you would inform the other States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights accordingly.
[…]

03-09-2020

I have the honour to write to you, pursuant to article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to inform you that the President of the Republic adopted in the Council of Ministers Government Decrees Nos. 5-2020, 6-2020, 7-2020, 8-2020, 9-2020, 12-2020 and 15-2020, approved and amended by Decrees Nos. 8-2020, 9-2020, 21-2020, 22-2020, 27-2020 and 28-2020 of the Congress of the Republic regarding the declaration and approval of the state of public disaster throughout the national territory to ensure compliance with the National Coronavirus (COVID-19) Prevention, Containment and Response Plan in Guatemala, issued by the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance.
In this regard, I wish to convey that the President of the Republic of Guatemala, Dr. Alejandro Eduardo Giammattei Falla, decided in the Council of Ministers, on 24 August 2020, to extend the state of public disaster for thirty additional days due to the fact that COVID-19 and its consequences over the life and health of individuals are spreading and the State must guarantee the said fundamental rights and continue to adopt the health and economic measures required to avoid serious consequences for the inhabitants of the Republic of Guatemala and to mitigate the risk of infection of COVID-19 and its impacts on the country.
Furthermore, I wish to inform you that presidential regulations in the event of public disasters and measures for strict compliance issued by the President of the Republic of Guatemala were adopted under the principles of public health and social justice, in accordance with the purpose of the State to serve the common good. These presidential regulations amend the measures restricting the application of articles 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with regard to right of assembly and liberty of movement, and came into effect on 26 August 2020, at midnight.
In view of the foregoing, I should be grateful if you would inform the other States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights accordingly.
[…]

07-04-2021

I have the honour to write to you, pursuant to article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to inform you that, the President of Guatemala declared, through Government Decree No. 3-2021 adopted in the Council of Ministers, a state of emergency in the Izabal, Zacapa, Chiquimula, El Progreso and Petén Departments owing to the risk of the displacement of groups of migrants, who will enter the country and, owing to the situation, will not comply with the legal requirements demanded by the immigration authorities nor the public health measures requested by the competent public health authorities, concerning the medical proof of a negative COVID-19 test.
The declaration of the state of emergency is therefore deemed to be necessary since the order, governability and security of the inhabitants may be affected by groups of people who could put at risk the life, liberty, justice, security, health, peace and comprehensive development and property of the inhabitants. In order to avoid consequences in the future, it is urgently necessary to take all appropriate action to protect the security and life of the inhabitants and authorities of the aforementioned departments, and to protect the health of the migrants.
To that end, measures have been taken on 29 March 2021 that restrict the application of articles 12, 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with regard to the right of assembly, freedom to demonstrate and liberty of movement for a period of 15 days from the date of publication in the Diario de Centro América.
I should be grateful if you would inform the other States Parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights accordingly.
[...]

Guinea

24-01-1978

In accordance with the principle whereby all States whose policies are guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations are entitled to become parties to covenants affecting the interests of the international community, the Government of the Republic of Guinea considers that the provisions of article 48, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are contrary to the principle of the universality of international treaties and the democratization of international relations.

Guinea-Bissau

24-09-2013

Recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and examine communications in which a Party claims that another Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the present Covenant, signed by Guinea-Bissau on 12 September, 2000, and for which the instrument of ratification was deposited by Guinea-Bissau on 1 November 2010.

Guyana

15-02-1977

In respect of sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 3 of article 14
While the Government of the Republic of Guyana accept the principle of Legal Aid in all appropriate criminal proceedings, is working towards that end and at present apply it in certain defined cases, the problems of implementation of a comprehensive Legal Aid Scheme are such that full application cannot be guaranteed at this time.
In respect of paragraph 6 of article 14
While the Government of the Republic of Guyana accept the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment, it is not possible at this time to implement such a principle.

10-05-1993

The Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana hereby declares that it recognises the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the aforementioned Covenant.

Hungary

25-03-1969

The Government of the Hungarian People's Republic declares that paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights according to which certain States may not become signatories to the said Covenants are of a discriminatory nature and are contrary to the basic principle of international law that all States are entitled to become signatories to general multilateral treaties. These discriminatory provisions are incompatible with the objectives and purposes of the Covenants.

07-09-1988

The Hungarian People's Republic [...] recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

Iceland

22-08-1979

The ratification is accompanied by reservations with respect to the following provisions:
1. [...]
2. Article 10, paragraph 2 (b), and paragraph 3, second sentence, with respect to the separation of juvenile prisoners from adults. Icelandic law in principle provides for such separation but it is not considered appropriate to accept an obligation in the absolute form called for in the provisions of the Covenant.
3. [...]
4. Article 14, paragraph 7, with respect to the resumption of cases which have already been tried. The Icelandic law of procedure has detailed provisions on this matter which it is not considered appropriate to revise.
5. Article 20, paragraph 1, with reference to the fact that a prohibition against propaganda for war could limit the freedom of expression. This reservation is consistent with the position of Iceland at the General Assembly at its 16th session.
Other provisions of the Covenant shall be inviolably observed.
The Government of Iceland [...] recognizes in accordance with article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

18-10-1993

The Government of Iceland notifies the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw as of 18 October 1993, the reservation to paragraph 3(a) of article 8, made upon ratification.

19-10-2009

Withdrawal of reservation concerning article 13, paragraph 3.

04-10-2024

Withdrawal of reservations made upon ratification in respect of Article 10, paragraph 2(b), and paragraph 3, second sentence, and in respect of Article 14, paragraph 7:
Article 10, paragraph 2(b), and paragraph 3, second sentence, with respect to the separation of juvenile prisoners from adults. Icelandic law in principle provides for such separation but it is not considered appropriate to accept an obligation in the absolute form called for in the provisions of the Covenant.
Article 14, paragraph 7, with respect to the resumption of cases which have already been tried. The Icelandic law of procedure has detailed provisions on this matter which it is not considered appropriate to revise.

India

10-04-1979

I. With reference to article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of the Republic of India declares that the words `the right of self-determination' appearing in [this article] apply only to the peoples under foreign domination and that these words do not apply to sovereign independent States or to a section of a people or nation--which is the essence of national integrity.
II. With reference to article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of the Republic of India takes the position that the provisions of the article shall be so applied as to be in consonance with the provisions of clauses (3) to (7) of article 22 of the Constitution of India. Further under the Indian Legal System, there is no enforceable right to compensation for persons claiming to be victims of unlawful arrest or detention against the State.
III. With respect to article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of the Republic of India reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners.
IV. With reference to articles 4 and 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and articles 12, 19 (3), 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights the Government of the Republic of India declares that the provisions of the said [article] shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the provisions of article 19 of the Constitution of India.
(...)

Objection Germany, 15-08-1980

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany strongly objects, [...] to the declaration made by the Republic of India in respect of article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The right of self-determination as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and as embodied in the Covenants applies to all peoples and not only to those under foreign domination. All peoples, therefore, have the inalienable right freely to determine their political status and freely to pursue their economic, social and cultural development. The Federal Government cannot consider as valid any interpretation of the right of self-determination which is contrary to the clear language of the provisions in question. It moreover considers that any limitation of their applicability to all nations is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenants.

Objection France, 04-11-1980

The Government of the Republic takes objection to the reservation entered by the Government of the Republic of India to article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as this reservation attaches conditions not provided for by the Charter of the United Nations to the exercise of the right of self-determination. The present declaration will not be deemed to be an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the French Republic and the Republic of India.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 12-01-1981

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of India in relation to article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, since the right of self determination as embodied in the Covenants is conferred upon all peoples. This follows not only from the very language of article 1 common to the two Covenants but as well from the most authoritative statement of the law concerned, i.e., the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Any attempt to limit the scope of this right or to attach conditions not provided for in the relevant instruments would undermine the concept of self-determination itself and would thereby seriously weaken its universally acceptable character."

Objection Pakistan, 17-04-2008

The Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan objects to the declaration made by the Republic of India in respect of article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The right of Self-determination as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and as embodied in the Covenants applies to all peoples under foreign occupation and alien domination.
The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan cannot consider as valid any interpretation of the right of self-determination which is contrary to the clear language of the provisions in question. Moreover, the said reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenants. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and India without India benefiting from its reservations.

Indonesia

23-02-2006

With reference to Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that, consistent with the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, and the relevant paragraph of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action of 1993, the words "the right of self-determination" appearing in this article do not apply to a section of people within a sovereign independent state and can not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states.

Iraq

18-02-1969

The entry of the Republic of Iraq as a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall in no way signify recognition of Israel nor shall it entail any obligation towards Israel under the said two Covenants.
The entry of the Republic of Iraq as a party to the above two Covenants shall not constitute entry by it as a party to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Objection Israel, 10-07-1969

[The Government of Israel] has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Iraq on signing [...] the above Covenants. In the view of the Government of Israel, these two Covenants are not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Iraq an attitude of complete reciprocity.

25-01-1971

Ratification by Iraq [...] shall in no way signify recognition of Israel nor shall it be conducive to entry with her into such dealings as are regulated by the said [Covenant].

Objection Israel, 23-03-1971

[The Government of Israel] has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Iraq on [...] ratifying the above Covenants. In the view of the Government of Israel, these two Covenants are not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Iraq an attitude of complete reciprocity.

Ireland

08-12-1989

Article 10, paragraph 2
Ireland accepts the principles referred to in paragraph 2 of article 10 and implements them as far as practically possible. It reserves the right to regard full implementation of these principles as objectives to be achieved progressively.
Article 20, paragraph 1
Ireland accepts the principle in paragraph 1 of article 20 and implements it as far as it is practicable. Having regard to the difficulties in formulating a specific offence capable of adjudication at a national level in such a form as to reflect the general principles of law recognised by the community of nations as well as the right to freedom of expression, Ireland reserves the right to postpone consideration of the possibility of introducing some legislative addition to, or variation of, existing law until such time as it may consider that such is necessary for the attainment of the objective of paragraph 1 of article 20.
The Government of Ireland hereby declare that in accordance with article 41 they recognise the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under article 28 of the Covenant.

26-01-2009

The Government of Ireland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation with respect to article 14 made upon ratification, which read as follows: Ireland reserves the right to have minor offences against military law dealt with summarily in accordance with current procedures, which may not, in all respects, conform to the requirements of article 14 of the Covenant.

15-12-2011

Withdrawal of reservation to Article 19, paragraph 2.

Israel

03-10-1991

With reference to Article 23 of the Covenant, and any other provision thereof to which the present reservation may be relevant, matters of personal status are governed in Israel by the religious law of the parties concerned.
To the extent that such law is inconsistent with its obligations under the Covenant, Israel reserves the right to apply that law.

16-05-2014

The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as depositary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and refers to the communication by the depositary, dated 9 April 2014, regarding the Palestinian request to accede to this Convention (Reference number C.N.181.2014.TREATIES-IV.4).
'Palestine' does not satisfy the criteria for statehood under international law and lacks the legal capacity to join the aforesaid convention both under general international law and the terms of bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreements.
The Government of Israel does not recognize 'Palestine' as a State, and wishes to place on record, for the sake of clarity, its position that it does not consider 'Palestine' a party to the Convention and regards the Palestinian request for accession as being without legal validity and without effect upon Israel's treaty relations under the Convention.

Italy

15-09-1978

Article 15, paragraph 1
With reference to article 15, paragraph 1, last sentence: "If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby", the Italian Republic deems this provision to apply exclusively to cases in progress.
Consequently, a person who has already been convicted by a final decision shall not benefit from any provision made by law, subsequent to that decision, for the imposition of a lighter penalty.
Article 19, paragraph 3
The provisions of article 19, paragraph 3, are interpreted as being compatible with the existing licensing system for national radio and television and with the restrictions laid down by law for local radio and television companies and for stations relaying foreign programmes.
The Italian Republic recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee, elected in accordance with article 28 of the Covenant, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

20-12-2005

With reference to the ratification of the above Covenant by Italy, the Government of Italy informed the Secretary-General, by a notification received on 20 December 2005, of its decision to withdraw the reservations in respect of articles 9 (5), 12 (4) and 14 (5), made upon ratification of the Covenant.

Japan

30-05-1978

[...]
4. Recalling the position taken by the Government of Japan, when ratifying the Convention (No. 87) concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, that `the police' referred to in article 9 of the said Convention be interpreted to include the fire service of Japan, the Government of Japan declares that `members of the police' referred to in paragraph 2 of article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as well as in paragraph 2 of article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights be interpreted to include fire service personnel of Japan.

Kuwait

21-05-1996

Interpretative declaration regarding article 2, paragraph 1, and article 3:
Although the Government of Kuwait endorses the worthy principles embodied in these two articles as consistent with the provisions of the Kuwait Constitution in general and of its article 29 in particular, the rights to which the articles refer must be exercised within the limits set by Kuwaiti law.
Interpretative declaration regarding article 23:
The Government of Kuwait declares that the matters addressed by article 23 are governed by personal-status law, which is based on Islamic law. Where the provisions of that article conflict with Kuwaiti law, Kuwait will apply its national law.
Reservations concerning article 25 (b):
The Government of Kuwait wishes to formulate a reservation with regard to article 25(b). The provisions of this paragraph conflict with the Kuwaiti electoral law, which restricts the right to stand and vote in elections to males.
It further declares that the provisions of the article shall not apply to members of the armed forces or the police.

Objection Germany, 10-07-1997

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany notes that article 2 (2) and article 3 have been made subject to the general reservation of national law. It is of the view that these general reservations may raise doubts as to the commitment of Kuwait to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany regards the reservation concerning article 8 (1) (d), in which the Government of Kuwait reserves the right not to apply the right to strike expressly stated in the Covenant, as well as the interpretative declaration regarding article 9, according to which the right to social security would only apply to Kuwaitis, as being problematic in view of the object and purpose of the Covenant. It particularly feels that the declaration regarding article 9, as a result of which the many foreigners working on Kuwaiti territory would, on principle, be totally excluded from social security protection, cannot be based on article 2 (3) of the Covenant.
It is in the common interest of all parties that a treaty should be respected, as to its object and purpose, by all parties.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the [said] general reservations and interpretative declarations.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Kuwait and the Federal Republic of Germany

Objection Norway, 22-07-1997

In the view of the Government of Norway, a statement by which a State Party purports to limit its responsibilities by invoking general principles of internal law may create doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to the objective and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. Under well-established treaty law, a State is not permitted to invoke internal law as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. Furthermore, the Government of Norway finds the reservations made to article 8, paragraph 1 (d) and article 9 as being problematic in view of the object and purpose of the Covenant. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the said reservations made by the Government of Kuwait.
The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the State of Kuwait.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 22-07-1997

In the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the interpretative declaration concerning article 13, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights must be regarded as a reservation to the Covenant. From the text and history of the Covenant it follows that the reservation with respect to article 13, paragraphs 3 and 4 made by the Government of Kuwait is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore considers the reservation unacceptable and formally raises an objection to it.
[This objection is] not an obstacle to the entry into force of [the Covenant] between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Kuwait.

Objection Sweden, 23-07-1997

The Government of Sweden notes that the interpretative declarations regarding article 2, paragraph 1, article 3 and 23 imply that central provisions of the Covenant are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of national law. The Government of Sweden further notes that the reservation concerning article 25 (b) is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Sweden is of the view that these interpretative declarations and this reservation raise doubts as to the commitment of Kuwait to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid interpretative declarations and reservation made by the Government of Kuwait upon accession to the [said Covenant].
This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Kuwait and Sweden.

Objection Finland, 25-07-1997

The Government of Finland notes that according to the interpretative declarations the application of certain articles of the Covenant is in a general way subjected to national law. The Government of Finland considers these interpretative declarations as reservations of a general kind.
The Government of Finland is of the view that such general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Kuwait to the object and purpose of the Covenant and would recall that a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted. As regards the reservation made to article 25 (b), the Government of Finland wishes to refer to its objection to the reservation made by Kuwait to article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
It is the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Finland is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Kuwait, which do not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provisions of the covenant, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Kuwait to the [said Covenant] which are considered to be inadmissible.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Kuwait and Finland.

20-05-2016

Partial withdrawal of reservation to article 25 (b). The remaining reservation to article 25(b) reads as follows:
[The Government of the State of Kuwait] declares that the provisions of [article 25 (b)] shall not apply to members of the armed forces or the police.

Kyrgyzstan

31-03-2020

[…] in accordance with the article 4 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 (the Covenant) has the honor to inform the following.
March 11, 2020·the World Health Organization announced the spread of a new coronavirus infection COVID-19 pandemic. As of March 30, 2020, 94 cases of COVID-19 were registered in Kyrgyzstan.
In line with the paragraph 2 of the part 9 of the article 64 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, articles 3, 4 and 7 of the constitutional law of the Kyrgyz Republic “On state of emergency”, exceptionally in the interest of protection of life and health of citizens, their safety and public order, with the purpose of prevention of coronavirus infection from spread to other parts of the Kyrgyz Republic, in accordance with the Decrees of the President of the Kyrgyz Republic “On the declaration of a state of emergency on the territory of the city of Bishkek of the Kyrgyz Republic”, “On the declaration of a state of emergency on the territory of the city of Osh, Nookat and Kara-Suu districts of the Osh region of the Kyrgyz Republic” and “On the declaration of a state of emergency on the territory of the city of Jalal-Abad and Suzak district of the Jalal-Abad region of the Kyrgyz Republic” of March 24, 2020, and in accordance with the Decrees of the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic of March 24, 2020 on the approval of the above Decrees of the President of the Kyrgyz Republic, a state of emergency declared in the cities of Bishkek, Osh and Jalal-Abad and the Nookat and Kara-Suu districts of the Osh region and in the Suzak district of the Jalal-Abad region from 8.00 a.m. of March 25, 2020 until 8.00 a.m. of April 15, 2020.
According to the mentioned Decrees of the President of the Kyrgyz Republic, the following temporary restrictions on freedom of movement (article 12 of the Covenant) and freedom of assembly (article 21 of the Covenant) in the indicated territories were determined:
- imposed curfews;
- imposed a special regime of entry and exit of citizens;
- it is forbidden for some citizens to leave for a specified period their home or place where they are bien monitored and treated;
- it is forbidden to conduct spectacular, sports and other public events, as well as strikes, meetings, rallies, street processions, demonstrations and pickets;
- expulsion of public order violators who are not residents of the given area, including foreign citizens, at their expense to the place of their permanent stay or outside the area where the state of emergency is declared;
- restrict the movement of vehicles, including foreign ones, and conduct their inspection, with the exception of the transport of diplomatic services.
[…]

30-04-2020

The Permanent Mission of the Kyrgyz Republic to the United Nations […] and in accordance with the article 4 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 (the Covenant) and in addition to the note No. 016/96 of March 30, 2020 has the honor to inform the following.
In the period from March 18 to April 28, 2020, 708 cases of infection of citizens with the coronavirus - COVID-19 (hereinafter referred to as coronavirus infection) were confirmed on the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic.
The declaration of a state of emergency and the imposition of severe restrictive measures made it possible to contain the widespread of coronavirus infection in the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic, localize foci of infection, and, on the whole, preserve the life and health of citizens.
The government bodies involved continue to work to identify citizens with symptoms of coronavirus infection, including among people who have previously been in contact with infected people.
Currently, the sanitary-epidemiological situation in individual cities and regions of the Kyrgyz Republic is characterized as unstable. Until now, people who have become infected with a coronavirus infection are being identified, some of the citizens are being treated in hospitals.
In this regard, exceptionally in the interests of ensuring the protection of the life and health of citizens and their safety, in accordance with paragraph 2 of part 9 of article 64 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, articles 3 and 4 of the constitutional Law of the Kyrgyz Republic “On the state of emergency”, by the Decree of the President of the Kyrgyz Republic of April 28, 2020, the emergency mode in the cities of Bishkek, Osh and Jalal-Abad, as well as in the At-Bashinsky district of the Naryn region of the Kyrgyz Republic, was extended until 11:59 p.m. on May 10, 2020.
[…]

Laos

25-09-2009

Reservation:
The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic accepts Article 22 of the Covenant on the basis that Article 22 shall be interpreted in accordance with the right to selfdetermination in Article 1, and shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Constitution and the relevant laws of the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
Declarations:
The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that Article 1 of the Covenant concerning the right to self-determination shall be interpreted as being compatible with the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted by the General Assembly on 24th October 1970, and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights on 25th June 1993.
The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that Article 18 of the Covenant shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any activities, including economic means, by anyone which directly or indirectly, coerce or compel an individual to believe or not to believe in a religion or to convert his or her religion or belief. The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic considers that all acts creating division and discrimination among ethnic groups and among religions are incompatible with Article 18 of the Covenant.

Objection Finland, 05-10-2010

The Government of Finland welcomes the ratification by the Lao People's Democratic Republic of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Finland has taken note of the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 22 thereof upon ratification. The Government of Finland notes that Article 22(2) provides that States Parties may, under certain specific circumstances and for certain specific purposes, restrict the right protected under Article 22(1). The Government of Finland is of the view that the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic seeks to limit the obligation of the Lao People's Democratic Republic not to restrict the freedom of association to an extent which is incompatible with Article 22(2). The reservation would therefore restrict one of the essential obligations of the Lao People's Democratic Republic under the Covenant and raises serious doubts as to the commitment of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties they have chosen to become parties to are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under such treaties. Furthermore,
according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, and according to well established customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic in respect of Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Finland. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without the Lao People's Democratic Republic benefiting from its reservation.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 08-10-2010

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of Article 22 of the Covenant is made subject to national law in force in the Lao People's Democratic Republic. This makes it unclear to what extent the Lao People's Democratic Republic considers itself bound by the obligations under Article 22 of the Covenant.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such a reservation must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and would recall that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 22 of the Covenant.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

Objection Ireland, 13-10-2010

The Government of Ireland has examined the reservations and declarations made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and notes in particular, the intention of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to apply the provisions in Article 22 of the Covenant in its territory only insofar as those provisions are in conformity with the Constitution and relevant laws of the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
The Government of Ireland is of the view that a reservation which consists of a general reference to the Constitution or domestic laws of the reserving State and which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provision of the Covenant may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant.
The Government of Ireland is furthermore of the view that such a reservation may undermine the basis of international treaty law and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Ireland recalls that according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted.
The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

Objection Austria, 13-10-2010

The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights at the time of its ratification.
In the view of Austria a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. A reservation which consists of a general reference to constitutional provisions without specifying its implications does not do so. The Government of Austria therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Austria and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

Objection Sweden, 18-10-2010

Communication regarding the reservation:
The Government of Sweden notes that the Lao People's Democratic Republic has reserved the right to interpret Article 22 in accordance with Article 1, and to apply to Article 22 as to be in conformity with the Constitution and relevant national laws of the Lao People's Democratic Republic. The Government of Sweden is of the belief that this reservation, which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation, raises serious doubt as to the commitment of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
According to international customary law, as codified in Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a Convention shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of all States that treaties, to which they have chosen to become parties, are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligation under the treaties.
Furthermore, the Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is modified or excluded does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. It is the understanding of the Government of Sweden that the declaration of the Lao People's Democratic Republic concerning articles 1 and 18 of the Covenant modifies the legal effect of the provisions of the Covenant in their application to Lao People's Democratic Republic. Hence the Government of Sweden considers that these interpretative declarations in substance constitute reservations.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and considers the reservations null and void.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Lao People's Democratic Republic benefiting from its reservations.

Objection United Kingdom, 21-10-2010

Communication regarding the reservation:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The United Kingdom considers that with this reservation the application of Article 22 of the Covenant is made subject to national law in force in the Lao People's Democratic Republic. This makes it unclear to what extent the Lao People's Democratic Republic considers itself bound by the obligations under Article 22 of the Covenant.
The United Kingdom considers that a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. A reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its implications does not do so.
The United Kingdom therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 22 of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

Latvia

16-03-2020

The Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations […] pursuant to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights informs that Latvia exercises the right of derogation from its obligations under [the] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the entire territory of Latvia.
The Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations informs that following the announcement of the World Health Organization of 11 March 2020 that COVID-19 has been confirmed as pandemic, and taking into account the significant danger the spread of COVID-19 has posed to public health, on 12 March 2020, the Government of the Republic of Latvia declared emergency situation in the entire territory of [the] Republic of Latvia. The aim of the declaration is to ensure epidemiological safety and restrict the spread of COVID-19. The emergency situation commenced on 13 March 2020, and will remain in force until 14 April 2020. Among the measures adopted by the Government of Latvia, in-class learning at schools has been suspended, access of third persons to hospitals, social care institutions and places of detention has been restricted, all public events, meetings and gatherings have been cancelled and prohibited, as well as movement of persons has been restricted. The application of these measures gives reasons for the necessity to derogate from certain obligations of Latvia under Articles 12, 17, and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations attaches to this note the unofficial translation of the order No.103 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 12 March 2020 ‘On the Declaration of Emergency Situation’, as amended on 13 March 2020 and 14 March 2020.
Pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations will inform H.E. Mr. António Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nation[s] about future developments with regard to the emergency situation, and will notify the Secretary-General when these emergency measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are fully implemented again.
[…]

16-04-2020

[…] and pursuant to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, informs that the Government of the Republic of Latvia has prolonged the emergency situation in the entire territory of the Republic of Latvia until 12 May 2020.
The Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations recalls that on 16 March 2020 it informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations that on 12 March 2020 the Government of the Republic of Latvia declared an emergency situation in the entire territory of the Republic of Latvia until 14 April 2020, which necessitated a derogation from certain obligations under Articles 12, 17 and 21 of the Covenant. In light of the continuous threat the COVID-19 poses to public health, on 7 April 2020, the Government of the Republic of Latvia prolonged the emergency situation in the entire territory of the Republic of Latvia until 12 May 2020. During this period, the measures imposed by the order No.103 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 12 March 2020 ‘On the Declaration of Emergency Situation’ and consequent derogations, as transmitted to the Secretary-General on 16 March 2020, continue to apply.
Pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations will inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations about future developments with regard to the emergency situation and notify him when these emergency measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are fully implemented again.

13-05-2020

The Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations [...] pursuant to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, informs that the Government of the Republic of Latvia has prolonged the emergency situation in the entire territory of the Republic of Latvia until 9 June 2020. At the same time, following a careful assessment of the measures chosen to restrict public gatherings and events that were put in place to prevent further spread of the Covid-19 virus, the Government has decided to ease the imposed restrictions. Consequently, the Government withdraws its derogation from Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations recalls that on 16 March 2020 it informed the Secretary General of the United Nations that following the announcement of the World Health Organization, on 12 March 2020 the Government of the Republic of Latvia declared an emergency situation in the entire territory of the Republic of Latvia until 14 April 2020, which necessitated a derogation from certain obligations under Articles 12, 17 and 21 of the Covenant. In light of the continuous threat the COVID-19 poses to public health, on 7 May 2020, the Government of the Republic of Latvia prolonged the emergency situation in the entire territory of the Republic of Latvia until 9 June 2020. However, in addition, the Government has declared that as from 12 May gatherings and events up to 25 participants shall be allowed subject to the organizers’ ability to ensure that all participants observe a 2-meter distance and observe the obligations that have been set for epidemiological safety. These obligations, inter alia, include that the organizer must provide disinfectants and that gatherings indoors must be limited to 3 hours. The Government has thereby eased the restrictions imposed by the order No. 103 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 12 March 2020 “On the Declaration of Emergency Situation” with respect to freedom of assembly and informs the Secretary General of the United Nations that it withdraws its derogation from Article 21 of the Covenant. The rest of the measures, as transmitted to the Secretary General on 16 March 2020, continue to apply to the same extent.
Pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations will inform the Secretary General of the United Nations about future developments with regard to the emergency situation and notify him when these emergency measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are fully implemented again.
[…]

09-06-2020

The Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations [...] pursuant to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, informs that, on 10 June 2020, the emergency situation, which necessitated a derogation from certain obligations under Articles 12, 17 and 21, ceased to exist. Consequently, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the Government withdraws its remaining derogations from Articles 12 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations recalls that on 16 March 2020 it informed the Secretary General of the United Nations that following the announcement of the World Health Organization, on 12 March 2020, the Government of the Republic of Latvia declared an emergency situation in the entire territory of the Republic of Latvia until 14 April 2020, which was subsequently extended. In light of the decision of the Government to ease the imposed restrictions with respect to freedom of assembly, on 13 May 2020, the Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations informed the Secretary General of the withdrawal of its derogation from Article 21 of the Covenant while maintaining the rest of the restrictions in place until 9 June 2020. Considering that the Government has decided not to extend the emergency situation in Latvia, the measures chosen to prevent further spread of the Covid-19 and the continuous threat it poses to public health, which necessitated a derogation under Articles 12, 17 and 21 of the Covenant, ceased to operate on 10 June 2020.
Accordingly, the Government terminates its derogations under the remaining Articles of the Covenant, and the provisions of the Covenant are being fully executed again.
[...]

30-12-2020

[…] and pursuant to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, informs that the Government of the Republic of Latvia on 6 November 2020 declared the emergency situation in the entire territory of the Republic of Latvia commencing on 9 November 2020, and that the emergency situation is currently extended until 7 February 2021. In the light of the continuous threat the COVID-19 pandemic poses to public health in Latvia and after a diligent and careful analysis of the necessary steps to combat the spread of the virus in the most efficient manner and to decrease the number of persons falling ill due to the spread of the virus, as of 30 December 2020, the Government of the Republic of Latvia decided to prohibit all public events and gatherings. The measure chosen by the Government of the Republic of Latvia restricts the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly, consequently necessitating a derogation from Article 21 of the Covenant. The restrictions on the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly are listed in the order No. 655 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 6 November 2020 “On the Declaration of Emergency Situation”.
Pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations will inform the Secretary General of the United Nations about future developments with regard to the emergency situation and notify him when these emergency measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are fully implemented again.
[…]

08-02-2021

… and pursuant to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, informs that the Government of the Republic of Latvia has prolonged the emergency situation in the entire territory of the Republic of Latvia until 6 April 2021.
The Permanent Mission of the Republic [of] Latvia to the United Nations recalls that on 30 December 2020, it informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations that on 6 November 2020, the Government of the Republic of Latvia declared the emergency situation in the entire territory of the Republic of Latvia, which necessitated a derogation from Article 21 of the Covenant. In the light of the continuous threat the COVID-19 poses to public health, on 5 February 2021, the Government of the Republic of Latvia prolonged the emergency situation in the entire territory of the Republic of Latvia until 6 April 2021. During this period, the measures imposed by the order no. 655 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 6 November 2020 ‘On the Declaration of Emergency Situation’ and consequent derogations, as transmitted to the Secretary-General on 30 December 2020, continue to apply to the same extent unless communicated otherwise.
Pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations will inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations about future developments with regard to the emergency situation and notify him when these emergency measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are fully implemented again.
[…]

06-04-2021

... and pursuant to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, informs that the emergency situation that was declared on 6 November 2020 and necessitated a derogation from Article 21 of the Covenant, ceased to exist. Consequently, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the Government withdraws its derogation from Article 21 of the Covenant.
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Latvia to the United Nations recalls that on 30 December 2020, it informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations that on 6 November 2020, the Government of the Republic of Latvia declared the emergency situation in the entire territory of the Republic of Latvia, which necessitated a derogation from Article 21 of the Covenant. In the light of the continuous threat the COVID-19 posed to public health, on 5 February 2021, the Government of the Republic of Latvia prolonged the emergency situation in the entire territory of the Republic of Latvia until 6 April 2021.
Considering that the Government has decided not to extend the emergency situation in Latvia, the measures imposed by the order No.655 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 6 November 2020 “On the Declaration of Emergency Situation” which necessitated a derogation from Article 21 of the Covenant, ceased to operate on 6 April 2021. Accordingly, the Government terminates its derogation from Article 21 of the Covenant, and the provisions of the Covenant are being fully implemented.
[...]

21-10-2021

… and, pursuant to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, informs that the Government of the Republic of Latvia exercises its right to derogate from certain of its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant) in the entire territory of Latvia.
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Latvia to the United Nations informs that in the light of the increased peril to the public health that the new strain of the COVID-19 virus has brought, following the Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of 9 October 2021 no. 720 “On the Declaration of Emergency Situation” as of 11 October 2021 an emergency situation has been declared in the entire territory of the Republic of Latvia. This emergency situation is extended until 11 January 2022.
In the light of this continuous threat that the COVID-19 pandemic poses and after a diligent and careful analysis of the necessary steps to combat the rapid spread of the new strain of the virus, to prevent an overload of the healthcare system, and to reduce avoidable mortality, whilst ensuring that essential State functions and services can continue to operate, the Government of the Republic of Latvia has adopted measures restricting certain rights and freedoms provided by the Covenant. In particular, the Government of the Republic of Latvia has decided to prohibit as of 21 October 2021 all public events and gatherings, consequently necessitating a derogation from Article 21 of the Covenant. The restrictions on the exercise of this right are prescribed in the Cabinet of Ministers’ Order no. 720 of 9 October 2021 “On the Declaration of Emergency Situation”.
Pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations will inform the Secretary General of the United Nations about future developments with regard to the emergency situation and notify him when these emergency measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are fully implemented again.
[…]

15-11-2021

… and pursuant to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has the honour to inform of the following. After a careful assessment of the measures adopted on 20 October 2021 to restrict all public events and gatherings that were put in place to prevent further spread of the Covid-19 virus and their further necessity, the Government of the Republic of Latvia has decided to ease them. Consequently, pursuant to Article 4, Paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the Government withdraws its derogation from Article 21 of the Covenant.
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Latvia to the United Nations recalls that on 21 October 2021, it informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations that on 9 October 2021, the Government of the Republic of Latvia declared an emergency situation in the entire territory of the Republic of Latvia. Whereas, as of 21 October 2021, in order to prevent an overload of the healthcare system, and to reduce avoidable mortality, whilst ensuring that essential State functions and services can continue to operate, the Government adopted measures restricting all public events and gatherings, which, in turn, necessitated a derogation from Article 21 of the Covenant. Considering that the Government has decided to ease the restrictions imposed by the order no. 720 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 9 October 2021 ‘On the Declaration of Emergency Situation’ with respect to freedom of assembly, the Government informs the Secretary-General of the United Nations that it withdraws its derogation from Article 21 of the Covenant.
[…]

Libya

15-05-1970

The acceptance and the accession to this Covenant by the Libyan Arab Republic shall in no way signify a recognition of Israel or be conducive to entry by the Libyan Arab Republic into such dealings with Israel as are regulated by the Covenant.

Objection Israel, 29-06-1970

[The Government of Israel] has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of the Libyan Arab Republic [upon accession to] the above Covenants. In the view of the Government of Israel, these two Covenants are not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of the Libyan Arab Republic an attitude of complete reciprocity. [Moreover, the declaration concerned] cannot in any way affect the obligations of the Libyan Arab Republic already existing under general international law.

Liechtenstein

10-12-1998

Declarations concerning article 3:
The Principality of Liechtenstein declares that it does not interpret the provisions of article 3 of the Covenant as constituting an impediment to the constitutional rules on the hereditary succession to the throne of the Reigning Prince.
Reservation concerning article 14 (1):
The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to apply the provisions of article 14, paragraph 1 of the Covenant, concerning the principle that hearings must be held and judgments pronounced in public, only within the limits deriving from the principles at present embodied in the Liechtenstein legislation on legal proceedings.
Reservation concerning article 17 (1):
The Principality of Liechtenstein makes the reservation that the right to respect for family life, as guaranteed by article 17, paragraph 1 of the Covenant, shall be exercised, with regard to aliens, in accordance with the principles at present embodied in the legislation on aliens.
Reservation concerning article 26:
The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to guarantee the rights contained in article 26 of the Covenant concerning the equality of all persons before the law and their entitlement without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law only in connection with other rights contained in the present Covenant.
The Principality of Liechtenstein declares under article 41 of the Covenant to recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

28-04-2000

Withdrawal of the reservation to Article 20, paragraph 2 of the Covenant made upon accession.

13-10-2009

Withdrawal of reservation concerning Article 24, paragraph 3 of the Covenant made upon accession.

Luxembourg

18-08-1983

(a) The Government of Luxembourg considers that article 10, paragraph 3, which provides that juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status, refers solely to the legal measures incorporated in the system for the protection of minors, which is the subject of the Luxembourg youth welfare act. With regard to other juvenile offenders falling within the sphere of ordinary law, the Government of Luxembourg wishes to retain the option of adopting measures that might be more flexible and be designed to serve the interests of the persons concerned.
(b) The Government of Luxembourg declares that it is implementing article 14, paragraph 5, since that paragraph does not conflict with the relevant Luxembourg legal statutes, which provide that, following an acquittal or a conviction by a court of first instance, a higher tribunal may deliver a sentence, confirm the sentence passed or impose a harsher penalty for the same crime. However, the tribunal's decision does not give the person declared guilty on appeal the right to appeal that conviction to a higher appellate jurisdiction.
The Government of Luxembourg further declares that article 14, paragraph 5, shall not apply to persons who, under Luxembourg law, are remanded directly to a higher court or brought before the Assize Court.
(c) The Government of Luxembourg accepts the provision in article 19, paragraph 2, provided that it does not preclude it from requiring broadcasting, television and film companies to be licensed.
(d) The Government of Luxembourg declares that it does not consider itself obligated to adopt legislation in the field covered by article 20, paragraph 1, and that article 20 as a whole will be implemented taking into account the rights to freedom of thought, religion, opinion, assembly and association laid down in articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in articles 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant.
The Government of Luxembourg recognizes, in accordance with article 41, the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

01-12-2004

The Government of Luxembourg declares that it is implementing article 14, paragraph 5, since that paragraph does not conflict with the relevant Luxembourg legal statutes, which provide that, following an acquittal or a conviction by a court of first instance, a higher tribunal may deliver a sentence, confirm the sentence passed or impose a harsher penalty for the same crime. However, the tribunal's decision does not give the person declared guilty on appeal the right to appeal that conviction to a higher appellate jurisdiction.
The Government of Luxembourg further declares that article 14, paragraph 5, shall not apply to persons who, under Luxembourg law, are remanded directly to a higher court.

Maldives

19-09-2006

The application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 27-07-2007

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservation with respect to article 18 of the Covenant is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
Furthermore, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the provisions of constitutional law in force in the Republic of Maldives. This makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Republic of Maldives to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and expresses the hope that the Republic of Maldives will soon be able to withdraw its reservation in light of the ongoing process of a revision of the Maldivian Constitution.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Maldives.

Objection Portugal, 29-08-2007

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has carefully examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
According to the reservation, the application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives.
Portugal considers that this article is a fundamental provision of the Covenant and the reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant, raises concerns as to its commitment to the object and purpose of the Covenant and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international law.
It is in the common interest of all States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under these treaties.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic, therefore, objects to the above mentioned reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the ICCPR. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and the Maldives.

Objection Latvia, 04-09-2007

The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights upon accession.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the said reservation makes the constitutive provisions of International Covenant subject to the national law (the Constitution) of the Republic of Maldives.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that customary international law as codified by Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c), sets out that reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permissible.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia, therefore, objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Maldives. Thus, the International Covenant will become operative without the Republic of Maldives benefiting from its reservation.

Objection United Kingdom, 06-09-2007

The Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General and has the honour to refer to the reservation made by the Government of the Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which reads:
'The application of the principles set out in Article 18 [freedom of thought, conscience and religion] of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of the Maldives.'
In the view of the United Kingdom a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. A reservation which consists of a general reference to a constitutional provision without specifying its implications does not do so. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Maldives.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the United Kingdom and the Maldives.

Objection Czech Republic, 12-09-2007

The Government of the Czech Republic has carefully examined the contents of the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, in respect of Article 18 thereof.
The Government of the Czech Republic is of the opinion that the aforementioned reservation is in contradiction with the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a State party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform according to the obligations set out by the treaty. Furthermore, the reservation consists of a general reference to the Constitution without specifying its content and as such does not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Covenant.
The Government of the Czech Republic recalls that it is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Czech Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Czech Republic and the Republic of Maldives, without the Republic of Maldives benefiting from its reservation.

Objection Germany, 12-09-2007

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006 in respect of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that reservations which consist in a general reference to a system of norms (like the constitution or the legal order of the reserving State) without specifying the contents thereof leave it uncertain to which extent that State accepts to be bound by the obligations under the treaty. Moreover, those norms may be subject to changes.
The reservation made by the Republic of Maldives is therefore not sufficiently precise to make it possible to determine the restrictions that are introduced into the agreement. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is therefore of the opinion that the reservation is capable of contravening the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore regards the above-mentioned reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Maldives.

Objection Estonia, 12-09-2007

The Government of Estonia has carefully examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Estonia considers the reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant as with this reservation the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the provisions of constitutional law. The Government of Estonia is of the view that the reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Republic of Maldives to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Estonia therefore objects to the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and expresses the hope that the Republic of Maldives will soon be able to withdraw its reservation in light of the ongoing process of the revision of the Maldivian Constitution.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights between Estonia and the Republic of Maldives.

Objection Finland, 14-09-2007

The Government of Finland has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland notes that the Republic of Maldives reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 18 of the Covenant in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives.
The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Covenant and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the receiving State to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.
Furthermore, the Government of Finland emphasises the great importance of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion which is provided for in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland therefore wishes to declare that it assumes that the Government of the Republic of Maldives will ensure the implementation of the rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion recognised in the Covenant and will do its utmost to bring its national legislation into compliance with the obligations under the Covenant with a view to withdrawing the reservation.
This declaration does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Maldives and Finland. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without the Republic of Maldives benefiting from its reservation.

Objection Spain, 17-09-2007

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has reviewed the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006, at the time of its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain observes that the broad formulation of the reservation, which makes the application of article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights conditional on its conformity with the Constitution of Maldives without specifying the content thereof, renders it impossible to ascertain to what extent the Republic of Maldives has accepted the obligations arising from that provision of the Covenant and, in consequence, raises doubts about its commitment to the object and purpose of the treaty.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers the reservation of the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain recalls that, under customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permitted.
Accordingly, the Government of Spain objects to the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Maldives.

Objection Canada, 18-09-2007

The Government of Canada has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Maldives upon acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with which the "application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives".
The Government of Canada considers that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law constitutes, in reality, a reservation with a general, indeterminate scope, such that it makes it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant, which it purports to introduce and it does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant.
The Government of Canada notes that the reservation made by the Government of the Maldives which addresses one of the most essential provisions of the Covenant, to which no derogation is allowed according to article 4 of the Covenant, is in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Maldives.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Canada and the Maldives.

Objection Australia, 18-09-2007

The Government of Australia considers that the reservation with respect to article 18 of the Covenant is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of the Australia recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
Furthermore, the Government of Australia considers that the Republic of Maldives, through this reservation, is purporting to make the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights subject to the provisions of constitutional law in force in the Republic of Maldives. As a result, it is unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Republic of Maldives to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Australia considers that the reservation with respect to article 18 of the Covenant is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation, pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
Further, the Government of Australia recalls that according to article 4 (2) of the Covenant, no derogation of article 18 is permitted.
For the above reasons, the Government of Australia objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and expresses the hope that the Republic of Maldives will soon be able to withdraw its reservation in light of the ongoing process of a revision of the Maldivian Constitution.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Australia and the Republic of Maldives.

Objection Austria, 18-09-2007

The Government of Austria has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006 in respect of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of Austria is of the opinion that reservations which consist in a general reference to a system of norms (like the constitution of the legal order of the reserving State) without specifying the contents thereof leave it uncertain to which extent that State accepts to be bound by the obligations under the treaty. Moreover, those norms may be subject to changes.

The reservation made by the Republic of Maldives is therefore not sufficiently precise to make it possible to determine the restrictions that are introduced into the agreement. The Government of Austria is therefore of the opinion that the reservation is capable of contravening the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Austria therefore regards the above-mentioned reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Maldives.

Objection Sweden, 18-09-2007

[...] the Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of Sweden notes that the Maldives gives precedence to its Constitution over the application of article 18 of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden is of the view that this reservation, which does not clearly specify the extent of the Maldives' derogation from the provision in question, raises serious doubt as to the commitment of the Maldives to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
According to international customary law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of all States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties, are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and considers the reservation null and void. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Maldives and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the Maldives and Sweden, without the Maldives benefiting from its reservation.

Objection Hungary, 18-09-2007

The Government of the Republic of Hungary has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006 upon accession to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966. The reservation states that the application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives.
The Government of the Republic of Hungary is of the opinion that the reservation to Article 18 will unavoidably result in a legal situation in respect of the Republic of Maldives, which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
Namely the reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant thus raising concerns as to its commitment to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
According to Article 19 point (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, a State may formulate a reservation unless it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.
The Government of the Republic of Hungary therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Maldives.

Objection France, 19-09-2007

The Government of the French Republic has reviewed the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives at the time of its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 to the effect that the Republic of Maldives intends to apply the principles relating to freedom of thought, conscience and religion set out in article 18 of the Covenant without prejudice to its own Constitution.

The French Republic considers that by subordinating the general application of a right set out in the Covenant to its internal law, the Republic of Maldives is formulating a reservation that is likely to deprive a provision of the Covenant of any effect and makes it impossible for other States Parties to know the extent of its commitment.

The Government of the French Republic considers the reservation as contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. It therefore objects to that reservation. This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Covenant between the French Republic and the Republic of Maldives.

Objection Ireland, 19-09-2007

The Government of Ireland notes that the Republic of Maldives subjects application of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives.
The Government of Ireland is of the view that a reservation which consists of a general reference to the Constitution of the reserving State and which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provision of the Covenant may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant.
The Government of Ireland is furthermore of the view that such a reservation may undermine the basis of international treaty law and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and the Republic of Maldives.

Objection Italy, 01-11-2007

The Government of Italy has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives with respect to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of Italy considers that, by providing that the application of Article 18 is without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives, the reservation does not clearly define the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligation under that Article. This reservation raises serious doubts about the real extent of the commitment undertaken by the Republic of Maldives and is capable of contravening the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Italy therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Republic of Maldives.
This objection, however, shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Government of Italy and the Republic of Maldives.

Objection Slovakia, 21-12-2007

The Government of Slovakia has carefully examined the content of the reservations made by the Republic of Maldives upon its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of Slovakia is of the view that general reservation made by the Republic of Maldives that (The application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives (is too general and does not clearly specify the extent of the obligations under the Covenant for the Republic of Maldives.
According to the Maldivian legal system, mainly based on the principles of Islamic law, the reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of of the Republic of Maldives to its obligations under the Covenant, essential for the fulfillment of its object and purpose.
The Government of Slovakia objects for these reasons to the above mentioned reservation, made by the Government of the Republic of Maldives upon its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Malta

13-09-1990

1. Article 13 - The Government of Malta endorses the principles laid down in article 13. However, in the present circumstances it cannot comply entirely with the provisions of this article;
2. Article 14 (2) - The Government of Malta declares that it interprets paragraph 2 of article 14 of the Covenant in the sense that it does not preclude any particular law from imposing upon any person charged under such law the burden of proving particular facts;
3. Article 14 (6) - While the Government of Malta accepts the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment, it is not possible at this time to implement such a principle in accordance with article 14, paragraph 6, of the Covenant;
4. Article 19 - The Government of Malta desiring to avoid any uncertainty as regards the application of article 19 of the Covenant declares that the Constitution of Malta allow such restrictions to be imposed upon public officers in regard to their freedom of expression as are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. The code of Conduct of public officers in Malta precludes them from taking an active part in political discussions or other political activity during working hours or on the premises.
The Government of Malta also reserves the right not to apply article 19 to the extent that this may be fully compatible with Act 1 of 1987 entitled "An act to regulate the limitations on the political activities of aliens", and this in accordance with Article 16 of the Convention of Rome (1950) for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or with Section 41 (2) (a) (ii) of the Constitution of Malta;
5. Article 20 - The Government of Malta interprets article 20 consistently with the rights conferred by Articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant but reserves the right not to introduce any legislation for the purposes of article 20;
6. Article 22 - the Government of Malta reserves the right not to apply article 22 to the extent that existing legislative measures may not be fully compatible with this article.
The Government of Malta declares that under article 41 of this Covenant it recognises the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such other State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Malta, made a declaration under article 41 recognising the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself.

Mauritania

17-11-2004

Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
The Mauritanian Government, while accepting the provisions set out in article 18 concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion, declares that their application shall be without prejudice to the Islamic Shariah.
Article 23, paragraph 4
States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.
The Mauritanian Government interprets the provisions of article 23, paragraph 4, on the rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 31-05-2005

The Government of the Netherlands has examined the reservation made by Mauritania to the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The application of the Articles 18 and 23 of the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights has been made subject to religious considerations. This makes it unclear to what extent Mauritania considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of Mauritania to the object and purpose of the Convenant.
It is of the common interest of States that all parties respect treaties to which they have chosen to become parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted (Art. 19 c).
The Government of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation made by Mauritania to the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convenant between Mauritania and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, without Mauritania benefiting from its reservation.

Objection United Kingdom, 17-08-2005

The Government of the United Kingdom have examined the Declaration made by the Government of Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (done at New York on 16 December 1966) on 17 November 2004 in respect of Articles 18 and 23 (4).
The Government of the United Kingdom consider that the Government of Mauritania's declaration that:
'The Mauritanian Government, while accepting the provisions set out in article 18 concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion, declares that their application shall be without prejudice to the Islamic Shariah. [...]
The Mauritanian Government interprets the provisions of article 23, paragraph 4, on the rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah' is a reservation which seeks to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis.
The Government of the United Kingdom note that the Mauritanian reservation specifies particular provisions of the Convention Articles to which the reservation is addressed. Nevertheless this reservation does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Mauritania.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Mauritania.

Objection Sweden, 05-10-2005

The Government of Sweden has examined the declarations made by the Government of Mauritania upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, regarding Article 18 and paragraph 4 of Article 23.
The Government of Sweden would like to recall that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Sweden considers that this declaration made by the Government of Mauritania in substance constitutes a reservation.
The reservations make general references to the Islamic Sharia. The Government of Sweden is of the view that the reservations which do not clearly specify the extent of Mauritania's derogation from the provisions in question raises serious doubts as to the commitment of Mauritania to the object and purpose of the Covenant. In addition, article 18 of the Covenant is among the provisions from which no derogation is allowed, according to article 4 of the Covenant.
The Government of Sweden wishes to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that all parties respect treaties to which they have chosen to become parties as to their object and purpose, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and considers the reservation null and void. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Mauritania and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Mauritania benefiting from its reservation.

Objection Greece, 24-10-2005

The Government of the Hellenic Republic have examined the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966) in respect of articles 18 and 23 paragraph 4 thereof.
The Government of the Hellenic Republic consider that these declarations, seeking to limit the scope of the aformentioned provisions on a unilateral basis, amount in fact to reservations.
The Government of the Hellenic Republic furthermore consider that, although these reservations refer to specific provisions of the Covenant, they are of a general character, as they do not clearly define the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations deriving from the Covenant.
For these reasons, the Government of the Hellenic Republic object to the abovementioned reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Greece and Mauritania.

Objection Germany, 15-11-2005

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of Mauritania on 17 November 2004 in respect of Articles 18 and 23 (4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that the limitations set out therein leave it unclear to which extent Mauritania considers itself bound by the obligations resulting from the Covenant.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore regards the above-mentioned declaration as a reservation and as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and Mauritania.

Objection Finland, 15-11-2005

The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the declaration made by the Government of Mauritania on Article 18 and paragraph 4 of Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to religious or other national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the receiving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.
The Government of Finland notes that the reservations made by the Government of Mauritania, addressing some of the most essential provisions of the Covenant, and aiming to exclude the obligations under those provisions, are in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration made by the Government of Mauritania to the Covenant. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and Finland. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without the Islamic Republic of Mauritania benefiting from its declarations.

Objection Latvia, 15-11-2005

The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the declaration made by Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights upon accession.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the declaration contains general reference to prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah, making the provisions of International Covenant subject to the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah.
Thus, the Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that the declaration is in fact a unilateral act deemed to limit the scope of application of the International Covenant and therefore, it shall be regarded as a reservation.
Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia noted that the reservation does not make it clear to what extent Mauritania considers itself bound by the provisions of the International Covenant and whether the way of implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant is in line with the object and purpose of the International Covenant.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that customary international law as codified by Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19c), sets out that reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permissible.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and Mauritania. Thus, the International Covenant will become operative without Mauritania benefiting from its reservation.

Objection France, 18-11-2005

The Government of the French Republic has examined the declarations formulated by the Government of Mauritania upon acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, in accordance with which the Government of Mauritania, on the one hand, 'while accepting the provisions set out in article 18 concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion, declares that their application shall be without prejudice to the Islamic sharia' and, on the other, 'interprets the provisions of article 23, paragraph 4, on the rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic sharia'. By making the application of article 18 and the interpretation of article 23, paragraph 4, of the Covenant subject to the prescriptions of the Islamic sharia, the Government of Mauritania is, in reality, formulating reservations with a general, indeterminate scope, such that they make it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant, which they purport to introduce. The Government of the French Republic considers that the reservations thus formulated are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of any effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof. It therefore enters an objection to these reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between France and Mauritania.

Objection Portugal, 21-11-2005

Portugal considers that the declaration concerning both Article 18 and Article 23, paragraph 4 is a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis and that is not authorised by the Covenant.
This reservation creates doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international law.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic, therefore, objects to the above reservation made by the Mauritanian Government to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Portugal and Mauritania.

Objection Poland, 22-11-2005

The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the Declaration made by Mauritania upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, done in New York on 16 December 1966, hereinafter called the Covenant, in respect of Articles 18 and 23 (4).
The Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the Declaration made Mauritania - which constitutes de facto a reservation - is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant which guarantees every person equal enjoyment of the rights set forth in the Covenant.
The Government of the Republic of Poland therefore considers that, according to the customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, done at Vienna on 23 May 1969, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted (Article 19 c).
Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the Declaration made by Mauritania is not precise enough to define for the other State Parties the extent to which Mauritania has accepted the obligation of the Covenant.
The Government of the Republic of Poland therefore objects to Declaration made by Mauritania.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Poland and Mauritania.

Mexico

23-03-1981

Interpretative statements:
Article 9, paragraph 5
Under the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and the relevant implementing legislation, every individual enjoys the guarantees relating to penal matters embodied therein, and consequently no person may be unlawfully arrested or detained. However, if by reason of false accusation or complaint any individual suffers an infringement of this basic right, he has, inter alia, under the provisions of the appropriate laws, an enforceable right to just compensation.
Article 18
Under the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, every person is free to profess his preferred religious belief and to practice its ceremonies, rites and religious acts, with the limitation, with regard to public religious acts, that they must be performed in places of worship and, with regard to education, that studies carried out in establishments designed for the professional education of ministers of religion are not officially recognized. The Government of Mexico believes that these limitations are included among those established in paragraph 3 of this article.
Reservations:
Article 13
The Government of Mexico makes a reservation to this article, in view of the present text of article 33 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States.
Article 25, subparagraph (b)
The Government of Mexico also makes a reservation to this provision, since article 130 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States provides that ministers of religion shall have neither an active nor a passive vote, nor the right to form associations for political purposes.

15-03-2002

Partial withdrawal of the reservation to article 25 (b) made upon accession.

11-07-2014

Withdrawal of the reservation to article 13 made upon accession.

Moldova

04-05-2020

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Moldova to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and, with reference to his capacity as depositary of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, [...] inform that pursuant to Article 4 of the Covenant, the Republic of Moldova exercises the right of derogation from its obligations under the ICCPR.
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Moldova informs further that following the announcement of the World Health Organization of 11 March 2020 that COVID-19 has been confirmed as pandemic, on the 17th of March 2020, the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova has adopted a Decision on the declaration of a state of emergency on the entirety of the territory of the Republic of Moldova, as a critical measure to stop the spread of COVID-19. The emergency situation commenced on 17 March 2020, and will remain in force until 15 May 2020.
The measures entail restrictions to fundamental rights and freedoms inter alia by a way of establishing a special regime of entry and exit from the country, a special regime of movement on the territory of the Republic of Moldova, suspending the activity of educational establishments, introducing the quarantine regime, as appropriate, prohibiting meetings, public demonstrations and other mass gatherings. The application of these measures has triggered the necessity for the Republic of Moldova to derogate from the application of certain provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular, Articles 12 and 21.
Pursuant to Article 4 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Moldova to the United Nations will inform the Secretary- General of the United Nations about future developments with regard to the emergency situation. A further communication will be made on the date on which the Republic of Moldova terminates such derogations and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are fully implemented again on its territory.
[…]

18-05-2020

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Moldova to the United Nations [...] with reference to its Note Verbale of 18 March 2020 (no. USA-ONU/330/150/2020) notifying the declaration of the state of emergency and the exercise by the Republic of Moldova of the right of derogation from certain obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights […] inform that the state of emergency in the Republic of Moldova has expired on May 15, 2020, thus bringing to an end the derogations announced by the Republic of Moldova from articles 12 and 21 of the Covenant.
Pursuant to Article 4 (3) of the Covenant, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Moldova kindly asks for this communication be considered as a notification on the termination of the derogations.
[…]

02-04-2021

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Moldova to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and pursuant to article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights wishes to notify that on the 31 March 2021 the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova introduced a state of emergency for 60 days, from 01 April to 30 May 2021, on the entire territory of the Republic of Moldova. The Decision of the Parliament is attached to this Note.
The existing measures already in force or envisaged to be implemented during the mentioned period of state of emergency entail or may entail restrictions to fundamental human rights and freedoms inter alia by way of establishing a special regime of entry and exit from the country, a special regime of movement on the territory of the Republic of Moldova, suspending the activity of educational establishments, introducing the quarantine regime, prohibiting public meetings and gatherings and other mass events.
The application of these measures has triggered the necessity for the Republic of Moldova to derogate pursuant to article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from the application of certain provisions of the Covenant, in particular, articles 12 and 21.
Taking into consideration the grave pandemic situation in the Republic of Moldova, the afore-mentioned measures are essential and critical in combating the spread of the COVID-19 and to protect the life and security of the nation.
Pursuant to article 4 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission will inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations about the future developments regarding the state of emergency as well as when the above- mentioned measures and derogations have ceased to apply, and the provisions of the Covenant are being fully implemented again on the territory of the Republic of Moldova.
[...]

29-04-2021

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Moldova to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and with reference to its Note Verbale no. USA-ONU/330/ 128/202l of l April 202 l notifying about the declaration of the state of emergency and the exercise by the Republic of Moldova of the right of derogation from certain obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has the honour to inform that, following the Decision no. 15 of 28 April 2021 of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova, the state of emergency in the Republic of Moldova ceased on 28 Apri1 2021, thus bringing to an end the derogations of the Republic of Moldova from the application of certain provisions of the Covenant, in particular articles 12 and 21.
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Moldova kindly asks that this communication be considered as a notification on the termination of the above-mentioned derogations, pursuant to Article 4 (3) of the Covenant.
[...]

Monaco

26-06-1997

Interpretative declarations and reservations:
The Government of Monaco declares that it does not interpret the provisions of article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2, and articles 3 and 25 as constituting an impediment to the constitutional rules on the devolution of the Crown, according to which succession to the Throne shall take place within the direct legitimate line of the Reigning Prince, in order of birth, with priority being given to male descendants within the same degree of relationship, or of those concerning the exercise of the functions of the Regency.
The Princely Government declares that the implementation of the principle set forth in article 13 shall not affect the texts in force on the entry and stay of foreigners in the Principality or of those on the expulsion of foreigners from Monegasque territory.
The Princely Government interprets article 14, paragraph 5, as embodying a general principle to which the law can introduce limited exceptions. This is particularly true with respect to certain offences that, in the first and last instances, are under the jurisdiction of the police court, and with respect to offences of a criminal nature. Furthermore, verdicts in the last instance can be appealed before the Court of Judicial Review, which shall rule on their legality.
The Princely Government declares that it considers article 19 to be compatible with the existing system of monopoly and authorization applicable to radio and television corporations.
The Princely Government, recalling that the exercise of the rights and freedoms set forth in articles 21 and 22 entails duties and responsibilities, declares that it interprets these articles as not prohibiting the application of requirements, conditions, restrictions or penalties which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society to national security, territorial integrity or public safety, the defence of order and the prevention or crime, the protection of health or morals, and the protection of the reputation of others, or in order to prevent the disclosure of confidential information or to guarantee the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
The Princely Government formulates a reservation concerning article 25, which shall not impede the application of article 25 of the Constitution and of Order No. 1730 of 7 May 1935 on public employment.
Article 26, together with article 2, paragraph 1, and article 25, is interpreted as not excluding the distinction in treatment between Monegasque and foreign nationals permitted under article 1, paragraph 2, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, taking into account the distinctions established in articles 25 and 32 of the Monegasque Constitution.

Mongolia

05-06-1968

The Mongolian People's Republic declares that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which a number of States cannot become parties to these Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature and considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States concerned without any discrimination or limitation.

Namibia

06-07-2020

[…] and pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) apprises that Namibia hereby exercises the right of derogation from its obligations under the said covenant in its entire territory.
I further wish to inform you that on 18 March 2020, by residential Decree adopted by the Cabinet of the Republic of Namibia, the government issued a state of emergency throughout the country for a period of twenty one days, after the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the coronavirus epidemic (Covid 19), a pandemic. In terms of the Namibian Constitution, the initial declaration of a state of emergency expires seven days after such declaration if not approved for an extended period by the National Assembly. The Declaration was subsequently approved by the National Assembly in terms of sub-Article (2) of Article 26 for a period not exceeding six months.
Covid 19 is not only a threat to the lives of the Namibian people and the country's public health care system but it also bears negative economic impact threatening the survival of businesses and consequently jobs and livelihoods. Our key priority is herefore to curb the spread of disease. Since the first case of the coronavirus was detected in early March 2020, the Government took effective measures to protect the further spread of the virus. These include the closure of schools and tertiary institutions, closure of non-essential retail shops, prohibition of public gatherings of more than 10 persons, banning all non-essential air travel, restricted travelling to and from the Khomas and Erongo Regions, as well urging public and private sector workers to work from home, among other interventions.
The Government of the Republic of Namibia fully understands that these are extra-ordinary measures.
They are adopted with the sole purpose of protecting the health, security and safety of the Namibian people and those who find themselves in our territory. Therefore the Namibian Government wishes to further inform the United Nations Secretary-General that the application of Article 21 (Fundamental Freedoms) of the Namibian Constitution shall be restricted during the duration of the state of emergency, thus impacting on Articles 12 (freedom of movement) and 21 (freedom of assembly and freedom of association) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Limitation of these Fundamental Rights and Freedoms are of general application and are not aimed at a particular individual and the state of emergency as provided for in Article 26 of the Namibian Constitution is authorized by Proclamation of the State President whereafter Regulations were published in the Government Gazette on 28 March 2020.
[…]

Netherlands, the Kingdom of the

11-12-1978

Reservations:
Article 10
The Kingdom of the Netherlands subscribes to the principle set out in paragraph 1 of this article, but it takes the view that ideas about the treatment of prisoners are so liable to change that it does not wish to be bound by the obligations set out in paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 (second sentence) of this article.
Article 12, paragraph 1
The Kingdom of the Netherlands regards the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles as separate territories of a State for the purpose of this provision.
Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 4
The Kingdom of the Netherlands regards the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles as separate countries for the purpose of these provisions.
Article 14, paragraph 3 (d)
The Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves the statutory option of removing a person charged with a criminal offence from the court room in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings.
Article 14, paragraph 5
The Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves the statutory power of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands to have sole jurisdiction to try certain categories of persons charged with serious offences committed in the discharge of a public office.
Article 14, paragraph 7
The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts this provision only insofar as no obligations arise from it further to those set out in article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Netherlands and article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Netherlands Antilles as they now apply. They read:
1. Except in cases where court decisions are eligible for review, no person may be prosecuted again for an offence in respect of which a court in the Netherlands or the Netherlands Antilles has delivered an irrevocable judgement.
2. If the judgement has been delivered by some other court, the same person may not be prosecuted for the same of fence in the case of (I) acquittal or withdrawal of proceedings or (II) conviction followed by complete execution, remission or lapse of the sentence.
Article 19, paragraph 2
The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provision with the proviso that it shall not prevent the Kingdom from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
Article 20, paragraph 1
The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the obligation set out in this provision in the case of the Netherlands.
[The Kingdom of the Netherlands] clarify that although the reservations [...] are partly of an interpretational nature, [it] has preferred reservations to interpretational declarations in all cases, since if the latter form were used doubt might arise concerning whether the text of the Covenant allows for the interpretation put upon it. By using the reservation form the Kingdom of the Netherlands wishes to ensure in all cases that the relevant obligations arising out of the Covenant will not apply to the Kingdom, or will apply only in the way indicated.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands declares under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

20-12-1983

Withdrawal of the reservation to article 25, sub-paragraph (c). The text of the reservation reads as follows:
"The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept this provision in the case of the Netherlands Antilles."

11-10-2010

In reference to the reservation made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands on ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 11 December 1978, which reads, as far as relevant:
'[...]
Article 12, paragraph 1
The Kingdom of the Netherlands regards the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles as separate territories of a State for the purpose of this provision.
Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 4
The Kingdom of the Netherlands regards the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles as separate countries for the purpose of these provisions.
[...]'
The Kingdom of the Netherlands, consisting, as per 10 October 2010, of the European part of the Netherlands, the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba), Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, regards these parts as separate territories for the purpose of Article 12, paragraph 1, and as separate countries for the purpose of Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 4, of the Covenant.

New Zealand

28-12-1978

The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply article 10 (2) (b) or article 10 (3) in circumstances where the shortage of suitable facilities makes the mixing of juveniles and adults unavoidable; and further reserves the right not to apply article 10 (3) where the interests of other juveniles in an establishment require the removal of a particular juvenile offender or where mixing is considered to be of benefit to the persons concerned.
The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply article 14 (6) to the extent that it is not satisfied by the existing system for ex gratia payments to persons who suffer as a result of a miscarriage of justice.
The Government of New Zealand having legislated in the areas of the advocacy of national and racial hatred and the exciting of hostility or ill will against any group of persons, and having regard to the right of freedom of speech, reserves the right not to introduce further legislation with regard to article 20.
The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply article 22 as it relates to trade unions to the extent that existing legislative measures, enacted to ensure effective trade union representation and encourage orderly industrial relations, may not be fully compatible with that article.
The Government of New Zealand declares under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that it recognises the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from another State Party which has similarly declared under article 41 its recognition of the Committee's competence in respect to itself except where the declaration by such a state party was made less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a complaint relating to New Zealand.

Norway

31-08-1972

Norway recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

13-09-1972

Subject to reservations to article 10, paragraph 2 (b) and paragraph 3 "with regard to the obligation to keep accused juvenile persons and juvenile offenders segregated from adults" and to article 14, paragraphs 5 and 7 and to article 20, paragraph 1.

12-12-1979

Withdrawal of the reservation to article 6, paragraph 4 made upon ratification.

19-09-1995

[The Government of Norway declares that] the entry into force of an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act, which introduces the right to have a conviction reviewed by a higher court in all cases, the reservation made by the Kingdom of Norway with respect to article 14, paragraph 5 of the Covenant shall continue to apply only in the following exceptional circumstances:
1. "Riksrett" (Court of Impeachment)
According to article 86 of the Norwegian Constitution, a special court shall be convened in criminal cases against members of the Government, the Storting (Parliament) or the Supreme Court, with no right of appeal.
2. Conviction by an appellate court
In cases where the defendant has been acquitted in the first instance, but convicted by an appellate court, the conviction may not be appealed on grounds of error in the assessment of evidence in relation to the issue of guilt. If the appellate court convicting the defendant is the Supreme Court, the conviction may not be appealed whatsoever.

Pakistan

17-04-2008

The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to attach appropriate reservations, make declarations and state its understanding in respect of various provisions of the Covenant at the time of ratification.

23-06-2010

Article 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19
'The Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws'.
Article 12
'The Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 12 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan'.
Article 13
'With respect to Article 13, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners'.
Article 25
'The Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 25 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan'.
Article 40
'The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant'.

Objection Spain, 09-06-2011

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, concerning articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the said Covenant.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the above-mentioned reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, since they are intended to exempt Pakistan from its commitment to respect and guarantee certain rights essential for the fulfillment of the object and purpose of the Covenant, such as equality between men and women; the right to life and restrictions on the imposition of the death penalty; the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of expression; liberty of movement and freedom in choice of residence; restrictions on the expulsion of aliens lawfully in the territory of a State Party; and the right to take part in public affairs, the right to vote and to be elected and the right to have access to public service on terms of equality, or to limit the said commitment in an undefined manner.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain also considers that the reservation whereby Pakistan declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee provided for in article 40 of the Covenant is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
Furthermore, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the above-mentioned reservations made by Pakistan, subordinating the application of certain articles of the Covenant either to their conformity with sharia law or to their conformity with the Constitution of Pakistan, or to both, to which general reference is made without specifying their content, in no way excludes the legal effects of the obligations arising from the relevant provisions of the Covenant.
Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the reservations made by Pakistan to articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Spain and Pakistan.

Objection Czech Republic, 20-06-2011

The Czech Republic believes that the reservations of Pakistan made to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant, if put into practice, would result in weakening of the relevant human rights, which is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. Furthermore, Pakistan supports these reservations by references to its domestic law, which is, in the opinion of the Czech Republic, unacceptable under customary international law, as codified in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Finally, the reservations to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 that refer to the notions such as "Sharia law" and "Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan"; the reservations to Articles 12 and 25 that refer to the notions such as "law relating to foreigners" without specifying its contents, do not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations under the Covenant.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to Article 28 paragraph 2 of the Convention and according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
The Czech Republic, therefore, objects to the aforesaid reservations made by Pakistan to the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Czech Republic and Pakistan. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the Czech Republic and Pakistan, without Pakistan benefiting from its reservation.

Objection Poland, 20-06-2011

The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966, with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant.
In the view of the Government of the Republic of Poland, if put into practice, the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, especially when taking into account their unspecified extent and the vast area of rights they affect, will considerably limit the ability to benefit from the rights guaranteed by the Covenant.
Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers these reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, which is to guarantee equal rights to everyone without any discrimination. In consequence, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is a treaty and customary norm, these reservations shall not be permitted.
In order to justify its will to exclude the legal consequences of certain provisions of the Covenant, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan raised in its reservations the inconsistency of these provisions with its domestic legislation. The Government of the Republic of Poland recalls that, according to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the State Party to an international agreement may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. On the contrary, it should be deemed a rule that a State Party adjusts its internal law to the treaty which it decides to be bound by. On these grounds, the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant shall not be permitted.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan refers in its reservations to the Sharia laws and to its domestic legislation as possibly affecting the application of the Covenant. Nonetheless it does not specify the exact content of these laws and legislation. As a result, it is impossible to clearly define the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. Thus, the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant shall not be permitted.
Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers that reservations aimed at limitation or exclusion of the application of treaty norms stipulating non-derogable rights are in opposition with the purpose of this treaty. On these grounds, the reservations made with regard to Articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are impermissible.
The Government of the Republic of Poland objects also to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Article 40 of the Covenant considering it as impermissible as it undermines the basis of the United Nations mechanism of monitoring of the respect of human rights.
The Government of the Republic of Poland considers the reporting obligations of States Parties to the Covenant to be of utmost importance for the effectiveness of the UN system of the protection of human rights and as such - not of optional nature.
Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Poland objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966, with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Poland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Objection Estonia, 21-06-2011

The Government of the Republic of Estonia has carefully examined the reservations made on 23 June 2010 by Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant.
Regarding Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25, the Government of the Republic of Estonia considers these reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant as with these reservations the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the provisions of constitutional law. The Government of Estonia is of the view that the reservation which consists of a general reference to a national law without specifying its content does not clearly indicate to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations contained in the relevant Articles of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
Furthermore, the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Article 40 of the Covenant is in the view of the Government of the Republic of Estonia contrary to the aim of the Covenant as this Article sets out the commitments of States towards the Human Rights Committee. The reporting mechanism is one of the core elements of the implementation of the Covenant.
Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Estonia objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Nevertheless, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as between the Republic of Estonia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Objection Sweden, 22-06-2011

The Government of Sweden is of the view that these reservations raise serious doubt as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant, as the reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of their effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof.
The Government of Sweden furthermore notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 40 of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden is of the view that the reporting mechanism is a procedural requirement of the Covenant, an integral undertaking of its States Parties and that the reservation is likely to undermine the international human rights treaty body system. Thus, the reservation to article 40 is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
According to international customary law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of all States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and considers the reservations null and void.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Pakistan and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between Pakistan and Sweden, without Pakistan benefiting from these reservations.

Objection Greece, 22-06-2011

The Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the Covenant are of fundamental importance and that the reservations formulated by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to those Articles, containing a general reference to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws without specifying the extent of the derogation therefrom, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
Furthermore, the Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the reservation formulated with respect to Article 40 of the Covenant, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, which seeks, inter alia, to establish an effective monitoring mechanism for the obligations undertaken by the States Parties.
For this reason the Government of the Hellenic Republic objects to the abovementioned reservations formulated by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Greece and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Objection Ireland, 23-06-2011

The Government of Ireland has examined the reservations made on 23 June 2010 by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of Ireland notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan subjects Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 to the Constitution of Pakistan, its domestic law and/or Sharia law. The Government of Ireland is of the view that a reservation which consists of a general reference to the Constitution or the domestic law of the reserving State or to religious law, may cast doubt on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfill its obligations under the Covenant. The Government of Ireland is of the view that such general reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and may undermine the basis of international treaty law.
The Government of Ireland further notes the reservation by Pakistan to Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reporting mechanism is an integral undertaking of all States Parties to the Covenant.
The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Objection Slovakia, 23-06-2011

The Slovak Republic has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, according to which:
'[The] Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Article 12 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan.
With respect to Article 13, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Article 25 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant'.
The Slovak Republic considers that with the reservations to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the Islamic Sharia law. Moreover it considers the reservations with respect to Articles 12, 13, 25 and 40 of the Covenant as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant as to its commitment to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
It 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, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Slovak Republic and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its reservations.

Objection Uruguay, 23-06-2011

The Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay considers that the oversight procedures established by international human rights agreements are an essential tool for monitoring and determining the degree to which States Parties are complying with their obligations and an integral part of the system for the international protection of human rights. Rejecting the competence of the Committee to request, receive and consider reports from the State Party thwarts the aim of promoting universal and effective respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as set forth in the preamble of the Covenant.
Accordingly, the Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay objects to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with respect to article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Covenant between the Eastern Republic of Uruguay and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Objection France, 24-06-2011

The Government of the French Republic has considered the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 23 June 2010.
Concerning the reservations to articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 18, 19 and 25, France considers that in seeking to exclude the application of provisions of the Covenant, insofar as they might be contrary to or inconsistent with the Constitution of Pakistan and/or Sharia law, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has made reservations of a general and indeterminate nature. Indeed, these reservations are vague since they do not specify which provisions of domestic law are affected. Thus, they do not allow other States Parties to appreciate the extent of the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, including the compatibility of the provisions with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
With regard to article 40, France believes that in seeking to exclude the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider periodic reports, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is depriving this key body under the Covenant of its main function. As such, the Government of the French Republic considers this reservation to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of the French Republic therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between France and Pakistan.

Objection Austria, 24-06-2011

The Government of Austria has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The Government of Austria considers that in aiming to exclude the application of those provisions of the Covenant which are deemed incompatible with the Constitution of Pakistan, Sharia laws and certain national laws, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has made reservations of general and indeterminate scope. These reservations do not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant.
The Government of Austria therefore considers the reservations of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19; further to Articles 12, 13 and 25 incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to them.
Austria further considers that the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant has a pivotal role in the implementation of the Covenant. The exclusion of the competence of the Committee is not provided for in the Covenant and in Austria's views incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Austria therefore objects to this reservation.
These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Austria and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Objection Canada, 27-06-2011

The Government of Canada has carefully examined the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which declares that:
‘the provisions of Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws’;
‘the provisions of Article 12 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan’;
‘With respect to Article 13, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners’;
‘the provisions of Article 25 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan’; and
the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ‘does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant’.
The Government of Canada considers that reservations which consist of a general reference to national law or to the prescriptions of the Islamic Sharia constitute, in reality, reservations with a general, indeterminate scope. This makes it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant that each reservation purports to introduce and impossible for the other States Parties to the Covenant to know the extent to which Pakistan has accepted the obligations of the Covenant, an uncertainty which is unacceptable, especially in the context of treaties related to human rights.
The Government of Canada further considers that the competence of the Committee to receive, study and comment on the reports submitted by States Parties as provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant is essential to the implementation of the Covenant. Through its function and its activity, the Human Rights Committee plays an essential role in monitoring the fulfillment of the obligations of the States Parties to the Convention. Participation in the reporting mechanism outlined in Article 40, which is aimed at encouraging more effective implementation by States Parties of their treaty obligations, is standard practice of States Parties to the Covenant.
The Government of Canada notes that the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, addressing many of the most essential provisions of the Covenant, and aiming to
exclude the obligations under those provisions, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and thus inadmissible under Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
In addition, Articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant are among the provisions from which no derogation is allowed, according to Article 4 of the Covenant. The Government of Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Canada and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Objection Hungary, 28-06-2011

With regard to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan:
The Government of the Republic of Hungary has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, in respect of Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 thereof.
The Government of the Republic of Hungary is of the opinion that the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, and 19 are in contradiction with the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a State party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform according to the obligations set out by the treaty. Furthermore, the reservations consist of a general reference to the provisions of the Constitution, the Sharia laws, and/or Pakistani internal law relating to foreigners without specifying their content and as such do not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Covenant.
The Government of the Republic of Hungary recalls that it is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Republic of Hungary therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18 and 19 of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Hungary and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Objection Australia, 28-06-2011

The Government of Australia has examined the reservation made by The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and now hereby objects to the same for and on behalf of Australia:
The Government of Australia considers that the reservations by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are incompatible with the object and purpose of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant).
The Government of Australia recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
Furthermore, the Government of Australia considers that The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, through its reservations, is purporting to make the application of the Covenant subject to the provisions of general domestic law in force in The Islamic Republic of Pakistan. As a result, it is unclear to what extent The Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Australia considers that the reservations to the Covenant are subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation, pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
Further, the Government of Australia recalls that according to article 4 (2) of the Covenant, no derogation of article 18 is permitted.
For the above reasons, the Government of Australia objects to the aforesaid reservations made by The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Covenant and expresses the hope that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will withdraw its reservations.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Australia and The Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Objection Germany, 28-06-2011

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on 23 June 2010 to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that these reservations subject the applications of Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant to a system of domestic norms without specifying the contents thereof, leaving it uncertain to which extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan accepts to be bound by the obligations under the Covenant and raising serious doubts as to its commitment to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. These reservations therefore are considered incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and consequently impermissible under Art. 19 c of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
By refusing to recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant the Republic of Pakistan calls into question the complete reporting mechanism which is a central procedural element of the Covenant system. This specific reservation against Article 40 therefore is considered to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant as well.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Objection Denmark, 28-06-2011

The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of Denmark considers that the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant, which make the applications of these essential obligations under the Covenant subject to Sharia and/or constitutional and/or national law in force in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, raise doubts as to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty and concern as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of the Kingdom on Denmark has also examined the reservation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with respect to Article 40 of the Covenant.
The Government of Denmark considers, that the supervisory machinery established under the Covenant, including the system of periodic reporting to the human rights Committee is an essential part of the treaty.
Accordingly a reservation to the effect that a State Party does not recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee to review and comment State reports must be considered contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Denmark wishes to recall that, according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted.
Consequently, the Government of Denmark considers the said reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law.
The Government of Denmark therefore objects to the aforementioned reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant in its entirety between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Denmark.
The Government of Denmark recommends the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to reconsider its reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Objection Switzerland, 28-06-2011

Concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966:
The Swiss Federal Council has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, with regard to articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 of the Covenant.
The reservations to the articles, which refer to the provisions of domestic law and Islamic Sharia law, do not specify their scope and raise doubts about the ability of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to honour its obligations as a party to the Covenant. Furthermore, the Swiss Federal Council emphasizes that the third sentence of article 6, paragraph 1; article 7; and article 18, paragraph 2, constitute jus cogens and therefore enjoy absolute protection.
A general reservation to article 40, a key provision of the Covenant, raises serious doubts as to the compatibility of such a reservation with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 prohibits any reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty.
Consequently, the Swiss Federal Council objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Switzerland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Objection Finland, 28-06-2011

The Government of Finland welcomes the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Government of Finland has carefully examined the content of the reservations relating to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Convention made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification.
The Government of Finland notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves the right to apply the provisions of Article 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 to the extent that they are not repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws, the provisions of Article 12 so as to be in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan, and the provisions of Article 25 to the extent that they are not repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan, and that, as regards the provisions of Article 13, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves the right to apply its law relating to foreigners.
The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its content does not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving States commits itself to the Covenant and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to fulfill its obligations under the Covenant. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.
Furthermore, the Government of Finland notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant. The reporting mechanism established under Article 40 is an essential feature of the system of human rights protection created by the Covenant and an integral undertaking of States Parties to the Covenant.
All of the above reservations seek to restrict essential obligations of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan under the Covenant and raise serious doubts as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in respect of Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Finland.
The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its reservations.

Objection Belgium, 28-06-2011

Belgium has carefully examined the reservations made by Pakistan upon accession on 23 June 2010 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The vagueness and general nature of the reservations made by Pakistan with respect to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may contribute to undermining the bases of international human rights treaties.
The reservations make the implementation of the Covenant’s provisions contingent upon their compatibility with the Islamic Sharia and/or legislation in force in Pakistan. This creates uncertainty as to which of its obligations under the Covenant Pakistan intends to observe and raises doubts as to Pakistan’s respect for the object and purpose of the Covenant.
As to the reservation made with respect to Article 40, Belgium emphasizes that the object and purpose of the Covenant are not only to confer rights upon individuals, thereby imposing corresponding obligations on States, but also to establish an effective mechanism for monitoring obligations under the
Covenant.
It is in the common interest for all parties to respect the treaties to which they have acceded and for States to be willing to enact such legislative amendments as may be necessary in order to fulfil their treaty obligations.
Belgium also notes that the reservations concern a fundamental provision of the Covenant.
Consequently, Belgium considers the reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
Belgium notes that under customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted (article 19 (c)).
Furthermore, under Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
Consequently, Belgium objects to the reservations formulated by Pakistan with respect to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Belgium and Pakistan.

Objection Italy, 28-06-2011

The Government of Italy has examined the reservations made on 23 June 2010 by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of Italy has noted that the reservations to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18, 19, 12, 13 and 25 makes the constitutive provisions of the International Covenant subject to the national law of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (the Constitution, its domestic law and/or Sharia laws).
In the view of the Government of Italy a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. A reservation which consists of a general reference to national provisions without specifying its implications makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Italy is of the view that such general reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and may undermine the basis of international treaty law.
The Government of Italy recalls that customary international law as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c), sets out that reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permissible.
The Government of Italy, therefore, objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18, 19, 12, 13 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Italy and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Objection United Kingdom, 28-06-2011

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has examined the reservations made by the Government of Pakistan to the [International] Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights] on 23 June 2010, which read:
1. [The] Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws.
2. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 12 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan.
3. With respect to Article 13, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners.
4. [The] Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 25 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan.
5. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant.
In the view of the United Kingdom a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. Reservations which consist of a general reference to a constitutional provision, law or system of laws without specifying their contents do not do so.
In addition, the United Kingdom considers that the reporting mechanism enshrined in Article 40 is an essential procedural requirement of the Covenant, and an integral undertaking of States Parties to the Covenant.
The Government of the United Kingdom therefore objects to the reservations made by the Government of Pakistan.
The United Kingdom will re-consider its position in light of any modifications or withdrawals of the reservations made by the Government of Pakistan to the Covenant.

Objection Portugal, 28-06-2011

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, 16 December 1966.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 are reservations that seek to subject the application of the Covenant to its Constitution, its domestic law or/and Sharia Law, limiting the scope of the [Covenant] on an unilateral basis and contributing to undermining the basis of International Law.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by invoking its Constitution, the domestic law or/and the Sharia Law raise serious doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Covenant, as the reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of their effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof.
It is in the common interest of all the States that Treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the Treaties.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic furthermore notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic is of the view that the reporting mechanism is a procedural requirement of the Covenant, an integral undertaking of its States Parties and that the reservation is likely to undermine the international human rights treaty body system. Thus, the reservation to article 40 is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, 16 December 1966.
However, these objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Portuguese Republic and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Objection United States of America, 29-06-2011

The Government of the United States of America objects to Pakistan's reservations to the ICCPR. Pakistan has reserved to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 25 of the Covenant, which address the equal right of men and women to the full enjoyment of civil and political rights, the right to life, protections from torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, freedom of movement, expulsion of aliens, the freedoms of thought, conscious and religion, the freedom of expression, and the right to take part in political affairs. Pakistan has also reserved to Article 40, which provides for a process whereby States Parties submit periodic reports on their implementation of the Covenant when so requested by the Human Rights Committee (HRC). These reservations raise serious concerns because they both obscure the extent to which Pakistan intends to modify its substantive obligations under the Covenant and also foreclose the ability of other Parties to evaluate Pakistan's implementation through periodic reporting. As a result, the United States considers the totality of Pakistan's reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the United States and Pakistan, and the aforementioned articles shall apply between our two states, except to the extent of Pakistan's reservations.

Objection Latvia, 29-06-2011

The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservations expressed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant upon ratification.
Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the International Covenant shall be viewed as constituting the object and purpose thereof. Therefore, pursuant to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations, whereby the mentioned provisions of the International Covenant are subjected to the regime of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan or of Sharia law may not be viewed as being compatible with the object and purpose of the International Covenant.
Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia notes that the reservations expressed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the International Covenant are ambiguous, thereby lacking clarity, whether and to what extent the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the International Covenant will be ensured.
Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that Article 40 of the International Covenant contains essential provisions to oversee the implementation of the rights guaranteed by the International Covenant. Therefore, the reservation declaring that the State Party does not consider itself bound with the provisions of this Article cannot be in line with the object and purpose of the International Covenant.
Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan regarding Articles 3, 6, 7 and 40 of the International Covenant.
At the same time, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Thus, the International Covenant will become operative without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its reservation.

Objection Norway, 29-06-2011

The Government of Norway has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Norway considers that the reservations with regard to articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant are so extensive as to be contrary to its object and purpose.
The Government of Norway therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Covenant thus becomes operative between the Kingdom of Norway and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from the aforesaid reservations.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 30-06-2011

[Communication]
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with its reservations to the Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13,18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has made the application of essential obligations under the Covenant concerning, amongst others, equality between men and women, the right to life, including restrictions on the imposition of the death penalty, the prohibition of torture, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression, the right to liberty of movement and freedom in the choice of residence, restrictions on the expulsion of aliens lawfully in the territory of a State Party, the right to take part in public affairs, the right to vote and to be elected and the right to have access to public service on terms of equality subject to the Sharia laws and/or the constitutional and/or national laws in force in Pakistan.
This makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty and raises concerns as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that reservations of this kind must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and would recall that, according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has also examined the reservation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with respect to Article 40 of the Covenant.
The Government of the Netherlands considers that the supervisory machinery established under the Covenant, including the system of periodic reporting to the Human Rights Committee established pursuant to Article 40 forms an essential part of the treaty. Accordingly, a reservation such as the reservation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in which a State Party declares not to recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee to review and comment State periodic reports must be considered contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant and shall therefore not be permitted.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservations of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the aforesaid Articles of the Covenant.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

20-09-2011

The reservations to articles 3 and 25 which were made by Pakistan upon ratification read as follows:
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 3,[...] shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Article 25 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Pakistan modifies the reservations relating to Articles 3 and 25 as follows:
Article 3
The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Article 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall be so applied as to be in conformity with Personal Law of the citizens and Qanoon-e-Shahadat.
Article 25
The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan states that the application of Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall be subject to the principle laid down in Article 41 (2) and Article 91 (3) of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Withdrawal of reservations to Articles 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 40 made upon ratification.

Palestine

06-06-2014

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary, and has the honor to refer to depositary notification C.N.277.2014.TREATIES-IV.4, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, dated 16 December 1966.
The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of Canada and wishes to recall United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 according Palestine 'non-member observer State status in the United Nations'. In this regard, Palestine is a State recognized by the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of the international community.
As a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which will enter into force on 2 July 2014, the State of Palestine will exercise its rights and honor its obligations with respect to all States Parties. The State of Palestine trusts that its rights and obligations will be equally respected by its fellow States Parties.

06-06-2014

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary, and has the honor to refer to depositary notification C.N.268.2014.TREATIES-IV.4, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Israel regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, dated 16 December 1966.
The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of Israel, the occupying Power, and wishes to recall United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 according Palestine 'non-member observer State status in the United Nations'. In this regard, Palestine is a State recognized by the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of the international community.
As a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which will enter into force on 2 July 2014, the State of Palestine will exercise its rights and honor its obligations with respect to all States Parties. The State of Palestine trusts that its rights and obligations will be equally respected by its fellow States Parties.

06-06-2014

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary, and has the honor to refer to depositary notification C.N.260.2014.TREATIES-IV.4, dated 15 May 2014, conveying a communication of the United States of America regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, dated 16 December 1966.
The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of the United States of America and wishes to recall United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 according Palestine 'non-member observer State status in the United Nations'. In this regard, Palestine is a State recognized by the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of the international community.
As a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which will enter into force on 2 July 2014, the State of Palestine will exercise its rights and honor its obligations with respect to all States Parties. The State of Palestine trusts that its rights and obligations will be equally respected by its fellow States Parties.

30-03-2020

The Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and has the honor to inform that in response to the global outbreak and spread of the novel corona virus (COVID-19), and guided by theWorld Health Organization advisories, the President of the State of Palestine issued Presidential Decree No. 1 (2020) on the 5th of March 2020, declaring a state of emergency throughout the territory of the State of Palestine for a period of 30 days that could be extended depending on the assessment and advice of health authorities. This step was taken in order to protect and preserve the health of the citizens of the State of Palestine.
Pursuant to Article 4 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations hereby informs the other States Parties, through the intermediary of the Secretary General, that the measures adopted during the state of emergency may derogate from the obligations of the State of Palestine under the present Covenant, including as they pertain to the right to liberty under Article 9, the right to liberty of movement under Article 12 and the right of peaceful assembly under Article 21, to the extent strictly required to contain and combat the spread of the virus.
The measures adopted by the Government of the State of Palestine are required by the exigencies of the situation and are not inconsistent with other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination on the grounds of race, color, sex, religion or social origin.
The Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine shall inform your Excellency of any future developments, including the cessation of the state of emergency.

Paraguay

15-07-2020

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Paraguay to the United Nations presents its compliments to the United Nations Secretariat and refers to notes MP/UN/NY/No. 827/2020 and MP/UN/NY/No. 955/2020 concerning the notification of the measures taken by the Paraguayan State in the framework of the declaration of health emergency to address the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19), in accordance with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In this regard, it reports that through Decree No. 3456 of 16 March 2020, the President of the Republic of Paraguay, H.E. Mr. Mario Abdo Benítez, declared a nationwide state of health emergency, in order to implement social distancing measures, restrictions on immigration and internal movement, a preventive stay-at-home order and a mandatory quarantine, for an initial period which was extended until 24 March 2020, in accordance with Resolution No. 099/20 of the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare.
These measures were issued in accordance with the exceptional powers invested in the State and temporarily restrict the exercise of the individual rights protected under articles 9, 12 and 21 of the [International] Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in a reasonable and proportionate manner.
These measures aim at serving the common interest by addressing the spread of the disease caused by the COVID-19, to protect the life and health of the entire population which are fundamental public goods, in accordance with articles 4, 68 and 238 of the national Constitution, as well as article 13 of Act No. 836/80 “ Health Code”.
Further, the Permanent Mission informs that, considering the dynamics of the pandemic, both at the local and regional levels, and in accordance with the regular assessments conducted by the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, the restrictions inherent in the state of health emergency were extended pursuant to the following decrees:
- Decree No. 3478 of 20 March 2020, extension until 12 April 2020;
- Decree No. 3525 of 9 April 2020: from 13 to 19 April 2020;
- Decree No. 3537 of 18 April 2020: from 20 to 26 April 2020;
- Decree No. 3564 of 24 April 2020: from 27 April to 3 May 2020.
The phased implementation of the plan for the gradual lifting of the general preventive confinement (smart quarantine) has started from 4 May 2020, pursuant to the following Decrees:
- Decree No. 3576 of 3 May 2020: phase 1
- Decree No. 3619 of 24 May 2020: phase 2
- Decree No. 3706 of 14 June 2020: phase 3
- Decree No. 3780 of 5 July 2020: extension of phase 3 until 19 July 2020.
[...]

06-08-2020

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Paraguay to the United Nations presents its compliments to the United Nations Secretariat and refers to note MP/UN/NY/No. 1033/20202, concerning the notification of the measures taken by the Paraguayan State in the framework of the declaration of a health emergency to address the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19), in accordance with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In this regard, the Permanente Mission reports that under the state of health emergency (declared pursuant to Decree No. 3456 of 16 March 2020), the President of the Republic, H.E. Mr. Mario Abdo Benítez, issued Decree No. 3835 of 18 July 2020 which provides for measures to implement phase 4 of the Plan for the gradual lifting of the general preventive confinement (smart quarantine), for the period from 20 July to 16 August 2020, with the exception of Asunción (the capital city), and the Alto Paraná and Central Departments, where the measures established for phase 3 remain in force until 16 August 2020, pursuant to Decree No. 3706 of 14 June 2020.
The Permanent Mission further informs that, within the framework of the state of health emergency, Decree No. 3526 of 9 April 2020 that authorised the establishment of temporary shelters for the supervised confinement of persons who have tested positive for COVID-19, is in effect.
Additionally, Resolution SG No. 177/20 of the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare provides that citizens travelling from other countries, for humanitarian reasons or situation of vulnerability, observe mandatory preventive confinement for 14 days in a shelter or other place designated for such purpose.
In this regard, it is reiterated that these measures were issued in accordance with the exceptional powers invested in the State to protect the life and health of the entire population, which are fundamental public goods under articles 4 and 68 of the Constitution, and they temporarily limit the exercise of the individual rights protected under articles 9, 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in a reasonable and proportional manner, to serve the common interest by addressing the spread of the disease caused by the COVID-19.
[…]

07-09-2020

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Paraguay to the United Nations presents its compliments to the United Nations Secretariat and refers to notes MP/UN/NY/No. 1033/2020 and MP/UN/NY/No. 1129/2020, concerning the notification of the measures taken by the Paraguayan State in the framework of the declaration of a health emergency to address the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19), in accordance with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,.
In this regard, the Permanent Mission reports that under the state of health emergency declared through Decree No. 3456 of 16 March 2020, and taking into consideration the evolution of the pandemic and the epidemiological situation in the country, the President of the Republic, H.E. Mr. Mario Abdo Benítez, issued the following specific measures in the context of the Plan for the gradual lifting of the general preventive confinement:
1. Decree No. 3900 of 30 July 2020, establishing specific measures for the Alto Paraná Department from 30 July 2020 until 16 August 2020. The duration of the said measures in this part of the country was extended until 23 August 2020, by Decree No. 3942 of 15 August 2020.
2. Decree No. 3919 of 9 August 2020, extending the duration of the measures corresponding to phase 3 of the Plan for the gradual lifting of the general preventive confinement (Decree No. 3706/20) in Asunción (the capital city) and the Central Department, until 30 August 2020.
3. Decree No. 3943 of 15 August 2020, extending the duration of the measures corresponding to phase 4 of the Plan for the gradual lifting of the general preventive confinement (Decree No. 3835/20) throughout the national territory, except for Asunción (the capital city) and the Alto Paraná and Central Departments, until 30 August 2020.
4. Decree No. 3964 of 22 August 2020, establishing specific measures for Asunción (the capital city) and the Central Department, from 23 August 2020 until 6 September 2020.
5. Decree No. 4000 of 29 August 2020, extending the duration of the measures corresponding to phase 4 of the Plan for the gradual lifting of the general preventive confinement (Decrees No. 3835/20 and No. 3943/20) throughout the national territory, except for Asunción (the capital city), the Central, Alto Paraná and Boquerón Departments, and the district of Carmelo Peralta in the Alto Paraguay Department, until 6 September 2020.
In this regard, it is reiterated that these measures, as well as others reported previously that remain in effect, have been issued in exercise of the exceptional powers invested in the State to protect the life and health of the entire population, which are fundamental public goods under articles 4 and 68 of the Constitution, and they temporarily limit the exercise of the individual rights protected under articles 9, 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in a reasonable and proportional manner, to serve the common interest by addressing the spread of the disease caused by the COVID-19.
[…]

27-10-2020

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Paraguay to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretariat of the United Nations and has the honour to convey the following information, in reference to notes MP/UN/NY/No. 1033/2020, MP/UN/NY/No. 1129/2020 and MP/UN/NY/No. 1395/2020, concerning the notification of the measures taken by the State of Paraguay following the declaration of a public health emergency to confront the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19), in accordance with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Under the public health emergency declared by Decree No. 3456, of 16 March 2020, and taking into consideration the development of the epidemiological situation in the country, President Mario Abdo Benítez ordered the following specific, geographical measures, as part of the plan for the gradual lifting of the preventive isolation measures:
1. Central Department and Asunción (capital). The measures established by Decree No. 3964/2020 were extended until 20 September 2020, by Decree No. 4016, of 5 September 2020, and until 4 October 2020, by Decree No. 4066, of 19 September 2020.
2. Alto Paraná Department. The measures established by Decree No. 3965/2020 were extended until 20 September 2020 by Decree No. 4017, of 5 September 2020, and until 4 October 2020 by Decree No. 4067 of 19 September 2020.
3. Concepción and Caaguazú Departments. The specific measures established by Decree No. 4045, of 12 September 2020, with effect until 27 September 2020, were extended until 4 October 2020 by Decree No. 4095, of 26 September 2020.
4. Rest of the country. The measures established by Decree No. 3835/2020, corresponding to phase 4 of the plan for the gradual lifting of the preventive isolation measures, were extended until 20 September 2020 by Decree No. 4015, of 5 September 2020, and until 4 October 2020, by Decree No. 4065, of 19 September 2020.
Subsequently, by Decree No. 4115, of 3 October 2020, specific unified measures were established for the entire country, as part of the plan for the gradual lifting of the preventive isolation measures, that were in effect from 5 until 25 October 2020 and were extended until 15 November 2020, by Decree No. 4220 of 25 October 2020. Any decision regarding further extensions will depend on the periodic monitoring of epidemiological and health system service indicators.
The specific measures contained in the decrees, copies of which are attached hereto, have been ordered in exercise of the exceptional powers invested in the State to protect the life and health of the entire population, which are basic public goods under articles 4 and 68 of the Constitution. The measures, partially and temporarily place reasonable and proportional restrictions on the individual rights protected under articles 9, 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to serve the common interest by addressing the spread of the disease caused by COVID-19.
[...]

04-02-2021

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Paraguay to the United Nations presents its compliments to the United Nations Secretariat and, in reference to notes MP/UN/NY/No. 1033/2020, MP/UN/NY/No. 1129/2020, MP/UN/NY/No. 1395/2020 and MP/UN/NY/No. 1723/2020, concerning the notification of the measures taken by the State of Paraguay following the declaration of a public health emergency to address the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in accordance with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has the honour to report the following information.
Under the public health emergency declared by Decree No. 3456 of 16 March 2020, and taking into consideration the development of the epidemiological situation in the country, President Mario Abdo Benítez, as part of the plan for the gradual lifting of the preventive isolation measures, ordered specific measures corresponding to fixed time periods, as described below.
Specific measures for the entire country
1. From 26 October to 15 November 2020: By Decree No. 4220 of 25 October 2020, new specific measures were established for the entire country.
2. From 16 November to 6 December 2020: By Decree No. 4331 of 15 November 2020, specific measures were established for the entire country, with the exception of the district of Caacupé, for which particular measures were established under Decree No. 4330.
3. From 7 to 20 December 2020: By Decree No. 4455 of 6 December 2020, specific measures were established for the entire country, with the exception of the district of Caacupé.
4. From 21 December 2020 to 10 January 2021: By Decree No. 4525 of 18 December 2020, specific measures were established for the entire country.
5. From 11 to 31 January 2021: By Decree No. 4705 of 10 January 2021, new specific measures were established for the entire country.
Specific measures for the district of Caacupé
1. From 14 November to 16 December 2020: By Decree No. 4330 of 13 November 2020, new specific measures were established for the district of Caacupé, owing to the religious celebrations in honour of the Virgin of Caacupé.
2. Enhancement of Decree No. 4330 of 13 November 2020: By Decree No. 4410 of 29 November 2020, Decree No. 4330 of 13 November 2020, establishing new specific measures for the district of Caacupé, was enhanced.
Any decision regarding extensions or new decreed measures will depend on the periodic monitoring of epidemiological and health system service indicators.
The specific measures contained in the decrees, copies of which are attached hereto, have been ordered in exercise of the exceptional powers invested in the State to protect the life and health of the entire population, which are crucial public goods under articles 4 and 68 of the Constitution. The measures partially and temporarily place reasonable and proportional restrictions on the exercise of the individual rights protected under articles 9, 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to serve the common interest by addressing the spread of the disease caused by COVID-19.
[…]

21-10-2021

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Paraguay to the United Nations presents its compliments to the United Nations Secretariat and has the honour to refer to the statement contained in document CCPR/C/128/2, adopted by the Human Rights Committee on 24 April 2020, on derogations from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Please find attached, in annex I, a report on the measures taken by the Government of Paraguay following the declaration of a public health emergency to address the spread of the virus.
Annex II contains a list of laws and decisions drawn up by the Supreme Court of Justice and decrees issued by the executive branch in response to the pandemic. Also included in the list are the National Respiratory Virus Response Plan 2020, the Plan for the Gradual Lifting of the Preventive Isolation Measures (Smart Quarantine) and a link to a web page provided by the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare bringing together the different elements of the regulatory framework, including the protocols, plans and guides that have been developed.
[…]
Annex I
Report of Paraguay on measures taken in relation to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic
In accordance with the statement contained in document CCPR/C/128/2, adopted by the Human Rights Committee on 24 April 2020, on derogations from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular paragraph 1 of the statement, in which the Committee calls upon all States parties that, under article 4 of the Covenant, have taken emergency measures in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic that derogate from their obligations under the Covenant to comply without delay with their duty to notify the Secretary-General thereof immediately, the Republic of Paraguay has the honour to report the following information:
1. The rapid global spread of the coronavirus disease overwhelmed the capacity of various health systems around the world. In Paraguay, the pandemic created an emergency situation that necessitated an immediate and head-on response, on the heels of the outbreak of a dengue fever epidemic. There have been more cases of dengue this year than in previous years.
2. This situation required the Government of Paraguay to take the decision, at an early stage, to implement exceptional emergency measures to curb the spread of the coronavirus. Its efforts were focused, first and foremost, on protecting physical health, as the first thing to be affected by COVID-19.
They were also aimed at buying time to strengthen the public health system, so that it would be able to cope with potentially widespread infection.
3. To coordinate the Government’s efforts, the Emergency Operations Centre of the Ministry of Health was established in late February to deal with a potential pandemic, and the Inter-agency Coordination Centre in Support of the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare was formed, within the National Defence Council.
4. The emergency measures adopted do not entail derogation from, or seriously affect the implementation of, obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which, pursuant to article 4 of the Covenant, must be notified to the Secretary-General. However, it is worth noting that, in order to protect the right to life and health of all individuals under its jurisdiction, the Government of Paraguay has temporarily resorted to using its exceptional emergency powers to apply provisions that may, to some extent, place reasonable restrictions or limits on the exercise of certain individual rights protected under the Covenant, in particular those enshrined in articles 9, 12 and 21, as referred to in paragraph 2 (c) of the statement in CCPR/C/128/2.
5. Paraguay was one of the first countries in the region to implement social distancing measures, place restrictions on domestic travel by the general public, declare a public health emergency and implement mandatory quarantine measures. As the virus spread in the region, migration restrictions were imposed at an early stage in order to safeguard life and health, which are basic public goods protected under articles 4 and 68 of the Constitution of Paraguay.
6. The flexibility or rigidity with which each of these emergency measures was applied depended on a daily assessment of their effectiveness in terms of the primary objective of protecting the life and health of the entire population, while maintaining a delicate balance between that concern and considerations regarding the economy and fundamental rights and freedoms. The measures have proved to be effective against the threat of widespread contagion. According to the records vailable, they have been extremely efficient in terms of the general goal of protecting the life and health of all.
7. After the first case of COVID-19 was confirmed, on 7 March 2020, the immediate objective was to provide for and implement actions to prevent the virus from spreading, in accordance with the National Respiratory Virus Response Plan 2020 adopted by the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare. This was initially done through the adoption of Decree No. 3442/250 of 9 March 2020.
8. On 16 March, Decree No. 3456/20, declaring a public health emergency throughout the entire country, was adopted. Careful decisions were subsequently taken on measures to address the pandemic, including the implementation of restrictions on migration and domestic travel and of a preventive stayat-home order. The stay-at-home order has been through various stages and is currently in the second of four phases envisaged in the Plan for the Gradual Lifting of the Preventive Isolation Measures (Smart Quarantine). The progressive implementation of the Plan is subject to periodic assessments of the public health situation.
9. At the same time as it imposed these restrictions and limitations, the Government of Paraguay also implemented an important set of prevention, preparedness, containment and mitigation measures and initiatives to address the pandemic, in accordance with its legitimate responsibilities, through the prompt development of new programmes and strategies to assist the most vulnerable sectors, and the strengthening of existing programmes and strategies.
10. On 26 March 2020, the National Congress promulgated Act No. 6524/2020, authorizing the executive branch to obtain resources to fund its actions, which included measures to support the economy and establish social safety nets in response to the adverse effects of the provisions of the stayat-home order, and measures to strengthen the health system through the provision of equipment and medical supplies. In addition, the Ministry of Finance is managing the availability of additional resources to address the challenges of economic recovery.
11. Given the economic paralysis of the host countries for Paraguayan migrants, a large number of Paraguayans wished to return to Paraguay. This led the Government to relax the migration restrictions and authorize Paraguayan nationals to enter the country or be repatriated on humanitarian grounds. At the same time, it required them to quarantine in temporary shelters in supervised isolation, with the twofold purpose of upholding the right of Paraguayan nationals to return to their home country and protecting the right to life and health of the Paraguayan population, by preventing the spread of the virus.
12. Decree No. 3526/20 of 9 April 2020 provided for the opening of shelters where individuals who had tested positive for COVID-19 would be required to stay under supervised isolation. In accordance with Ministry of Health regulations, these shelters are intended for persons who (1) themselves decide that they wish to isolate away from their family environment; (2) are unable to isolate in their home; (3) have failed to comply with the isolation measures imposed on patients; or (4) have arrived from a foreign country.
13. To that end, 53 temporary shelters were opened throughout the country; 95 per cent of them in military or police facilities, and the rest in private centres. "Health hotels" have also been established in hotel facilities especially equipped for the quarantining of Paraguayan nationals who enter the country and have the resources to pay for this service.
14. There has been a high level of citizen engagement in this health emergency, as demonstrated by the widespread compliance with the measures established and the great maturity with which the different sectors of Paraguayan society are facing the pandemic.
Annex II
Regulatory framework
- List of laws and decrees drawn up by the Supreme Court of Justice.
- Decree No. 3442 of 9 March 2020, providing for the implementation of preventive measures to address the risk of the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Paraguay.
- Decree No. 3456 of 16 March 2020, declaring a public health emergency throughout the entire country to manage compliance with the health measures provided for in implementation of the preventive measures to address the risk of the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19).
- Decree No. 3478 of 20 March 2020, extending Decree No. 3456/2020 and establishing health measures under the health emergency declared to address the risk of the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Paraguay.
- Act No. 6524 of 26 March 2020, declaring a state of emergency throughout the Republic of Paraguay in response to the declaration by the World Health Organization of a pandemic caused by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and establishing administrative, fiscal and financial measures.
- Decree No. 3490 of 28 March 2020, amending article 1 of Decree No. 3478/2020, in relation to the preventive isolation measures established from 29 March 2020 to 12 April 2020 under the health emergency declared in Paraguay (COVID-19), and expanding the scope of article 2 of the said Decree.
- Decree No. 3525 of 9 April 2020, extending the preventive isolation measures (quarantine) and restriction measures from 13 April to 19 April 2020 under the health emergency declared in Paraguay as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
- Decree No. 3526 of 9 April 2020, authorizing the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare to open shelters intended for the supervised isolation of persons who have tested positive for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19).
- Decree No. 3537 of 18 April 2020, extending the preventive isolation measures (quarantine) and restriction measures from 20 to 26 April 2020 under the health emergency declared in Paraguay as a result of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.
- Decree No. 3564 of 24 April 2020, extending the preventive isolation measures (quarantine) and restriction measures from 27 April to 3 May 2020, under the health emergency declared in Paraguay as a result of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.
- Decree No. 3576 of 3 May 2020, establishing measures under the health emergency declared in Paraguay as a result of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, corresponding to phase 1 of the Plan for the Gradual Lifting of the Preventive Isolation Measures (Smart Quarantine).
- Decree No. 3619 of 24 May 2020, establishing measures under the health emergency declared in Paraguay as a result of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, corresponding to phase 2 of the Plan for the Gradual Lifting of the Preventive Isolation Measures (Smart Quarantine).
- National Respiratory Virus Response Plan 2020: planning norms issued by the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare with a view to responding to the novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)) with a multisectoral strategy capable of mitigating the potential impact on the general population.
- Plan for the Gradual Lifting of the Preventive Isolation Measures (Smart Quarantine).
Link provided by the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare: https://www.mspbs.gov.pv/covid-19.php.

21-10-2021

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Paraguay to the United Nations presents its compliments to the United Nations Secretariat and, in reference to notes MP/UN/NY/No. 1033/2020, MP/UN/NY/No. 1129/2020, MP/UN/NY/No. 1395/2020 and MP/UN/NY/No. 1723/2020, concerning the notification of the measures taken by the Government of Paraguay following the declaration of a public health emergency to address the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in accordance with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has the honour to report the following information.
Under the state of public health emergency declared by Decree No. 3456 of 16 March 2020, and taking into consideration the development of the epidemiological situation in the country, President Mario Abdo Benítez, as part of the plan for the gradual lifting of the preventive isolation measures, has ordered specific measures by geographical area, as described below.
Specific measures for the entire country
1. Decree No. 4798 of 31 January 2021, extending the legal effect of Decree No. 4705 until 21 February 2021;
2. Decree No. 4880 of 21 February 2021, with legal effect from 22 February 2021 to 14 March 2021;
3. Decree No. 4989 of 14 March 2021, extending the legal effect of Decree No. 4880 until 17 March 2021;
4. Decree No. 5025 of 17 March 2021, with legal effect from 18 March 2021 to 28 March 2021;
5. Decree No. 5053 of 24 March 2021, amending the legal effect of Decree No. 5025 to 26 March 2021, and establishing new measures in force until 4 April 2021;
6. Decree No. 5071 of 4 April 2021, with legal effect from 5 April 2021 to 12 April 2021;
7. Decree No. 5100 of 9 April 2021, extending the legal effect of Decree No. 5071 until 19 April 2021;
8. Decree No. 5118 of 16 April 2021, extending the legal effect of Decree No. 5071 until 26 April 2021;
9. Decree No. 5161 of 24 April 2021, with legal effect from 11 to 24 May 2021;
10. Decree No. 5322 of 21 May 2021, extending the legal effect of Decree No. 5161 until 7 June 2021;
11. Decree No. 5410 of 5 June 2021, extending the legal effect of Decree No. 5161 until 21 June 2021;
12. Decree No. 5516 of 18 June 2021, with legal effect from 22 June to 12 July 2021;
13. Decree No. 5666 of 12 July 2021, with legal effect from 13 to 26 July 2021;
14. Decree No. 5750 of 26 July 2021, with legal effect from 27 July to 9 August 2021;
15. Decree No. 5790 of 9 August 2021, with legal effect from 10 to 24 August 2021;
16. Decree No. 5885 of 24 August 2021, with legal effect from 25 August to 7 September 2021;
17. Decree No. 5940 of 6 September 2021, extending the legal effect of Decree No. 5885 until 28 September 2021;
18. Decree No. 6029 of 28 September 2021, extending the period established in article 1 of Decree No. 5885 until 12 October 2021;
19. Decree No. 6085 of 12 October 2021, with legal effect from 13 October 2021 to 2 November 2021.
Specific measures, for 57 cities in particular, and for the rest of the country
1. Decree No. 5160 of 24 April 2021, with legal effect from 27 April 2021 to 10 May 2021.
The specific measures contained in the various decrees, copies of which are attached hereto, have been ordered in exercise of the exceptional emergency powers granted to the Government to protect the life and health of the entire population, which are basic public goods under articles 4 and 68 of the Constitution. The measures partially and temporarily place reasonable and proportional restrictions on the enjoyment of the individual rights guaranteed by articles 9, 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to serve the common interest by addressing the spread of the disease caused by the COVID-19 virus.
[…]
NB. All the decrees are available on the official website of the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare (https://www.mspbs.gov.py/decretos-covid19.html).

12-07-2022

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Paraguay to the United Nations presents its compliments to the United Nations Secretariat and, in reference to notes MP/UN/NY/No. 1033/2020, MP/UN/NY/No. 1129/2020, MP/UN/NY/No. 1395/2020, MP/UN/NY/No. 1723/2020 and MP/UN/NY/No. 1745/2021 concerning the notification of the measures taken by the Government of Paraguay following the declaration of a public health emergency to address the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in accordance with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has the honour to report the following information.
Under the state of public health emergency declared by Decree No. 3456 of 16 March 2020, and taking into consideration the development of the epidemiological situation in the country, President Mario Abdo Benítez, as part of the plan for the gradual lifting of the preventive isolation measures, has ordered specific measures by geographical area, as described below.
Specific measures for the entire country
1. Decree No. 6193 of 1 November 2021, extending the legal effect of Decree No. 6085/2021 until 16 November 2021;
2. Decree No. 6278 of 15 November 2021, extending the legal effect of Decree No. 6085/2021 until 30 November 2021;
3. Decree No. 6380 of 29 November 2021, extending the legal effect of Decree No. 6085/2021 until 10 December 2021;
4. Decree No. 6433 of 7 December 2021, with legal effect from 9 December 2021 to 21 December 2021;
5. Decree No. 6499 of 20 December 2021, extending the legal effect of Decree No. 6433/2021 until 4 January 2022;
6. Decree No. 6563 of 4 January 2022, with legal effect from 5 January 2022 to 18 January 2022;
7. Decree No. 6579 of 18 January 2022, extending the legal effect of Decree No. 6563/2022 until 1 February 2022;
8. Decree No. 6599 of 1 February 2022, extending the legal effect of Decree No. 6563/2022 until 15 February 2022;
9. Decree No. 6673 of 15 February 2022, extending the legal effect of Decree No. 6563/2022 until 23 February 2022;
10. Decree No. 6939 of 18 April 2022, repealing Decree No. 3456/2020 and Decree No. 3442/2020.
The specific measures contained in the various decrees, copies of which are attached hereto, were ordered in exercise of the exceptional powers granted to the Government to protect the life and health of the entire population, in accordance with articles 4 and 68 of the Constitution. The measures partially and temporarily place reasonable and proportional restrictions on the enjoyment of the individual rights protected under article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to serve the common interest by addressing the spread of the disease caused by the COVID-19 virus.
The scope and period of validity of the measures were successively established and extended, in accordance with the attached decrees, on the basis of the periodic monitoring of epidemiological and health system service indicators in the country. The measures were finally lifted pursuant to Decree No. 6939 of 18 April 2022, also attached, repealing Decree No. 3456/20.
[…]
NB. All the decrees are available on the official website of the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare (https://www.mspbs.gov.py/decretos-covid19.html).

Peru

09-04-1984

Peru recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with article 41 of the said Covenant.

20-03-2020

[…] in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and considering note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to inform the following:
- Supreme Decree No. 044-2020-PCM, issued on 15 March 2020, declared a state of national emergency for a period of fifteen (15) calendar days and provided for mandatory social isolation (quarantine) due to the serious circumstances affecting the life of the nation as aresult of the outbreak of COVID-19. Similarly, Supreme Decree No. 045-2020-PCM andSupreme Decree No. 046-2020-PCM, issued on 17 and 18 March, specified the scope ofarticles 8 and 4, respectively, of Supreme Decree No. 044-2020-PCM.
During the state of national emergency, the rights related to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, as referred to in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are suspended.
- Individuals may move around only to provide and avail themselves of the following services and goods: (a) acquisition, production and supply of food products; (b) acquisition, production and supply of pharmaceuticals and staple goods; (c) attendance at health centres, services and facilities, as well as diagnostic centres, in cases of emergency or immediate care; (d) performance of work, professional or business services to ensure water, sanitation, electricity, gas, fuel, communications, solid waste collection and funeral services in accordance with article 2 of the Supreme Decree; (e) travel to the place of habitual residence; (f) assistance and care for elderly persons, children, adolescents, dependants, persons with disabilities or vulnerable persons; (g) financial, insurance and pension entities, as well as complementary and related services that ensure their proper functioning; (h) production, storage, transport, distribution and sale of fuel; (i) hotels and other facilities providing accommodation, only for the purpose of complying with the quarantine order; (j) the media and telephone call centres; (k) public sector workers who, exceptionally, provide services necessary to enable activities related to the health emergency caused by COVID-19; (l) as an exception, in the cases of the productive and industrial sectors considered by the Ministry of Economy and Finance; and (m) activities of a similar nature or that must be carried out due to unforeseen circumstances or force majeure.
From 8.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m., it is required to remain confined at home.
- The decree also provides for the total closure of borders, suspending therefore international passenger transport. Passengers who entered the national territory before 16 March 2020 must observe fifteen (15) calendar days’ quarantine.
- Peruvian citizens returning to the country following exceptional opening of the borders must observe compulsory isolation in accordance with the provisions of the Ministry of Health.
- The National Police of Peru, with the support of the Armed Forces, shall ensure compliance with the Supreme Decree and exercise control with regard to the restriction of the exercise of freedom of movement of persons at the national level and in different means of transport.
- The present state of emergency is necessary to ensure the maintenance of order and to safeguard public health in the light of the serious circumstances affecting the life of the nation as a result of the outbreak of COVID-19.
[…]

11-04-2020

[..] in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
- Under Supreme Decree No. 064-2020-PCM, issued on 10 April 2020, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 044-2020-PCM and extended temporarily through Supreme Decree No. 051-2020-PCM and specified through Supreme Decree No. 045- 2020-PCM, Supreme Decree No. 046-2020-PCM, No. 051-2020-PCM, No. 053-2020-PCM, No. 057-2020-PCM, No. 058-2020-PCM, No. 061-2020-PCM and No. 063-2020-PCM, was extended for a period of 14 calendar days, from 13 April 2020 to 26 April 2020.
- During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are suspended.
- It should be noted that one person per nuclear family may go out to acquire food and pharmaceutical products and conduct financial transactions and that masks must be worn when using public thoroughfares. Furthermore, during the extension of the state of national emergency, all persons are under a mandatory, nationwide stay-at-home measure from 6 p.m. until 4 a.m. the following day, with the exception of the Tumbes, Piura, Lambayeque, La Libertad and Loreto Departments, where the mandatory stay-at-home measure is in effect from 4 p.m. until 4 a.m. the following day. Further, on Sundays, the stay-at-home measure is mandatory for all citizens nationwide for the entire day.
- The state of emergency was extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures to protect the life and health of the population efficiently, by reducing the possibility of an increase in the number of persons affected by COVID-19.

27-04-2020

[...] in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
• On 25 April 2020, Supreme Decree No. 075-2020-PCM was issued, extending for a period of fourteen (14) calendar days, from 27 April 2020 to 10 May 2020, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 044-2020-PCM and temporarily extended through Supreme Decrees No. 051-2020-PCM and No. 064-2020-PCM; and specified or amended through Supreme Decrees No. 045-2020-PCM, No. 046-2020-PCM, No. 051-2020-PCM, No. 053-2020-PCM, No. 057-2020-PCM, No. 058-2020-PCM, No. 061-2020-PCM, No. 063-2020-PCM, No. 064-2020-PCM, No. 068-2020-PCM and No. 072-2020-PCM.
• During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
• The state of emergency was extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures to protect the life and health of the population efficiently, by reducing the possibility of an increase in the number of persons affected by COVID-19.
[…]

11-05-2020

The Permanent Mission of Peru […] in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, […] report the following:
• On 10 May 2020, Supreme Decree No. 083-2020-PCM was issued, extending for a period of fourteen (14) calendar days, from Monday 11 May 2020 to Sunday 24 May 2020, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 044-2020-PCM, temporarily extended through Supreme Decrees No. 051-2020-PCM, No. 064-2020-PCM and No. 075-2020-PCM; and specified or amended through Supreme Decrees No. 045-2020-PCM, No. 046-020-PCM, No. 051-2020-PCM, No. 053-2020-PCM, No. 057-2020-PCM, No. 058-2020-PCM, No. 061-2020-PCM, No. 063-2020-PCM, No. 064-2020-PCM, No. 068-2020-PCM and o. 072-2020-PCM.
• During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
• All persons are under a mandatory stay-at-home measure from 8 p.m. until 4 a.m. the following day, with the exception of the Tumbes, Piura, Lambayeque, La Libertad and Loreto Departments, where the mandatory stay-at-home measure is in effect from 4 p.m. until 4 a.m. the following day. Further, on Sundays, the stay-at-home measure is mandatory for all citizens nationwide for the entire day.
• The state of emergency was extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures to protect the life and health of the population efficiently, by reducing the possibility of an increase in the number of persons affected by COVID 19.
[…]
[The text of Supreme Decree No. 083-2020-PCM of the Republic of Peru attached to the notification is on file with the Secretary-General and is available for consultation on the UNTC website, document “Reference: C.N.166.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 (Depositary Notification)”]

25-05-2020

30-06-2020

05-08-2020

The Permanent Mission of Peru […] and, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
• On 31 July 2020, Supreme Decree No. 135-2020-PCM was issued, extending from Saturday 1 August 2020 until Monday 31 August 2020, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 044-2020-PCM, temporarily extended through Supreme Decrees No. 051-2020-PCM, No. 064-2020-PCM, No. 075-2020-PCM, No. 083-2020-PCM, No. 094-2020-PCM and No. 116-2020-PCM; and specified or amended through Supreme Decrees No. 045-2020-PCM, No. 046-2020-PCM, No. 051-2020-PCM, No. 053-2020-PCM, No. 057-2020-PCM, No. 058-2020-PCM, No. 061-2020-PCM, No. 063-2020-PCM, No. 064-2020-PCM, No. 068-2020-PCM, No. 072-2020-PCM, No. 083-2020-PCM, No. 094-2020PCM, No. 110-2020-PCM, No. 116-2020-PCM, No. 117-2020-PCM and No. 129-2020-PCM, due to the serious circumstances affecting the life of the nation as a result of COVID-19.
• During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
• A mandatory confinement (quarantine) has been ordered in the Arequipa, Ica, Junín, Huánuco and San Martín Departments, as well as in the province of Tambopata in the Madre de Dios Department, in the provinces of Santa, Casma and Huaraz in the Ancash Department, in the provinces of Mariscal Nieto and Ilo in the Moquegua Department, in the province of Tacna in the Tacna Department, in the provinces of Cusco and La Convención in the Cusco Department, in the provinces of San Román and Puno in the Puno Department, in the province of Huancavelica in the Huancavelica Department, in the provinces of Cajamarca, Jaén and San Ignacio in the Cajamarca Department, in the provinces of Bagua, Condorcanqui and Utcubamba in the Amazonas Department, and in the provinces of Abancay and Andahuaylas in the Apurímac Department, where the movement of persons is permitted only for the provision of or access to essential services and goods, and for the provision of services of authorized economic activities.
• Similarly, all persons are under a nationwide mandatory stay-at-home measure from 10 p.m. until 4 a.m. the following day, from Monday to Sunday; with the exception of the Arequipa, Ica, Junín, Huánuco and San Martín Departments, the province of Tambopata in the Madre de Dios Department, the provinces of Santa, Casma and Huaraz in the Ancash Department, the provinces of Mariscal Nieto and Ilo in the Moquegua Department, the province of Tacna in the Tacna Department, the provinces of Cusco and La Convención in the Cusco Department, the provinces of San Román and Puno in the Puno Department, the province of Huancavelica in the Huancavelica Department, the provinces of Cajamarca, Jaén and San Ignacio in the Cajamarca Department, the provinces of Bagua, Condorcanqui and Utcubamba in the Amazonas Department, and the provinces of Abancay and Andahuaylas in the Apurímac Department, where the mandatory stay-at-home measure is in effect from 8 p.m. until 4 a.m, the following day, and on Sundays, the stay-at-home measure is mandatory for the entire day.
• The state of emergency has been extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures to protect the life and health of the population efficiently, by reducing the possibility of an increase in the number of persons affected by COVID-19.
[…]

02-09-2020

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat and, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
*On 28 August 2020, Supreme Decree No. 146-2020-PCM was issued, extending from Tuesday 1 September 2020 until Wednesday 30 September 2020, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 044-2020-PCM, temporarily extended through Supreme Decrees No. 051-2020-PCM, No. 064-2020-PCM, No. 075-2020-PCM, No. 083-2020-PCM, No. 094-2020-PCM, No. 116-2020-PCM and No. 135-2020-PCM; and specified or amended through Supreme Decrees No. 045-2020-PCM, No. 046-2020-PCM, No. 051-2020-PCM, No. 053-2020-PCM, No. 057-2020-PCM, No. 058-2020-PCM, No. 061-2020-PCM, No. 063-2020-PCM, No. 064-2020-PCM, No. 068-2020-PCM, No. 072-2020-PCM, No. 083-2020-PCM, No. 094-2020-PCM, No. 116-2020-PCM, No. 129-2020-PCM, No. 135-2020-PCM and No. 139-2020-PCM, due to the serious circumstances affecting the life of the nation as a result of COVID-19.
*During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
*A mandatory confinement (quarantine) has been ordered in the provinces and departments listed in the table below, where the movement of persons is permitted only for the provision of or access to essential services and goods, and for the provision of services of authorized economic activities.
Targeted quarantine
Department - Provinces
Cusco - All
Moquegua - All
Puno - All
Tacna - All
Amazonas - Bagua-Chachapoyas-Condorcanqui-Utcubamba
Ancash – Santa-Casma-Huaraz-Huarmey
Apurímac - Abancay
Arequipa - Camaná-Islay-Cailloma-Castilla
Ayacucho - Huamanga-Huanta-Lucanas-Parinacochas
Cajamarca - Cajamarca-Jaén
Huancavelica - Huancavelica-Angaraes-Tayacaja
Huánuco - Huánuco-Leoncio Prado-Puerto Inca-Humalíes
Ica - Ica-Pisco-Nasca-Palpa
Junín - Huancayo-Satipo-Chanchamayo
La Libertad - Trujillo-Pacasmayo-Chepén-Ascope-Sánchez Carrión-Virú
Lima - Barranca-Cañete-Huaura-Huaral
Madre de Dios - Tambopata
Pasco - Pasco-Oxapampa
*Similarly, all persons are under a nationwide mandatory stay-at-home measure from 10 p.m. until 4 a.m, the following day, from Monday to Sunday; with the exception of the Cusco, Moquegua, Puno and Tacna Departments; the provinces of Bagua, Chachapoyas, Condorcanqui and Utcubamba, in the Amazonas Department; the provinces of Santa, Casma, Huaraz and Huarmey, in the Ancash Department; the province of Abancay, in the Apurímac Department; the provinces of Camaná, Islay, Cailloma and Castilla, in the Arequipa Department; the provinces of Huamanga, Huanta, Lucanas and Parinacochas, in the Ayacucho Department; the provinces of Cajamarca and Jaén, in the Cajamarca Department; the provinces of Huancavelica, Angaraes and Tayacaja, in the Huancavelica Department; the provinces of Huánuco, Leoncio Prado, Puerto Inca and Humalíes, in the Huánuco Department; the provinces of Ica, Pisco, Nasca and Palpa, in the Ica Department; the provinces of Huancayo, Satipo and Chanchamayo, in the Junín Department; the provinces of Trujillo, Pacasmayo, Chepén, Ascope, Sánchez Carrión and Virú, in the La Libertad Department; the provinces of Barranca, Cañete, Huaura and Huaral, in the Lima Department; the province of Tambopata, in the Madre de Dios Department; and the provinces of Pasco and Oxapampa, in the Pasco Department; where the mandatory stay-at-home measure is in effect from 8 p.m. until 4 a.m., the following day. On Sundays, the stay-at-home measure is mandatory for all citizens nationwide for the entire day until 4 a.m. the following day.
*The state of emergency has been extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures to protect the life and health of the population efficiently, by reducing the possibility of an increase in the number of persons affected by COVID-19.
[…]

06-10-2020

09-11-2020

03-12-2020

18-01-2021

01-02-2021

04-03-2021

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, and, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
• On 27 February 2021, Supreme Decree No. 036-2021-PCM was issued, extending for a period of thirty-one (31) calendar days, from Monday 1 March 2021 to 31 March 2021, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 184-2020-PCM, extended through Supreme Decrees No. 201-2020-PCM and No. 008-2021-PCM, due to the serious circumstances affecting people’s lives as a result of COVID-19.
• During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
• The National Police of Peru and the Armed Forces shall ensure the strict compliance with the provisions issued within the framework of the state of national emergency, in accordance with regulations in force.
• The state of emergency has been extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures to protect the life and health of the population efficiently, by reducing the possibility of an increase in the number of persons affected by COVID-19.
[…]

01-04-2021

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, and, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
• On 27 March 2021, Supreme Decree No. 058-2021-PCM was issued, extending for a period of thirty (30) calendar days, from [Thursday] 1 April 2021 to 30 April 2021, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 184-2020-PCM, extended through Supreme Decrees No. 201-2020-PCM, No. 008-2021-PCM and No. 036-2021-PCM, due to the serious circumstances affecting people’s lives as a result of COVID-19.
• During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
• The National Police of Peru and the Armed Forces shall ensure the strict compliance with the provisions issued within the framework of the state of national emergency, in accordance with regulations in force.
• The state of emergency has been extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures to protect the life and health of the population efficiently, by reducing the possibility of an increase in the number of persons affected by COVID-19.
[…]

05-05-2021

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, and, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
• On 17 April 2021, Supreme Decree No. 076-2021-PCM was issued, extending for a period of thirty-one (31) calendar days, from Monday 1 May 2021 to 31 May 2021, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 184-2020-PCM, extended through Supreme Decrees No. 201-2020-PCM, No. 008-2021-PCM, No. 036-2021-PCM and No. 058-2021-PCM, due to the serious circumstances affecting people’s lives as a result of COVID-19.
• During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
• The National Police of Peru and the Armed Forces shall ensure the strict compliance with the provisions issued within the framework of the state of national emergency, in accordance with regulations in force.
• The state of emergency has been extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures to protect the life and health of the population efficiently, by reducing the possibility of an increase in the number of persons affected by COVID-19.
[…]

04-06-2021

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, and, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
• On 27 May 2021, Supreme Decree No. 105-2021-PCM was issued, extending for a period of thirty (30) calendar days, from Tuesday 1 June to 30 June 2021, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 184-2020-PCM, extended through Supreme Decrees No. 201-2020-PCM, No. 008-2021-PCM, No. 036-2021-PCM, No. 058-2021-PCM and No. 076-2021-PCM, due to the serious circumstances affecting people’s lives as a result of COVID-19.
• During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
• The National Police of Peru and the Armed Forces shall ensure the strict compliance with the provisions issued within the framework of the state of national emergency, in accordance with regulations in force.
• The state of emergency has been extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures due to the serious circumstances that affect the life of people as a result of COVID-19.
[…]

02-07-2021

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, and, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
• On 18 June 2021, Supreme Decree No. 123-2021-PCM was issued, extending for a period of thirty-one (31) calendar days, from 1 July 2021 to 31 July 2021, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 184-2020-PCM, extended through Supreme Decrees No. 201-2020-PCM, No. 008-2021-PCM, No. 036-2021-PCM, No. 058-2021-PCM, No. 076-2021-PCM and Supreme Decree 105-2021-PCM, due to the serious circumstances affecting people’s lives as a result of COVID-19.
• During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
• The National Police of Peru and the Armed Forces shall ensure the strict compliance with the provisions issued within the framework of the state of national emergency, in accordance with regulations in force.
• The state of emergency has been extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures due to the serious circumstances that affect the life of people as a result of COVID-19.
[...]

04-08-2021

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, and, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
• On 10 July 2021, Supreme Decree No. 131-2021-PCM was issued, extending for a period of thirty-one (31) calendar days, from 1 August 2021 to 31 August 2021, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 184-2020-PCM, extended through Supreme Decrees No. 201-2020-PCM, No. 008-2021-PCM, No. 036-2021-PCM, No. 058-2021-PCM, No. 076-2021-PCM, 105-2021-PCM and 123-2021-PCM, due to the serious circumstances affecting people’s lives as a result of COVID-19.
• During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
• The National Police of Peru and the Armed Forces shall ensure the strict compliance with the provisions issued within the framework of the state of national emergency, in accordance with regulations in force.
• The state of emergency has been extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures due to the serious circumstances that affect the life of people as a result of COVID-19.
[…]

25-08-2021

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, and, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
• On 22 August 2021, Supreme Decree No. 149-2021-PCM was issued, extending for a period of thirty (30) calendar days, from 1 September 2021 to 31 September 2021, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 184-2020-PCM, extended through Supreme Decrees No. 201-2020-PCM, No. 008-2021-PCM, No. 036-2021-PCM, No. 058-2021-PCM, No. 076-2021-PCM, No. 105-2021-PCM, No. 123-2021-PCM and No. 131-2021-PCM, due to the serious circumstances affecting people’s lives as a result of COVID-19.
• During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
• The National Police of Peru and the Armed Forces shall ensure the strict compliance with the provisions issued within the framework of the state of national emergency, in accordance with regulations in force.
• The state of emergency has been extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures due to the serious circumstances that affect the life of people as a result of COVID-19.
[…]

06-10-2021

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, and, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
• On 17 September 2021, Supreme Decree No. 152-2021-PCM was issued, extending for a period of thirty-one (31) calendar days, from 1 October 2021, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 184-2020-PCM, extended through Supreme Decrees No. 201-2020-PCM, No. 008-2021-PCM, No. 036-2021-PCM, No. 058-2021-PCM, No. 076-2021-PCM, No. 105-2021-PCM, No. 123-2021-PCM, No. 131-2021-PCM, No. 149-2021-PCM and No. 151-2021-PCM, due to the serious circumstances affecting people’s lives as a result of COVID-19.
• During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
• The National Police of Peru and the Armed Forces shall ensure the strict compliance with the provisions issued within the framework of the state of national emergency, in accordance with regulations in force.
• The state of emergency has been extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures due to the serious circumstances that affect the life of people as a result of COVID-19.
[…]

15-11-2021

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, and, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
• On 30 October 2021, Supreme Decree No. 167-2021-PCM was issued, extending for a period of thirty (30) calendar days, from 1 November 2021, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 184-2020-PCM, extended through Supreme Decrees No. 201-2020-PCM, No. 008-2021-PCM, No. 036-2021-PCM, No. 058-2021-PCM, No. 076-2021-PCM, No. 105-2021-PCM, No. 123-2021-PCM, No. 131-2021-PCM, No. 149-2021-PCM and No. 152-2021-PCM, due to the serious circumstances affecting people’s lives as a result of COVID-19.
• During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
• The National Police of Peru and the Armed Forces shall ensure the strict compliance with the provisions issued within the framework of the state of national emergency, in accordance with regulations in force.
• The state of emergency has been extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures due to the serious circumstances that affect the life of people as a result of COVID-19.
[…]

02-12-2021

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, and, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
• On 28 November 2021, Supreme Decree No. 174-2021-PCM was issued extending for a period of thirty-one (31) calendar days, from 1 December 2021, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 184-2020-PCM, extended through Supreme Decrees No. 201-2020-PCM, No. 008-2021-PCM, No. 036-2021-PCM, No. 058-2021-PCM, No. 076-2021-PCM, No. 105-2021-PCM, No. 123-2021-PCM, No. 131-2021-PCM, No. 149-2021-PCM, No. 152-2021-PCM and No. 167-2021-PCM, due to the serious circumstances affecting people’s lives as a result of COVID-19.
• During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
• The National Police of Peru and the Armed Forces shall ensure the strict compliance with the provisions issued within the framework of the state of national emergency, in accordance with regulations in force.
• The state of emergency has been extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures due to the serious circumstances that affect the life of people as a result of COVID-19.
[…]

06-01-2022

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, and, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
• On 23 December 2021, Supreme Decree No. 186-2021-PCM was issued extending for a period of thirty-one (31) calendar days, from 1 January 2022, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 184-2020-PCM, extended through Supreme Decrees No. 201-2020-PCM, No. 008-2021-PCM, No. 036-2021-PCM, No. 058-2021-PCM, No. 076-2021-PCM, No. 105-2021-PCM, No. 123-2021-PCM, No. 131-2021-PCM, No. 149-2021-PCM, No. 152-2021-PCM, No. 167-2021-PCM and No. 174-2021-PCM, due to the serious circumstances affecting people’s lives as a result of COVID-19.
• During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 17, 21 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
• The National Police of Peru and the Armed Forces shall ensure strict compliance with the provisions issued within the framework of the state of national emergency, in accordance with regulations in force.
• The state of emergency has been extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures due to the serious circumstances that affect the life of people as a result of COVID-19.
[…]

06-04-2022

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, and, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
• On 27 February 2022, Supreme Decree No. 016-2022-PCM was issued declaring for a period of thirty-two (32) calendar days, from 28 February 2022, the state of national emergency, due to the circumstances affecting people’s lives and health as a result of COVID-19.
• On 26 March 2022, Supreme Decree No. 030-2022-PCM was issued, extending for a period of thirty (30) calendar days, from 1 April 2022, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 016-2022-PCM, to protect the life and health of the population from the spread of COVID-19.
• During the declaration and the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 12, 17 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
• The National Police of Peru, with the support of the Armed Forces, shall ensure strict compliance with the provisions issued within the framework of the state of national emergency, in accordance with regulations in force.
• The state of emergency has been extended to establish new measures to restore social coexistence without neglecting the control and prevention of transmission, in order to protect the fundamental rights to life and health of Peruvians, considering the current context due to the consequences of the different COVID-19 variants and the progress of the vaccination process.
[…]

08-04-2022

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, and, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
• On 29 January 2022, Supreme Decree No. 010-2022-PCM was issued extending for a period of twenty-eight (28) calendar days, from 1 February 2022, the state of national emergency declared through Supreme Decree No. 184-2020-PCM, extended through Supreme Decrees No. 201-2020-PCM, No. 008-2021-PCM, No. 036-2021-PCM, No. 058-2021-PCM, No. 076-2021-PCM, No. 105-2021-PCM, No. 123-2021-PCM, No. 131-2021-PCM, No. 149-2021-PCM, No. 152-2021-PCM, No. 167-2021-PCM, No. 174-2021-PCM and No. 186-2021-PCM, due to the serious circumstances affecting people’s lives as a result of COVID-19.
• During the extension of the state of national emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 12, 17 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain suspended.
• The National Police of Peru and the Armed Forces shall ensure strict compliance with the provisions issued within the framework of the state of national emergency, in accordance with regulations in force.
• The state of emergency has been extended to enable the continued application of the exceptional measures due to the serious circumstances that affect the life of people as a result of COVID-19.
[…]

09-05-2022

03-06-2022

11-07-2022

08-08-2022

27-09-2022

07-10-2022

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations […], in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
- By Supreme Decree No. 118-2022-PCM, dated 29 September 2022, the Government of Peru extended for a period of thirty-one (31) calendar days, from 1 October 2022, the state of national emergency declared by Supreme Decree No. 016-2022-PCM, due to the circumstances affecting people’s lives and health as a result of COVID-19.

18-04-2024

19-04-2024

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations […] in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
By Supreme Decree No. 042-2024-PCM, published on 13 April 2024, the Government of Peru extended the state of national emergency declared by Supreme Decree No. 019-2024-PCM in the province of Trujillo of the department of La Libertad for a period of sixty (60) calendar days starting on 14 April 2024.
The state of emergency was extended in view of the continued increase in criminal activity and public insecurity in the area in question, owing to the increase in larceny, aggravated robbery, homicides, contract killing, extorsion, kidnapping, illegal mining and related crimes. During the state of emergency, the constitutional rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 12, 17 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are suspended.
[…]

19-04-2024

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations […] in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
By Supreme Decree No. 043-2024-PCM, dated 16 April 2024, the Government of Peru declared a state of emergency in the province of Arequipa in the department of Arequipa, for a period of 20 calendar days.
The state of emergency was declared in view of the disruption of internal order due to the increase in criminal activity and public insecurity resulting from the rise in offences against life, body, health and property, such as assault and armed robbery, extortion, contract killing and other related crimes. During the state of national emergency, the constitutional rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 12, 17 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are suspended.
[…]

19-04-2024

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations […] in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
By Supreme Decree No. 041-2024-PCM, published on 13 April 2024, the Government of Peru extended the state of national emergency declared by Supreme Decree No. 018-2024-PCM in the province of Pataz of the department of Libertad for a period of sixty (60) calendar days starting on 14 April 2024.
The measure was extended in view of continued problems caused by illegal mining and attacks that undermine public order in the area in question. During the state of emergency, the constitutional rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, and freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 12, 17 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are suspended.
[…]

25-04-2024

The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Treaty
Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, and, in accordance with article 4 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind what is stated in note verbale
LA 41 TR/2017/IV-4/Peru/1, dated 1 March 2017, has the honour to report the following:
• By Supreme Decree No. 041-2024-PCM, published on 13 April 2024, the Government of Peru
extended the state of national emergency declared by Supreme Decree No. 018-2024-PCM in
the province of Pataz of the department of Libertad for a period of sixty (60) calendar days
starting on 14 April 2024.
• The measure was extended in view of continued problems caused by illegal mining and attacks
that undermine public order in the area in question. During the state of emergency, the
constitutional rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, and
freedom of assembly and movement in the territory, included in articles 9, 12, 17 and 21 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are suspended.
The Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations takes this opportunity to convey to the
Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, the renewed assurances of its
highest consideration.

Philippines

23-10-1986

The Philippine Government, in accordance with article 41 of the said Covenant, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee set up in the aforesaid Covenant, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

Poland

25-09-1990

The Republic of Poland recognizes, in accordance with article 41, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

Qatar

21-05-2018

Reservations:
The State of Qatar does not consider itself bound by the following provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the below mentioned reasons:
1. Article 3 with regard to provisions related to the inheritance of power, for it contravenes the provisions of article 8 of the Constitution.
2. Article 23.4, for it contravenes the Islamic Sharia.
Statements:
1. The State of Qatar shall interpret the term “punishment” in Article 7 of the Covenant in accordance with the applicable legislation of Qatar and the Islamic Sharia.
2. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Covenant based on the understanding that it does not contravene the Islamic Sharia. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such paragraph in accordance with such understanding.
3. The State of Qatar shall interpret that the term “trade unions” and all related matters, as mentioned in Article 22 of the Covenant, are in line with the Labor Law and national legislation. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such article in accordance with such understanding.
4. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant in a manner that does not contravene the Islamic Sharia. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such paragraph in accordance with such understanding.
5. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 27 of the Covenant that professing and practicing one's own religion require that they do not violate the rules of public order and public morals, the protection of public safe[t]y and public health, or the rights of and basic freedoms of others.

Objection Germany, 25-01-2019

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar with regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966.
The reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23.4 as well as statements 1 to 4 make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Statements 1 to 4 are thus of their nature also reservations.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that by making the application of Articles 3, 7, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 23.4 of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national law, the State of Qatar has submitted reservations which raise doubts concerning the extent to which it intends to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant.
The above-mentioned reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and are accordingly not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. The Federal Republic of Germany thus objects to these reservations.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and the State of Qatar.

Objection Poland, 20-03-2019

The Government of the Republic of Poland has reviewed the reservations made by the State of Qatar along with the ratification document to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, done in New York on December 16, 1966, with regard to Article 3 and Article 23(4), as well as the statements which the State of Qatar made with regard to Article 7, Article 18(2), Article 22, Article 23(2) and Article 27 of the Covenant.
The Government of the Republic of Poland is of the view that the application of the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar will introduce too wide restrictions in the implementation of the provisions of the Covenant as regards the essential spheres of social life (among others equality between women and men in the exercise of their civil and political rights, freedom to marry, rights of a woman of marriageable age to marry, prohibition of inhuman or degrading punishment, freedom of religion and the right to form and to join trade unions).
Accordingly, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers these reservations and statements to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the Covenant, which aims to create conditions that guarantee any person enjoyment of civil and political rights, and as such, to be unacceptable under Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
In its reservations, the State of Qatar has referred to the incompatibility of the provisions of the Covenant with its internal law (the Constitution) and Islamic law as justification for its intention to exclude the legal effects of certain provisions of the Covenant.
The Government of the Republic of Poland notes that pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State Party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Conversely, the domestic law should, as a rule be brought into line with the provisions of a treaty by which given state is bound.
In addition, while referring in its statements to Islamic law, national labor law and national legislation, as well as to the rights and fundamental freedoms of others, the State of Qatar does not indicate the specific content thereof that may apply to the implementation of the Covenant, which renders it impossible to determine the exact scope of application of the provisions of the Covenant in relation to the State of Qatar.
In view of the above, the Government of the Republic of Poland objects to the reservations of the State of Qatar with regard to Article 3 and Article 23(4), as well as to the statements of this State with regard to Article 7, Article 18(2), Article 22, Article 23(2) and Article 27 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, done in New York on 16 December 1966.
This objection does not hinder entrance into force of the Covenant in the relations between the Republic of Poland and the State of Qatar.

Objection Estonia, 08-05-2019

The Government of Estonia has carefully examined the reservations made by the State of Qatar to Article 3 and Article 23(4), as well as the statements made with regard to Article 7, Article 18(2), Article 22 and Article 23(2) of the Covenant.
The reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23(4) as well as statements 1 to 4 make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Statements 1 to 4 are thus of their nature also reservations. The reservations and statements 1 to 4 are raising doubts concerning the extent to which the State of Qatar intends to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant.
Estonia considers aforementioned reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, which are not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. The Government of Estonia thus objects to them.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Estonia and the State of Qatar.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 15-05-2019

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation and the statements made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as communicated by the Secretary-General via depositary notification C.N.262.2018.TREATIES-IV.4 of 21 May 2018, and wishes to communicate the following.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that Qatar does not consider itself bound by provisions of Article 3 and Article 23, paragraph 4, of the Covenant as these contravene provisions of the Constitution of Qatar or the Islamic Sharia.
Further, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the statements made by the State of Qatar with respect to Article 7, Article 18, paragraph 2, Article 22, and Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant in substance constitute reservations limiting the scope of these provisions of the Covenant, by applying these provisions only in conformity with the Islamic Sharia and/or national legislation of the State of Qatar.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Covenant by invoking provisions of the Islamic Sharia and/or national legislation, are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of their effect and therefore must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservations of the State of Qatar to the Covenant.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the State of Qatar.

Objection Latvia, 15-05-2019

The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservations and the statements made by the State of Qatar upon ratification of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights making the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation.
The Republic of Latvia considers that Article 3 and Article 23.4 of the Covenant forms the very basis of the Covenant and its main purpose. In addition, the Republic of Latvia is in the opinion that Articles mentioned in the statements 1 to 4 consists of the core elements of the Covenant and the statements also are in their nature reservations. Therefore, no derogations from those obligations can be made.
The reservations made by the State of Qatar excludes the legal effect of central provisions of the Covenant, thus the reservations are incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Covenant and therefore inadmissible under Article 19 (c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and the State of Qatar. Thus, the Covenant will become operative between the two States without the State of Qatar benefitting from its reservations.

Objection Finland, 16-05-2019

The Government of Finland is pleased to learn that the State of Qatar has become party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the Government of Finland has carefully examined the reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23.4, as well as the statements concerning Article 7, 18.2, 22, and 23.2 made by the State of Qatar upon accession, and is of the view that they raise certain concerns. In fact, also the said statements amount to reservations that purport to subject the application of specific provisions of the Covenant to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation.
The reservations to Article 3, 7, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 23.4 make the application of these provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Thus, the Government of Finland is of the opinion that the State of Qatar has submitted reservations which cast doubts on the commitment of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Covenant. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.
The above-mentioned reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and are accordingly not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Finland and the State of Qatar. The Covenant will thus enter into force between the two states without Qatar benefitting from the aforementioned reservation.

Objection Austria, 16-05-2019

The Government of Austria has carefully examined the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Austria considers statements 1, 2, 3 and 4 to amount to reservations as they aim at applying provisions of the Covenant only in conformity with national legislation or the Islamic sharia. However, the Covenant is to be applied in accordance with international law, not only in accordance with the legislation of a particular state.
By referring to its national legislation or to the Islamic sharia, Qatar’s reservations to Articles 7, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 23.4 of the Covenant are of a general and indeterminate scope. These reservations
do not clearly define for the other States Parties the extent to which the reserving state has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. Furthermore, the reservation to Article 23.4 contravenes Article 3 of the Covenant, one of its most central provisions.
Austria therefore considers the reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to them. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Austria and the State of Qatar. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without Qatar benefitting from the aforementioned reservations.

Objection Switzerland, 17-05-2019

The Swiss Federal Council has examined the reservations and declarations made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966.
The Swiss Federal Council considers that the declarations concerning articles 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (2) of the Covenant amount in fact to reservations. Reservations subjecting all or part of articles 3, 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (3) and (4) of the Covenant in general terms to Sharia law and/or national legislation constitute reservations of general scope which raise doubts about the full commitment of the State of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Swiss Federal Council recalls that, according to sub-paragraph (c) of article 19 of the Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 on the law of treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant are not permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that instruments to which they have chosen to become parties be respected in their object and purpose by all parties and that States be prepared to amend their legislation in order to fulfil their treaty obligations.
Henceforth, the Swiss Federal Council objects to these reservations by the State of Qatar. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant, in its entirety, between Switzerland and the State of Qatar.

Objection Hungary, 17-05-2019

Hungary has examined the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights done in New York on 16 December 1966.
The reservations to Article 3 and Article 23 paragraph 4 and the statements 1 to 5 make the application of these provisions of the Covenant subject to the Constitution of the State of Qatar, the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Hungary considers the statements 1 to 5 made by the State of Qatar by their nature also as reservations.
Hungary is of the view that making the application of Article 3, 23 paragraph 4, as well as Article 7, Article 18 paragraph 2, Article 22, Article 23 paragraph 2 and Article 27 of the Covenant subject to the Constitution of the State of Qatar, the Islamic Sharia and the national legislation, raises doubts as to the extent of Qatar’s commitment to meet its obligations under the Covenant and are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, that is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all civil and political freedom by all individuals.
Accordingly, Hungary considers the aforementioned reservations inadmissible as they are not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, thus objects to these reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Hungary and the State of Qatar. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two States without the State of Qatar benefitting from its reservations.

Objection Ireland, 20-05-2019

Ireland has examined the reservations and statements made by Qatar to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights at the time of its accession.
Ireland is of the view that the reservations by Qatar, purporting to exclude its obligations under Article 3 and Article 23 (4), are contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
Ireland is furthermore of the view that the statements by Qatar purporting to subject the implementation of Article 7, Article 18 (2), Article 22, Article 23 (2) and Article 27 to an interpretation that does not contravene the Islamic Sharia and/or its national law in substance constitute reservations limiting the scope of the Covenant.
Ireland considers that such reservations, which purport to subject the reserving State’s obligations under an international agreement to religious law and to national law without specifying the content thereof and which do not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provisions of the international agreement, may cast doubt on the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the international agreement. Ireland is furthermore of the view that such reservations may undermine the basis of international treaty law and are incompatible with the object and purpose of the international agreement. Ireland recalls that under international treaty law a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the international agreement shall not be permitted.
Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by Qatar to Articles 3, 7, 18 (2), 22, 23 (2), 23 (4) and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and Qatar.

Objection Czech Republic, 20-05-2019

The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the reservations and statements formulated by the State of Qatar upon its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of the Czech Republic is of the view that the statements formulated by the State of Qatar with respect to Article 7, Article 18.2, Article 22 and Article 23.2 amount to reservations of general and vague nature, since they make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia and national law and their character and scope cannot be properly assessed.
These statements, together with the reservation formulated by the State of Qatar to Article 23.4, leave open the question to what extent the State of Qatar commits itself to the obligations under these Articles and to the object and purpose of the Covenant as a whole.
The Government of the Czech Republic wishes to recall that the reservations may not be general or vague and that the Covenant is to be applied and interpreted in accordance with international law.
The Government of the Czech Republic therefore considers the aforementioned reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to them. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Czech Republic and the State of Qatar, without the State of Qatar benefitting from the reservations.

Objection Romania, 20-05-2019

Romania has examined the reservation and the declaration made upon [accession] by the State of Qatar to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 1966).
Romania considers that the declaration aiming to interpret the term ‘punishment’ in Article 7, as well as the provisions of Articles 18.2, 22 and 23.2 of the Covenant in the light of the Islamic sharia and the national legislation respectively amounts to reservations of undefined character, inadmissible under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The same character has the reservation made in relation to Article 23.4 of the Covenant. In accordance with Article 27 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it is the duty of States Parties to a treaty to ensure that their internal law allows the application and observance of the treaty.
Moreover, the general nature of these reservations limits the understanding as to the extent of the obligations assumed by State of Qatar under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Therefore, Romania objects to these reservations formulated by State of Qatar to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as being incompatible with the scope and purpose of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as required by the Article 19 ( c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
This objection shall not affect the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights between Romania and State of Qatar.

Objection Portugal, 20-05-2019

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the contents of the reservation to Articles 3 and 23 (4) and of the statements regarding Articles 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights made by the State of Qatar.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23 (4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are contrary to the object and purpose of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Furthermore, it considers that the statements regarding Articles 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (2) are in fact reservations that seek to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under [the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] by invoking the domestic law or/and religious beliefs and principles [raise] doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention, as such reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Convention of their effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof.
The Government of 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 Covenant shall not be permitted.
Thus, the Government of the Portuguese Republic objects to these reservations.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Portuguese Republic and the State of Qatar.

Objection Norway, 20-05-2019

[…] the Government of the Kingdom of Norway has carefully examined the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966.
The reservations made by the State of Qatar to Article 3 and Article 23 (4), as well as the statements concerning Article 7, Article 18 (2), Article 22 and Article 23 (2), make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Statements 1 to 4 are thus also formulated as reservations. The Government of the Kingdom of Norway is of the view that the above-mentioned provisions concern essential elements of the Covenant, and that the State of Qatar, by making the application of these provisions subject to the Islamic Sharia or national law, has submitted reservations which raise doubts as to the full commitment of the Government of the State of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Covenant. These reservations are thus not permitted under international law.
The State of Qatar has furthermore declared that it ‘shall interpret Article 27 of the Covenant that professing and practicing one’s own religion require that they do not violate the rules of public order and public morals, the protection of public safety and public health, or the rights of and basic freedoms of others’. If this statement is to be understood as a mere reference to Article 18 (3) of the Covenant, the statement is acceptable to the Government of the Kingdom of Norway. However, if the statement is meant to make the application of Article 27 subject to specific national rules, which are not further specified, this statement also lacks the necessary clarity and raises doubt as to the full commitment of the Government of the State of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of the Kingdom of Norway thus objects to the reservations made by the State of Qatar with regard to Article 3, Article 7, Article 18 (2), Article 22, Article 23 (2) and Article 23 (4). The statement related to Article 27 is acceptable to the Government of the Kingdom of Norway as far as it is in conformity with Article 18 (3).
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the State of Qatar.

Objection Moldova, 21-05-2019

The Republic of Moldova has carefully examined the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar on May 21, 2018 upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966.
The reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23.4 as well statements 1 to 4 make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Statements 1 to 4 are thus of their nature also reservations.
The Republic of Moldova considers that the reservations regarding Articles 3, 7, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 23.4 of the Covenant are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant since these articles form an essential element of the Covenant, and are accordingly not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969.
Therefore, the Republic of Moldova objects to the aforementioned reservations made by the State of Qatar.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force or the Covenant between the Republic of Moldova and the State or Qatar. The Covenant enters into force in its [entirety] between the Republic of Moldova and the State of Qatar, without the State of Qatar benefiting from its reservation[s].

Objection Italy, 21-05-2019

The Government of the Italian Republic has carefully examined the reservation and statement by the State of Qatar with regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966.
The reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23 .4 as well as statements 1 to 4 make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Statements 1 to 4 are thus of their nature also reservations.
The Government of the Italian Republic is of the opinion that by making the application of Articles 3, 7, 8, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 23.4 of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national law, the State of Qatar has submitted reservations which raise doubts concerning the extent to which it intends to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant.
The above-mentioned reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and are accordingly not permitted under customary international law, as codified in Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. The Italian Republic thus objects to these reservations.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Italian Republic and the State of Qatar.

Objection Greece, 21-05-2019

The Government of the Hellenic Republic has examined the reservations and the statements made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 (hereinafter ‘the Covenant’).
In the above reservations, the State of Qatar declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Articles 3 and 23.4 of the Covenant, for they contravene, respectively, the provisions of Article 8 of the [Constitution] of Qatar and the Islamic Sharia.
Moreover, in the statements made upon accession to the Covenant, the State of Qatar inter alia declares that it shall interpret Articles 7, 18.2, 22 and 23.2 thereof, ‘in accordance with the applicable legislation of Qatar’ and/or ‘in a manner that does not contravene the Islamic Sharia’. However, in the view of the Government of the Hellenic Republic, these statements in fact amount to a reservation as they limit the scope of application of the relevant provisions of the Covenant solely to the extent that they do not contravene the Islamic Sharia and the national legislation of Qatar.
The Government of the Hellenic Republic notes that the above reservations are of a general and indeterminate scope, as they purport to subject the application of the aforementioned provisions of the Covenant to the Islamic Sharia and national legislation, without, however, specifying the content thereof, and are, accordingly, contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant, since they do not clearly define for the other State Parties the extent to which Qatar has accepted the obligations of the Covenant.
For the above reasons, the Government of the Hellenic Republic considers the aforesaid reservations of Qatar impermissible as contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant, according to customary international law, as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties.
The Government of the Hellenic Republic, therefore, objects to the abovementioned reservations by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Hellenic Republic and the State of Qatar.

Objection Belgium, 21-05-2019

The Kingdom of Belgium has carefully examined the reservations and declarations made by the State of Qatar upon its accession, on 21 May 2018, to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Reservations to articles 3 and 23 (4), as well as declarations 1 to 4 relating to articles 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (2), makes the provisions of the Covenant subject to their compatibility with Sharia or with the national legislation. The Kingdom of Belgium considers that these reservations and declarations tend to limit the responsibility of the State of Qatar under the Covenant by means of a general reference to the rules of national law and Sharia Law. This creates an uncertainty as to the extent to which the State of Qatar intends to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant and raises doubts about the State of Qatar's compliance with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Kingdom of Belgium recalls that under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, a State cannot make a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty. Moreover, article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties stipulates that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justifying the non-fulfilment of a treaty.
Accordingly, the Kingdom of Belgium objects to the reservations made by the State of Qatar with regard to articles 3 and 23 (4) and to the declarations made by it in respect of articles 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Kingdom of Belgium specifies that this objection does not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights between the Kingdom of Belgium and the State of Qatar.

Objection United Kingdom, 21-05-2019

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has examined the declarations made by the Government of the State of Qatar to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“the Covenant”), done at New York on 16 December 1966, which read:
[...]
The Government of the United Kingdom considers that the Government of the State of Qatar’s declarations in respect of Article 7; Article 18, paragraph 2; Article 22; Article 23 and Article 27 are reservations which seek to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis. The Government of the United Kingdom notes that a reservation to a convention which consists of a general reference to national law or a system of law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for the other States Parties to a convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the convention. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations.
These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the State of Qatar.

Objection Canada, 21-05-2019

The Government of Canada has carefully examined the reservations and declarations made by the Government of Qatar upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Government of Canada considers that reservations consisting of a general reference to national law or to the prescriptions of the Islamic Sharia constitute. in reality reservations with a general, indeterminate scope. This makes it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant that the reservation purports to introduce. With such a reservation, the other States Parties to the Covenant do not know the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. This uncertainty is unacceptable, especially in the context of treaties related to human rights.
The Government of Canada notes that the reservations made by the Government of Qatar, which address some of the most essential provisions of the Covenant and aim to exclude or limit the obligations under those provisions, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and thus inadmissible under Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
The Government of Canada notes that the declarations made by the Government of Qatar aim at applying a provision of the Covenant only in conformity with domestic law or Islamic Sharia. However, the Covenant is to be applied in accordance with international law. The Government of Canada considers that these declarations are reservations in disguise, incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and thus inadmissible under article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
It is in the common interest of States that the treaties to which they have chosen to become Party are respected as to their object and purpose by all Parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Canada therefore objects to the reservations and declarations made by the Government of Qatar. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Canada and Qatar.

Republic of Korea, the

10-04-1990

The Government of the Republic of Korea [declares] that the provisions of [...] , article 22 [...] of the Covenant shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the provisions of the local laws including the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.
[The Government of the Republic of Korea] recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee under article 41 of the Covenant.

Objection United Kingdom, 24-05-1991

The Government of the United Kingdom have noted the statement formulated by the Government of the Republic of Korea on accession, under the title "Reservations". They are not however able to take a position on these purported reservations in the absence of a sufficient indication of their intended effect, in accordance with the terms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the practice of the Parties to the Covenant. Pending receipt of such indication, the Government of the United Kingdom reserve their rights under the Covenant in their entirety.

Objection Germany, 28-05-1991

[The Federal Republic of Germany] interprets the declaration to mean that the Republic of Korea does not intend to restrict its obligations under article 22 by referring to its domestic legal system.

Objection Czechoslovakia (<01-01-1993), 07-06-1991

The Government of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic considers the reservations entered by the Government of the Republic of Korea to the provisions of paragraphs 5 and 7 of article 14 and article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. In the opinion of the Czechoslovak Government these reservations are in contradiction to the generally recognized principle of international law according to which a state cannot invoke the provisions of its own internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
Therefore, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic does not recognize these reservations as valid. Nevertheless the present declaration will not be deemed to be an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Republic of Korea.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 10-06-1991

In the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands it follows from the text and the history of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that the reservations with respect to articles 14, paragraphs 5 and 7 and 22 of the Covenant made by the Government of the Republic of Korea are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore considers the reservation unacceptable and formally raises objection to it. This objection is not an obstacle to the entry into force of this Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Korea.

15-03-1991

The Government of the Republic of Korea notifies the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation made in respect of article 23, paragraph 4 with effect from 15 March 1991.

19-01-1993

The Government of the Republic of Korea notifies the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation made in respect of article 14, paragraph 7 with effect from 21 January 1993.

02-04-2007

The Government of the Republic of Korea notifies the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation made in respect of article 14, paragraph 5 with effect from 2 April 2007.

Republic of the Congo

05-10-1983

The Government of the People's Republic of Congo declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 11 [...].
Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is quite incompatible with articles 386 et seq. of the Congolese Code of Civil, Commercial, Administrative and Financial Procedure, derived from Act 51/83 of 21 April 1983. Under those provisions, in matters of private law, decisions or orders emanating from conciliation proceedings may be enforced through imprisonment for debt when other means of enforcement have failed, when the amount due exceeds 20,000 CFA francs and when the debtor, between 18 and 60 years of age, makes himself insolvent in bad faith.

Objection Belgium, 06-11-1984

[The Belgian Government] wishes to observe that the sphere of application of article 11 is particularly restricted. In fact, article 11 prohibits imprisonment only when there is no reason for resorting to it other than the fact that the debtor is unable to fulfil a contractual obligation. Imprisonment is not incompatible with article 11 when there are other reasons for imposing this penalty, for example when the debtor, by acting in bad faith or through fraudulent manoeuvres, has placed himself in the position of being unable to fulfil his obligations. This interpretation of article 11 can be confirmed by reference to the travaux préparatoires (see document A/2929 of 1 July 1955).
After studying the explanations provided by the Congo concerning its reservation, [the Belgian Government] has provisionally concluded that this reservation is unnecessary. It is its understanding that the Congolese legislation authorizes imprisonment for debt when other means of enforcement have failed when the amount due exceeds 20,000 CFA francs and when the debtor, between 18 and 60 years of age, makes himself insolvent in bad faith. The latter condition is sufficient to show that there is no contradiction between the Congolese legislation and the letter and the spirit of article 11 of the Covenant.
By virtue of article 4, paragraph 2, of the aforementioned Covenant, article 11 is excluded from the sphere of application of the rule which states that in the event of an exceptional public emergency, the States Parties to the Covenant may, in certain conditions, take measures derogating from their obligations under the Covenant. Article 11 is one of the articles containing a provision from which no derogation is permitted in any circumstances. Any reservation concerning that article would destroy its effects and would therefore be in contradiction with the letter and the spirit of the Covenant.
Consequently, and without prejudice to its firm belief that Congolese law is in complete conformity with the provisions of article 11 of the Covenant, [the Belgian Government] fears that the reservation made by the Congo may, by reason of its very principle, constitute a precedent which might have considerable effects at the international level.
[The Belgian Government] therefore hopes that this reservation will be withdrawn and, as a precautionary measure, wishes to raise an objection to that reservation.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 06-11-1984

[The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands] wishes to observe that the sphere of application of article 11 is particularly restricted. In fact, article 11 prohibits imprisonment only when there is no reason for resorting to it other than the fact that the debtor is unable to fulfil a contractual obligation. Imprisonment is not incompatible with article 11 when there are other reasons for imposing this penalty, for example when the debtor, by acting in bad faith or through fraudulent manoeuvres, has placed himself in the position of being unable to fulfil his obligations. This interpretation of article 11 can be confirmed by reference to the travaux préparatoires (see document A/2929 of 1 July 1955).
After studying the explanations provided by the Congo concerning its reservation, [the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands] has provisionally concluded that this reservation is unnecessary. It is its understanding that the Congolese legislation authorizes imprisonment for debt when other means of enforcement have failed when the amount due exceeds 20,000 CFA francs and when the debtor, between 18 and 60 years of age, makes himself insolvent in bad faith. The latter condition is sufficient to show that there is no contradiction between the Congolese legislation and the letter and the spirit of article 11 of the Covenant.
By virtue of article 4, paragraph 2, of the aforementioned Covenant, article 11 is excluded from the sphere of application of the rule which states that in the event of an exceptional public emergency, the States Parties to the Covenant may, in certain conditions, take measures derogating from their obligations under the Covenant. Article 11 is one of the articles containing a provision from which no derogation is permitted in any circumstances. Any reservation concerning that article would destroy its effects and would therefore be in contradiction with the letter and the spirit of the Covenant.
Consequently, and without prejudice to its firm belief that Congolese law is in complete conformity with the provisions of article 11 of the Covenant, [the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands] fears that the reservation made by the Congo may, by reason of its very principle, constitute a precedent which might have considerable effects at the international level.
[The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands] therefore hopes that this reservation will be withdrawn and, as a precautionary measure, wishes to raise an objection to that reservation.

06-07-1989

Pursuant to article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Congolese Government recognizes, with effect from today's date, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the above-mentioned Covenant.

Romania

27-06-1968

The Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania declares that the provisions of article 48, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are at variance with the principle that all States have the right to become parties to multilateral treaties governing matters of general interest.

09-12-1974

(a) The State Council of the Socialist Republic of Romania considers that the provisions of article 48 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are inconsistent with the principle that multilateral international treaties whose purposes concern the international community as a whole must be open to universal participation.
(b) The State Council of the Socialist Republic of Romania considers that the maintenance in a state of dependence of certain territories referred to in article 1 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations and the instruments adopted by the Organization on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, including the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, which solemnly proclaims the duty of States to promote the realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples in order to bring a speedy end to colonialism.

20-03-2020

[…]
On 16 March 2020 the President of Romania decreed state of emergency on the territory of Romania in order to ensure the containment of the spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus on the territory of Romania.
The Decree no. 195 by which the state of emergency was declared in accordance with the Romanian Constitution and the relevant law on the regime of the state of siege and of the state of emergency (Emergency Governmental Decision no. 1/1999 as subsequently amended) was published in the Official Gazette no. 212 of 16 March 2020 and is hereby attached. On 19 March the measure decreed by the President of Romania was endorsed by the Romanian Parliament, in accordance with article 93 of the Romanian Constitution.
The Decree includes the emergency measures of immediate and gradual application deemed necessary in order to limit the spread of the virus and ensure public health at national level.
Some of the measures taken or which will be taken in the context, on the basis of the Decree, may involve derogations from the obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966), to which Romania is a party, in particular articles 12, 17 and 21.
Therefore, the Permanent Mission of Romania to the United Nations kindly asks that this Note Verbale be considered as notification for the purposes of Article 4 (3) of the Covenant, in disregard of the previous Note Verbale no. 1716 of 17 March 2020.
The initial duration of the state of emergency is of 30 days. The Romanian authorities will subsequently inform of any changes that might occur in relation to the situation.
[…]

21-04-2020

The Permanent Mission of Romania to the United Nations […] following its Note Verbale no. 1801 of 20 March 2020, has the honour to inform that the duration of the state of emergency has been extended on the entire territory of Romania for a 30-day period, as of 15 April 2020.
The measure was taken by the President of Romania through Decree no. 240 published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no. 311 of 14 April 2020 and was endorsed by the Parliament of Romania on 16 April 2020.
The decision to maintain the state of emergency was taken in order to ensure the continuity of the measures adopted so far and to introduce additional measures needed in the effort to manage the spread of SARS-CoV-2 on the territory of Romania, given that both the number of registered infections and the number of deaths caused by SARS-CoV-2 have registered ascending trends, as well as to provide for the necessary legal basis for possible new measures which could be required depending on the further progress of the situation.
The Decree maintains the guarantees as to the proportionality and the necessity of the measures, which are to be adopted should certain criteria enumerated in the Decree (art. 3 para. 5) be met.
The text of Decree no. 240/2020 is attached to this Note Verbale as published in the Official Journal and in the English courtesy translation.
The Romanian authorities will continue to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations of any new measures that will be adopted in the context.
[…]

14-05-2020

The Permanent Mission of Romania to the United Nations […] following Note Verbale no. 1801 of 20 March 2020 and Note Verbale no. 2547 of 21 April 2020, in view of the obligation stipulated in art. 4 para. 3 (2nd thesis) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has the honour to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations that the state of emergency on the territory of Romania shall cease as of 14 May 2020 (24:00 hrs).
The provisions of Decree no. 240/14 April 2020 on extending the duration of the state of emergency on the territory of Romania and of the military ordinances adopted on its bases which might have involved derogations from the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall cease their effect as of the same date.
[…]

Russian Federation

18-03-1968

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which a number of States cannot become parties to these Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature and considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States concerned without any discrimination or limitation.

01-10-1991

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that, pursuant to article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, in respect of situations and events occurring after the adoption of the present declaration, provided that the State Party in question has, not less than 12 months prior to the submission by it of such a communication, recognized in regard to itself the competence of the Committee, established in article 41, in so far as obligations have been assumed under the Covenant by the USSR and by the State concerned.

Samoa

15-02-2008

The term 'forced or compulsory labour' as appears in article 8 paragraph 3 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights of 1966 shall be interpreted as being compatible with that expressed in article 8 (2) (a) (b) (c) (d) of the Constitution of the Independent State of Samoa 1960, which stipulates that the 'term forced or compulsory labour' shall not include, (a) any work required to be done in consequence of a sentence of a Court; or (b) any service of a military character or, in the case of conscientious objectors, service exacted instead of compulsory military service; or (c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening life or well-being of the community; or (d) any work or service which is required by Samoan custom or which forms part of normal civic obligations.
The Government of the Independent State of Samoa considers that article 10 paragraphs 2 and 3, which provides that juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status refers solely to the legal measures incorporated in the system for the protection of minors, which is addressed by the Young Offenders Act 2007 (Samoa).

San Marino

04-08-2015

The Republic of San Marino declares, in accordance with article 41 of the Covenant, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

23-04-2020

[...] in consideration of the conditions of health necessity and urgency due to the spread of COVID-19 (Coronavirus), informs that the Republic of San Marino has declared a state of public emergency with the following Decree-Laws:
• Decree-Law no. 43 of 5 March 2020 entitled “Urgent measures to reduce the spread of COVID- 19 (Coronavirus)”;
• Decree-Law no. 44 of 8 March 2020 entitled “Urgent measures to reduce the spread of COVID- 19 (Coronavirus)”;
• Decree-Law no. 51 of 14 March 2020 entitled “Urgent measures to reduce and manage the spread of COVID-19 (Coronavirus)”;
• Decree-Law no. 52 of 20 March 2020 entitled “Urgent measures to reduce and manage the spread of COVID-19 (Coronavirus)”;
• Decree-Law no. 55 of 29 March 2020 entitled “Further measures related to the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) epidemiological emergency”;
• Decree-Law no. 56 of 29 March 2020 entitled “Provisions on the use of teleconference/videoconference in the shareholders’ meetings of legal persons”;
• Decree-Law no. 59 of 4 April 2020 entitled “Extension of Decree-Law no. 52 of 20 March 2020 entitled “Urgent measures to reduce and manage the spread of COVID-19 (Coronavirus)” and further measures to manage the emergency”;
• Decree-Law no. 61 of 10 April 2020 entitled “Amendments to Decree-Law no. 52 of 20 March 2020 entitled “Urgent measures to reduce and manage the spread of COVID-19 (Coronavirus)” and subsequent amendments”;
• Decree-Law no. 62 of 17 April 2020 entitled “Urgent measures to reduce and manage the spread of COVID-19 (Coronavirus)”.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of San Marino informs the Honourable Secretary-General of the United Nations that the measures adopted involve derogations from the obligations laid down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; in particular, such measures entail derogations from the freedom of movement of persons (Article 12 of the Covenant), the freedom of assembly (Article 21 of the Covenant) and the freedom of association (Article 22 of the Covenant). The specific measures provided for in the above-mentioned Decree-Laws to counter and reduce the spread of COVID-19 (Coronavirus) in the Republic of San Marino derogate from said rights and freedoms laid down in the Covenant since they envisage that:
• Mass gatherings shall be prohibited in parks, squares and public gardens;
• Natural persons shall avoid entering and leaving the territory of the Republic and moving within such territory, except for proven work needs, situations of necessity or health reasons or to return to their domicile, home or residence;
• Anyone showing symptoms of respiratory infection and fever (over 37.50 C) shall be obliged to stay at home and limit social contacts as much as possible and shall contact the appropriate telephone number established at the State Hospital;
• No persons subject to quarantine or positive for the virus shall be allowed to move from their home or residence;
• Sporting events and competitions of any level and discipline organised in any place, whether public or private, both on the territory and abroad shall be suspended; any sport and/or motor activity, even non-competitive, in a public place shall also be suspended;
• All organised events, congresses, meetings, assemblies, as well as events in public or private places, including social, cultural, recreational, sporting and religious events and fairs, even if held in closed places but open to the public, shall be suspended; worth specifying is that, in all possible cases, remote meetings shall be held, with particular reference to health and socio- health bodies, public utility services and coordination groups in the context of the COVID-19 emergency, as well as in all shareholders' meetings, meetings of the boards of directors and of managers of all legal persons and entities;
• Civil and religious ceremonies shall be suspended, including funeral ceremonies, without rejudice to the minimum service for burials in accordance with the instructions given for essential public services.
It is hereby declared that, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Covenant, the measures taken by the Republic of San Marino are consistent with the State's other obligations under international law and do not involve a violation of the prohibition of discrimination.
In addition, it is hereby declared that, in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the measures have been taken in full compliance with the rights and obligations set out in Articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2) and Articles 11, 15, 16 and 18 of the Covenant.
As provided for by Decree-Law no. 62 of 17 April 2020, such measures shall remain in force until midnight of 4 May 2020. In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of San Marino shall keep the Honourable Secretary-General of the United Nations informed of any developments and shall send an appropriate notification when the measures have ceased to operate and all provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are again being fully executed.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of San Marino avails itself of this opportunity to reiterate San Marino’s deep commitment to the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and therefore to the obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[…]

11-05-2020

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of San Marino […] following its Note Ref. 35303/2020 dated 21 April 2020, informs that the Government of the Republic of San Marino has adopted Decree- Law no. 68 of 3 May 2020 entitled ‘Provisions for a gradual loosening of restrictive measures following Covid-19 health emergency’, which introduces new provisions and partly extends until 31 May 2020 the urgent measures adopted to reduce and manage the spread of this virus.
Decree-Law no. 68 of 3 May 2020 provides for a partial reduction of the restrictive measures adopted to deal with Covid-19 health emergency with regard to freedom of movement, assembly and association.
The most recent legislation also provides, where possible, for the holding of remote meetings and the possibility to conduct religious and funeral ceremonies.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of San Marino shall keep the Honourable Secretary- General of the United Nations informed about future developments and shall send an appropriate notification when these emergency measures have ceased to operate and all the provisions are again being fully executed.
[…]

07-07-2020

[…] in accordance with Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and following up Note Verbale Ref. 39219 of 8 May 2020, has the honour to inform that the Government of the Republic of San Marino has adopted Decree-Law no. 108 of 30 June 2020 entitled “Final provisions relating to the Covid-19 emergency”, declaring the termination of the COVID-19 emergency and of previously enacted restriction measures.
With the aforementioned Decree-Law, the Government of the Republic of San Marino declares that all provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are again being fully executed.
[…]

Senegal

05-01-1981

The Government of Senegal declares, under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the said Covenant to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Senegal, made a declaration under article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself.

06-07-2020

[…] with reference to its note verbale No. 0334/REPSEN/NY/BM of 1 May 2020, has the honour to inform that, in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the Government of the Republic of Senegal, on 23 March 2020, by Decree No. 2020-830, declared a state of emergency throughout the country for a period of 12 days.
In accordance with Act No. 2020-13 of 2 April 2020, empowering the President of the Republic to adopt, by decree, measures under the Act in order to address the COVID-19 pandemic and authorizing extensions of the state of emergency, the state of emergency measure was extended by Decree No. 2020-925 of 3 April 2020, then by Decree No. 2020-1014 of 3 May 2020 and lastly by Decree No. 2020-1177 of 29 May 2020. Each extension was for 30 days.
The curfew, initially imposed from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m., was reduced first to the hours of 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. and subsequently to the hours of 11 p.m. to 5 a.m.
In accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Senegal wishes to inform the Secretary-General that, during this period of the state of emergency (23 March 2020–30 June 2020), the Government of the Republic of Senegal exercised its right to derogate from its obligations under articles 12 and 21 of the Covenant, concerning the right to liberty of movement and the right of peaceful assembly, respectively.
The Permanent Mission also wishes to note that, pursuant to article 4, paragraph 2, of Act No. 2020-13, the Government of the Republic of Senegal decided to lift the state of emergency from 30 June 2020.
The aforementioned Act and decrees are attached to the present note verbale. The text of the decision on the lifting of the state of emergency will be provided at a later date.
[…]

Slovakia

28-05-1993

Slovenia

06-07-1992

[The] Republic of Slovenia, in accordance with article 41 of the said Covenant, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

South Africa

10-12-1998

The Republic of South Africa declares that it recognises, for the purposes of article 41 of the Covenant, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under present the Covenant.

Spain

11-03-1998

The Government of Spain declares that, under the provisions of article 41 of the [Covenant], it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

Sri Lanka

11-06-1980

The Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka declares under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant, from another State Party which has similarly declared under article 41 its recognition of the Committee's competence in respect to itself.

Sweden

26-11-1971

Sweden recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

06-12-1971

Sweden reserves the right not to apply the provisions of article 10, paragraph 3, with regard to the obligation to segregate juvenile offenders from adults, the provisions of article 14, paragraph 7, and the provisions of article 20, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

22-05-2019

The Government of Sweden has examined the statements and the reservation made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In this context the Government of Sweden would like to recall, that under well-established international treaty law, the name assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. Thus, the Government of Sweden considers that the statements in respect to Articles 7, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 27 made by the State of Qatar concerning, in the absence of further clarification, in substance [constitute] reservations to the [Covenant].
The Government of Sweden notes that the interpretation and application of Articles 3, 7, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 23.4 and 27 are made subject to general reservations by essentially referring to Islamic sharia and/or national legislation.
The Government of Sweden is of the view that such reservations, which do not clearly specify the extent of the derogations, [raise] doubt as to the commitment of the State of Qatar to the object and purpose of the [Covenant].
According to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the [Covenant] shall not be permitted. 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.
For this reason, the Government of Sweden objects to the aforementioned reservations made by the Government of Qatar. The [Covenant] shall enter into force in its entirety between the two States, without Qatar benefitting from its reservations.

Switzerland

18-06-1992

[...]
(b) Reservation concerning article 12, paragraph 1:
The right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose one's residence is applicable, subject to the federal laws on aliens, which provide that residence and establishment permits shall be valid only for the canton which issues them.
[...]
(f) Reservation concerning article 20:
Switzerland reserves the right not to adopt further measures to ban propaganda for war, which is prohibited by article 20, paragraph 1.
[...]
(g) Reservation concerning article 25, subparagraph (b):
The present provision shall be applied without prejudice to the cantonal and communal laws, which provide for or permit elections within assemblies to be held by a means other than secret ballot.
(h) Reservation concerning article 26:
The equality of all persons before the law and their entitlement without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law shall be guaranteed only in connection with other rights contained in the present Covenant.

16-10-1995

The Government of Switzerland notifies the Secretary-General that it has decided to withdraw its reservation to article 20, paragraph 2 made upon accession.

25-04-1997

The Swiss Government declares, pursuant to article 41 (1) of the [said Covenant], that it shall recognize for a further period of five years, as from 18 September 1997, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the present Covenant.

12-01-2004

The Government of Switzerland notifies the Secretary-General that it has decided to withdraw its reservation to article 14, paragraph 3, sub-paragraphs (d) and (f) made upon accession.

01-05-2007

The Government of Switzerland notifies the Secretary-General that it has decided to withdraw its reservations to article 10, paragraph 2 (b) and article 14, paragraph 1 and 5 made upon accession.

11-05-2010

[...] the Swiss Federal Council declares, pursuant to article 41 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, that it recognizes for a further period of five years, beginning on 16 April 2010, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from States parties concerning non-compliance by other States parties with the obligations arising under the Covenant.

24-01-2022

... Switzerland, pursuant to article 41 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee, for a period of five years from the present notification, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
The above declaration replaces the one transmitted to the Secretary-General on 27 March 2017 and is in effect for five years from 24 January 2022.

Syria

21-04-1969

1. The accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to these two Covenants shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or entry into a relationship with it regarding any matter regulated by the said two Covenants.
2. The Syrian Arab Republic considers that paragraph 1 of article 26 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and paragraph 1 of article 48 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are incompatible with the purposes and objectives of the said Covenants, inasmuch as they do not allow all States, without distinction or discrimination, the opportunity to become parties to the said Covenants.

Objection Israel, 09-07-1969

[The Government of Israel] has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Syria [upon accession to] the above Covenants. In the view of the Government of Israel, these two Covenants are not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Syria an attitude of complete reciprocity.

Thailand

29-10-1996

Interpretative declarations:
The Government of Thailand declares that:
1. The term "self-determination" as appears in article 1, paragraph 1, of the Covenant shall be interpreted as being compatible with that expressed in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights on 25 June 1993.
2. With respect to article 6, paragraph 5 of the Covenant, the Thai Penal Code enjoins, or in some cases allows much latitude for, the Court to take into account the offender's youth as a mitigating factor in handing down sentences. Whereas Section 74 of the code does not allow any kind of punishment levied upon any person below fourteen years of age, Section 75 of the same Code provides that whenever any person over fourteen years but not yet over seventeen years of age commits any act provided by the law to be an offence, the Court shall take into account the sense of responsibility and all other things concerning him in order to come to decision as to whether it is appropriate to pass judgment inflicting punishment on him or not. If the court does not deem it appropriate to pass judgment inflicting punishment, it shall proceed according to Section 74 (viz. to adopt other correction measures short of punishment) or if the court deems it appropriate to pass judgment inflicting punishment, it shall reduce the scale of punishment provided for such offence by one half. Section 76 of the same Code also states that whenever any person over seventeen years but not yet over twenty years of age, commits any act provided by the law to be an offence, the Court may, if it thinks fit, reduce the scale of the punishment provided for such offence by one third or one half. The reduction of the said scale will prevent the Court from passing any sentence of death. As a result, though in theory, sentence of death may be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years, but not below seventeen years of age, the Court always exercises its discretion under Section 75 to reduce the said scale of punishment, and in practice the death penalty has not been imposed upon any persons below eighteen years of age. Consequently, Thailand considers that in real terms it has already complied with the principles enshrined herein.
3. With respect to article 9, paragraph 3 of the Covenant, Section 87, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Thailand provides that the arrested person shall not be kept in custody for more than forty-eight hours from the time of his arrival at the office of the administrative or police official, but the time for bringing the arrested person to the Court shall not be included in the said period of forty-eight hours. In case it is necessary for the purpose of conducting the inquiry, or there arises any other necessity, the period of forty-eight hours may be extended as long as such necessity persists, but in no case shall it be longer than seven days.
4. With respect to article 20 of the Covenant, the term "war" appearing in paragraph 1 is understood by Thailand to mean war in contravention of international law.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 26-12-1997

With regard to the interpretative declaration concerning article 6 paragraph 5 made by Thailand:
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers this declaration as a reservation. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the aforesaid declaration, since it follows from the text and history of the Covenant that the declaration is incompatible with the text, the object and purpose of article 6 of the Covenant, which according to article 4 lays down the minimum standard for the protection of the right to life.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Thailand.

06-07-2012

Withdrawal of interpretative delcarations made upon accession with respect to articles 6 (5) and 9 (3) of the covenant.
The Government of Kingdom of Thailand declares that:
1. With respect to Article 6 paragraph 5 of the Covenant, Section 18 of the Thai Criminal Code has been amended to include provisions stipulating that the death and life sentences shall not be imposed on an offender who is below the age of 18 and in which case, the sentence shall be reduced to a sentence of 50 years imprisonment.
2. As with regard to Article 9 paragraph 3 of the Covenant, Section 40 paragraph 7 of the 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand stipulates that in criminal cases, the accused or defendant shall have the right to proper, prompt and fair investigations or trial and Section 87 of the Thai Criminal Procedural Code has been amended to stipulate that an arrested person shall not be held in custody beyond the necessity of the circumstances of the case. In the case of a petty offence, the arrested person shall be in custody only until such time as that person has given his/her pleadings, and that the identity and the location of that person have been sought. In the case where the arrested person has not been temporarily released and it is necessary to investigate or try the person, the arrested person shall be arraigned before the Court within 48 hours from the time the person was taken to the offices of the inquiry officer in accordance with Section 83 of the same Code unless for reasons of force majeure or other unavoidable necessity.
3. Such amendments are fully in compliance with Article 6 paragraph 5 and Article 9 paragraph 3 of the Covenant.

05-06-2020

[...] with reference to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), has the honour to inform the latter that on 25 March 2020 the Royal Thai Government has declared an emergency situation, by virtue of Section 5 of the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations B.E. 2548 (2005) (the Emergency Decree), in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand, which took effect from 26 March 2020 to 30 April 2020, which was extended until 31 May 2020 and 30 June 2020 respectively, in response to the announcement by the World Health Organization that the outbreak of the Coronavirus 2019 or COVID-19 is a pandemic, which is therefore a situation that threatens public order and the safety of people which necessitates stringent and urgent measures to prevent the widespread transmission of the disease.
In this regard, the Kingdom of Thailand considered it necessary to adopt temporary urgent measures in order to protect the public health, safety and peaceful living of the people, as well as suppress the spread of COVID-19. It wishes to inform that some of these temporary urgent measures may involve a derogation from some of its obligations under the ICCPR, particularly Article 12. The Kingdom of Thailand also wishes to emphasise that the measures adopted are strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, are not inconsistent with other obligations under international law, and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.
Attached hereto are unofficial translation of: (1) the Declaration of an Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand, issued on 25 March 2020; (2) the Regulation issued under Section 9 of the Emergency Decree (No. 2), issued on 2 April 2020; (3) the Regulation issued under Section 9 of the Emergency Decree (No. 3), issued on 10 April 2020; (4) the Notification on the Extension of Duration of the Declaration of an Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand (1st Extension), issued on 28 April 2020; (5) the Regulation issued under Section 9 of the Emergency Decree (No. 5), issued on 1 May 2020; and (6) the Notification on the Extension of Duration of the Declaration of an Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand (2nd Extension), issued on 26 May 2020.
The Permanent Mission of Thailand wishes to further inform the Executive Office of the Secretary-General that the non-derogable rights as set forth in Articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 of the Covenant have not been affected by the above-mentioned temporary urgent measures.
[…]

03-04-2023

[…] and has the honour to refer to the former’s Note No. 56101/292 dated 4 June B.E. 2563 (2020) informing the latter that, in accordance with Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), on 25 March B.E. 2563 (2020) the Royal Thai Government had declared an emergency situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand, which took effect from 26 March 2020 to 30 April 2020, and which had been extended until 30 May 2020 and 30 June 2020, respectively, in response to the announcement of the World Health Organization regarding the outbreak of the communicable disease Coronavirus 2019 or COVID-19 as a global pandemic and the subsequent development of the outbreak.
In this regard, the Permanent Mission of Thailand to the United Nations has further the honour to inform the latter that the afore-mentioned emergency situation was further extended until 30 September 2022, the details of which appear as Annex 1, and was subsequently repealed from 1 October 2022. An unofficial translation of the Declaration of a Repeal of the Declaration of an
Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand, issued on 29 September B.E. 2565
(2022) and took effect on 1 October B.E. 2565 (2022), appears as Annex 2.
[…]

The Extension of Emergency Decree During COVID-19 (2020-2022)
No. Date of Declaration Duration
1 30 June 2020 1 July – 31 July 2020
2 30 July 2020 1 August – 31 August 2020
3 28 August 2020 1 September – 30 September 2020
4 29 September 2020 1 October – 31 October 2020
5 28 October 2020 1 November – 30 November 2020
6 24 November 2020 1 December 2020 – 15 January 2021
7 6 January 2021 15 January – 28 February 2021
8 25 February 2021 1 March – 31 March 2021
9 30 March 2021 1 April – 31 May 2021
10 27 May 2021 1 June – 31 July 2021
11 23 July 2021 1 August – 30 September 2021
12 29 September 2021 1 October – 30 November 2021
13 30 November 2021 1 December 2021 – 31 January 2022
14 25 January 2022 1 February – 31 March 2022
15 23 March 2022 1 April – 31 May 2022
16 26 May 2022 1 June – 31 July 2022
17 27 July 2022 1 August – 30 September 2022

Declaration
Re: Repeal of the Declaration of an Emergency Situation in All Areas of the Kingdom of Thailand, and Relevant Notifications, Regulations and Orders
Pursuant to the Declaration of an Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand, issued on 25 March B.E. 2563 (2020) and the extensions of the duration of the Declaration of an Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand in a total of 19 times until 30 September B.E. 2565 (2022), to apply measures in accordance with the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations B.E. 2548 (2005) to control, suppress, prevent and resolve the situation of the communicable disease Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic;
Whereas at present the situation of the outbreak of COVID-19 throughout the world has improved, the World Health Organization reported that the number of deaths from such disease has been significantly declined and remained at its lowest rates since March 2020, which aligns with the overall situation in Thailand. This resulted from intensive and continuous enforcement of public health measures since the beginning of the outbreak, collective actions of people to receive vaccination, public compliance with necessary public health measures to prevent and control the disease, including active and integrated operations of all the officials involved. The enforcement of measures, therefore, is to be relaxed to alleviate the impact both on people and entrepreneurs to move forward to normalcy both in terms of economic and social activities. As the situation invoked the issuance of the declaration of emergency situation has substantially improved, the Government agencies, i.e. Public Health, Administrative and Securities agencies are able to enforce measures in accordance with relevant laws to resolve problems as in normal circumstances.
By virtue of Section 5 Paragraph 3 of the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations B.E. 2548 (2005), the Prime Minister, upon recommendation of the Centre of the Administration of the Situation due to the Outbreak of the Communicable Disease Coronavirus (COVID-19), hereby declares as follows:
1. The Declaration of an Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand, issued on 25 March B.E. 2563 (2020) and all extensions of the duration of the Declaration of an Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand shall be repealed.
The Declaration of a Serious Emergency Situation in the area of the Southern Border Provinces shall continue in force.
2. All Regulations, Notifications and Orders as followed, shall be terminated:
1) Regulations, Notifications and Orders issued under the Declaration of an Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand pursuant to paragraph 1 mentioned above.
2) Notifications and Orders issued pursuant to specific law which are regarded as Notifications or Orders in accordance with the Regulations under the Declaration of an Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand pursuant to paragraph 1 mentioned above.
This Declaration shall take effect from 1 October B.E. 2565 (2022).
Issued on 29 September B.E. 2565 (2022)
(General Prawit Wongsuwan)
Deputy Prime Minister
Acting Prime Minister

Togo

17-05-2021

The Permanent Mission of Togo to the United Nations presents its compliments to the United Nations Secretariat and, referring to its note verbale No. 1077/MPT-ONU/gae/2020 dated 9 October 2020 transmitting all the documents containing the measures taken by the Government of Togo relating to the country’s response to the coronavirus disease pandemic (COVID-19), has the honour to convey the following:
As noted in the relevant documents annexed to the above-mentioned note verbale, as part of the necessary measures to fight against the spread of COVID-19 in Togo and to protect the population from the risks of contamination, the Head of State declared a three-month health state of emergency across the country, starting on 16 March 2020, through decree No. 2020-024/PR of 8 April 2020.
Having expired on 15 June 2020, the health state of emergency was extended for 45 days, starting on 16 June 2020, through order No. 2020-003 of 3 July 2020 which extended the COVID-19 management measures taken as part of the health state of emergency.
This state of emergency has allowed the Government to adopt exceptional health and police response measures that may affect individual and collective rights and freedoms recognized in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including liberty of movement (article 12), freedom of religion (article 18), the right to liberty of person (article 9), and the right of peaceful assembly (article 21).
In the implementation of the state of emergency and in accordance with article 4 of the aforementioned Covenant, the Government has, on the basis of a temporary derogation, assumed exceptional powers in order to take effective measures to contain the risk of the spread of the virus and to protect the right to life and health of all individuals in the country and all those under its jurisdiction.
[…]

Trinidad and Tobago

21-12-1978

(i) The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right not to apply in full the provision of paragraph 2 of article 4 of the Covenant since section 7 (3) of its Constitution enables Parliament to enact legislation even though it is inconsistent with sections (4) and (5) of the said Constitution;
(ii) Where at any time there is a lack of suitable prison facilities, the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right not to apply article 10 (2) (b) and 10 (3) so far as those provisions require juveniles who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults;
(iii) The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right not to apply paragraph 2 of article 12 in view of the statutory provisions requiring persons intending to travel abroad to furnish tax clearance certificates;
(iv) The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right not to apply paragraph 5 of article 14 in view of the fact that section 43 of its Supreme Court of Judicature Act No. 12 of 1962 does not confer on a person convicted on indictment an unqualified right of appeal and that in particular cases, appeal to the Court of Appeal can only be done with the leave of the Court of Appeal itself or of the Privy Council;
(v) While the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago accepts the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment, it is not possible at this time to implement such a principle in accordance with paragraph 6 of article 14 of the Covenant;
(vi) With reference to the last sentence of paragraph 1 of article 15-"If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby", the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago deems this provision to apply exclusively to cases in progress. Consequently, a person who has already been convicted by a final decision shall not benefit from any provision made by law, subsequent to that decision, for the imposition of a lighter penalty.
(vii) The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right to impose lawful and or reasonable restrictions with respect to the right of assembly under article 21 of the Covenant;
(viii) The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right not to apply the provision of article 26 of the Covenant in so far as it applies to the holding of property in Trinidad and Tobago, in view of the fact that licences may be granted to or withheld from aliens under the Aliens Landholding Act of Trinidad and Tobago.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 12-06-1980

In the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands it follows from the text and the history of the Covenant that [reservation (i) by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago] is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore considers the reservation unacceptable and formally raises an objection to it.

Objection Germany, 21-04-1982

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the [reservation (i) by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago]. In the opinion of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany it follows from the text and the history of the Covenant that the said reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

31-01-1979

The Government of Trinidad and Tobago confirms that paragraph (vi) constituted an interpretative declaration which did not aim to exclude nor modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Covenant.

30-06-2021

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and wishes to inform the Secretary General of the United Nations that on May 15, 2021 the President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (Chap. 1:01) being satisfied:
“that a public emergency has arisen as a result of the outbreak of an infectious disease [2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV]”,
by. Proclamation (L.N. No. 141 of 2021) declared the existence of a State of Emergency in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. In accordance with Section 10 of the Constitution, the Proclamation was on May 24, 2021 extended by resolution of the House of Representatives for a further period of ninety (90) days (L.N. No. 173 of 2021).
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to the United Nations as required by Article 4, paragraph 3 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights hereby notifies the Secretary General of the United Nations of the consequent necessity for the suspension of certain rights protected by the Covenant by the enactment of the Emergency Powers Regulations 2021 (L.N. No. 142 of 2021) which were subsequently revoked by the Emergency Powers (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (L.N. 176 of 2021) and later varied by the Emergency Powers (Variation of Curfew Times) Order, 2021 (L.N. No. 177 of 2021) and the Emergency Powers (Variation of Curfew Times) (No. 2) Order, 2021 (L.N. No. 178 of 2021).
Derogation from the rights protected by Article 9 of the Covenant, namely the right to liberty and security of person, and not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention; is authorized by the above-mentioned Emergency Powers Regulations as follows:
(i) Regulation 8. (1)
“Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, a police officer may arrest without warrant, any person who he reasonably suspects has acted or is acting or is about to act in a manner prejudicial to public health, public safety or to public order or to have committed or is committing or is about to commit an offence against these Regulations".
The right to liberty of movement of persons lawfully within the territory of a State protected by Article 12 of the Covenant has been derogated from by curfew restrictions on movement and travel imposed by virtue of Emergency Powers (No. 2) Regulations as follows:
(i) Regulation 4. (1)
“Subject to the exemptions set out in subregulation (5), no person shall be outside of their private dwelling, including in a motor vehicle, ship or vessel during the hours of –
(a) 9:00 pm to 5:00 am from Monday to Friday;
(b) 9:00 pm to 5:00 am on Saturdays and Sundays,
without the authorization of the Commissioner of Police or such other person or authority as may be authorized by him for the purpose and any such permission may be granted subject to such conditions as may be specified therein.
The times above were varied by the Emergency Powers (Variation of Curfew Times) (No. 2) Order with effect from Sunday 6th June, 2021 as follows:
“3. The curfew times specified in the Regulations are varied as follows:
(b) in regulation 4:
(i) from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays; and
(ii) from 7:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.
(ii) Regulation 6. (1)
“The Commissioner of Police or a person authorized by him in that regard, may for the purposes of ensuring the protection of public health, public safety or to public order –
(b) prohibit any person from travelling except in accordance with permission given to him by such authority or person as may be specified; and
(c) require any person to quit any place or area or not to visit any place or area.
Derogation from the rights protected by Article 21 of the Covenant, namely the right of peaceful assembly, is authorized by the above-mentioned Emergency Powers Regulations 3. (1)
(i) Regulation 3. (1)
“During the period of public emergency between the hours of 5:01 a.m. to 8:59 p.m. every day, a person shall not –
(a) gather in any public place unless the gathering –
(i) for the purpose of the services are specified in subregulation (10);
(ii) does not exceed five persons at a time;
(b) be at any workplace unless the services are specified in subregulation (10) and shall where possible work from home;
(c) be found at or in any beach, sea, river, stream, pond, spring or similar body of water, any public pool or any mud volcano or mud pool for recreational purposes;
(d) operate a party boat, boat tour or club;
(e) hold public parties or public fetes;
(f) have a public or private pre-school, early childhood education centre, open for classes in such places;
(g) operate a day-care or pre-school for children for the care or education of young children;
(h) operate a water park or amusement park;
(i) participate in any group contact sports;
(j) participate in any team sports;
(k) participate in outdoor sports or exercise in public places; or
(l) operate any sport clubs including cycling, running, hiking, swimming, golf, tennis, football, rugby and hockey clubs, except where authorized by the Minister.
The times above were varied by the Emergency Powers (Variation of Curfew Times) (No. 2) Order with effect from Sunday 6th June, 2021 as follows:
“3. The curfew times specified in the Regulations are varied as follows:
(a) In regulation 3:
(i) from 5:01 a.m. to 8:59 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays; and
(ii) from 5:01 a.m. to 6:59 p.m. on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays; and”
(ii) Regulation (5)
“During the period of a public emergency between the hours of 5:01 am to 8:59 pm every day, a religious or ecclesiastical organisation or any other religious organization shall not be open for the conduct of religious activities and services except that they may conduct funeral services and wedding services where the gathering of persons at any place used for that purpose does not exceed ten persons”.
(iii) Regulation (8)
“The following places shall at all times remain closed to the public:
(a) a club as defined in section 2 of the Registration of Clubs Act;
(b) a dancehall or theatre licenced under the Theatres and Dancehalls Act;
(c) a theatre licensed under the Cinematograph Act;
(d) a common gaming house, betting pool or office licensed under the Gambling and Betting Act;
(e) spas, hairdressers, hair and beauty technicians and barbers; and
(f) a gym or fitness centre; and
(g) hardware stores including electrical and plumbing establishments,
unless otherwise prescribed by the Minister under subregulation (12)”.
[…]

Tunisia

24-06-1993

The Government of the Republic of Tunisia declares that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under article 28 of the [said Covenant] [...], to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that the Republic of Tunisia is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.
The State Party submitting such communications to the Committee must have made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee under article 41 of the [said Covenant].

Türkiye

23-09-2003

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.

Objection Cyprus, 26-11-2003

[...] the Government of the Republic of Cyprus has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966) on 23 September 2003, in respect of the implementation of the provisions of the Convention only to the States Parties which it recognizes and with which it has diplomatic relations.
In the view of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, this declaration amounts to a reservation. This reservation creates uncertainty as to the States Parties in respect of which Turkey is undertaking the obligations in the Covenant, and raises doubt as to the commitment of Turkey to the object and purpose of the said Covenant. The Government of the Republic of Cyprus therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This reservation or the objection to it shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Turkey.

Objection Sweden, 30-06-2004

The Government of Sweden has examined the declarations and reservation made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of the Covenant only to the State parties with which it has diplomatic relations. This statement in fact amounts, in the view of the Government of Sweden, to a reservation. The reservation of the Republic of Turkey makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Turkey considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant. In absence of further clarification, therefore, the reservation raises doubt as to the commitment of the Republic of Turkey to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Republic of Turkey furthermore declares that the Covenant is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. This statement also amounts, in the view of the Government of Sweden, to a reservation. It should be recalled that the duty to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the Covenant is mandatory upon State parties in relation to all individuals under their jurisdiction. A limitation to the national territory is contrary to the obligations of State parties in this regard and therefore incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Sweden notes that the interpretation and application of article 27 of the Covenant is being made subject to a general reservation referring to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes. The general reference to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, which, in the absence of further clarification, does not clearly specify the extent of the Republic of Turkey's derogation from the provision in question, raises serious doubts as to the commitment of the Republic of Turkey to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Government of Sweden furthermore wishes to recall that the rights of persons belonging to minorities in accordance with article 27 of the Covenant are to be respected without discrimination. As has been laid down by the Human Rights Committee in its General comment 23 on Article 27 of the Covenant, the existence of a minority does not depend upon a decision by the state but requires to be established by objective criteria. The subjugation of the application of article 27 to the rules and provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne and its Appendixes is, therefore, in the view of the Government of Sweden, incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
According to established customary law as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of all States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Turkey and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without the Republic of Turkey benefiting from its reservations.

Objection Greece, 11-10-2004

The Government of Greece has examined the declarations made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of the Covenant only to the States with which it has diplomatic relations.
In the view of the Government of Greece, this declaration in fact amounts to a reservation. This reservation is incompatible with the principle that inter-State reciprocity has no place in the context of human rights treaties, which concern the endowment of individuals with rights. It is therefore contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
The Republic of Turkey furthermore declares that the Covenant is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied.
In the view of the Government of Greece, this declaration in fact amounts to a reservation. This reservation is contrary to the letter and the spirit of article 2 (i) of the Covenant. Indeed, a State Party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within the power or effective control of that State Party, even if not situated within the territory of such State Party. Accordingly, this reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.
For these reasons, the Government of Greece objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Turkey. The Covenant, therefore, enters into force between the two States without the Republic of Turkey benefiting from these reservations.

Objection Germany, 13-10-2004

The Government of the Republic of Turkey has declared that it will implement the provisions of the Covenant only to the states with which it has diplomatic relations. Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Turkey has declared that it ratifies the Covenant exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Turkey has reserved the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 27 of the Covenant in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany would like to recall that it is in the common interest of all states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected and applied as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under these treaties. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is therefore concerned about declarations and reservations such as those made and expressed by the Republic of Turkey with respect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
However, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany believes these declarations do not aim to limit the Covenant's scope in relation to those states with which Turkey has established bonds under the Covenant, and that they do not aim to impose any other restrictions that are not provided for by the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany attaches great importance to the rights guaranteed by Article 27 of the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany understands the reservation expressed by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to mean that the rights guaranteed by Article 27 of the Covenant will also be granted to all minorities not mentioned in the provisions and rules referred to in the reservation.

Objection Finland, 13-10-2004

The Government of Finland has examined the declarations and reservation made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland notes that the Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 27 of the Covenant in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes.
The Government of Finland emphasises the great importance of the rights of minorities provided for in Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reference to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey is of a general nature and does not clearly specify the content of the reservation. The Government of Finland therefore wishes to declare that it assumes that the Government of the Republic of Turkey will ensure the implementation of the rights of minorities recognised in the Covenant and will do its utmost to bring its national legislation into compliance with the obligations under the Covenant with a view to withdrawing the reservation. This declaration does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Turkey and Finland.

Objection Portugal, 13-10-2004

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by invoking certain provisions of national law in general terms may create doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international law.
It is in the common interest of all States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservation by Turkey to the ICCPR. This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Portugal and Turkey.

Ukraine

20-03-1968

The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic declares that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which a number of States cannot become parties to these Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature and considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States concerned without any discrimination or limitation.

28-07-1992

In accordance with article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Ukraine recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that any State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

05-06-2015

[...] has the honor to transmit herewith the text of the Declaration of the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine 'On derogation from certain obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms' adopted 21 May 2015.
See C.N. 416.2015 TREATIES-IV.4 of 16 July 2015 for the text of the above-mentioned declaration.

27-11-2015

[...] has the honour to inform that Ukraine exercises the right of derogation from its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with regard to the territory of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, that are under control/partial control of the Government of Ukraine.
[...]
The list of localities in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are under control/partial control of the Government of Ukraine as of October 1, 2015 is attached hereto.
See C.N. 656.2015 TREATIES-IV.4 of 14 December 2015 for the text of the above-mentioned notification.

06-07-2016

[…] has the honor to convey [...] information in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[...]
ln pursuance of Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Covenant the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations has the honour to transmit the reviewed list of localities in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts under control/partially controlled by the Government of Ukraine as of 14 June 2016 [...].
See C.N. 502.2016 TREATIES-IV.4 of 18 July 2016 for the text of the above-mentioned declaration.

23-01-2017

[...] has the honor to convey [...] information in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[...]
See C.N. CN.612.2019 TREATIES-IV.4 of 13 December 2019 for the text of the above-mentioned notification.

26-11-2019

[...] has the honor to enclose herewith a further communication in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[...]
See C.N. CN.618.2019 TREATIES-IV.4 of 13 December 2019 for the text of the above-mentioned notification.

01-03-2022

[…] with the reference to the Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has the honor to transmit herewith the texts of the Decree of the President of Ukraine of 24 February 2022 No. 64/2022 ‘On imposition of martial law in Ukraine’, of the Law of Ukraine of 24 February 2022 No. 2102 ‘On approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine On imposition of martial law in Ukraine’ and clarifying communication on the scope of the derogation.
[…]
Subsequently, on 4 March 2022, by note verbale no. 4132/28-194/600-17988, the Permanent Mission of Ukraine submitted an amended text of the clarifying communication, which substitutes the one attached to note verbale no. 4132/28-110-17626 and is reproduced below.
Clarifying communication
Regarding derogation measures
1. In connection with the military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, based on the proposal of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, in accordance with paragraph 20 of the first part of Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine ‘On Martial Law’ by the Decree of the President of Ukraine of 24.02.2022 No. 64/2022, martial law was imposed in Ukraine.
Decree of the President of Ukraine of 24.02.2022 No. 64/2022 ‘On the imposition of martial law in Ukraine’ entered into force simultaneously with the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine On the imposition of martial law in Ukraine’, adopted on 24.02.2022. This Law was immediately promulgated via the mass media and entered into force on the day of its publication on February 24, 2022.
According to Article 2 of the Decree of the President of Ukraine of 24.02.2022 No. 64/2022 ‘On the imposition of martial law in Ukraine’ military command (General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Command of the Joint Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, command of species, certain types of troops (forces) of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Department of Operational Commands, Commanders of Military Units, Units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, State Border Guard Service of Ukraine, State Special Transport Service, State Special Communications and Information Protection Service of Ukraine, National Guard of Ukraine, Security Service of Ukraine, Foreign Service Intelligence of Ukraine, the Department of State Protection of Ukraine) together with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, other executive bodies, local governments authorized to implement and conduct measures and authority necessary to defend Ukraine, protect public safety and interests of the state under the Law of Ukraine ‘On Martial Law’.
2. In accordance with Article 3 of the Decree of the President of Ukraine of 24.02.2022 No. 64/2022 ‘On the imposition of martial law in Ukraine’ in connection with the imposition of martial law in Ukraine temporarily, for the period of martial law, may be limited constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen provided for in Articles 30 - 34, 38, 39, 41 - 44, 53 of the Constitution of Ukraine, as well as temporary restrictions on the rights and legitimate interests of legal entities within the limits and to the extent necessary to ensure implementation and execution of martial law are introduced, which are provided for in part one of Article 8 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Legal Regime of Martial Law’.
2.1. Article 30 of the Constitution. Everyone is guaranteed the inviolability of their home. It is not allowed to enter a house or other property of a person, conduct an inspection or search in them other than by a reasoned court decision.
The restriction of this right necessitates a waiver of obligations under Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter - Covenant) and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter - Convention).
2.2. Article 31 of the Constitution. Everyone is guaranteed the secrecy of correspondence, telephone conversations, telegraph, and other correspondence.
The restriction of this right necessitates a waiver of obligations under articles 19 to 20 of the Covenant and Article 10 of the Convention.
2.3. Article 32 of the Constitution. No one may be interfered with in his personal and family life, except as provided by the Constitution of Ukraine. The collection, storage, use, and dissemination of confidential information about a person without his or her consent is not permitted, except in cases specified by law and only in the interests of national security, economic well-being, and human rights.
The restriction of this right necessitates a waiver of obligations under article 17 of the Covenant and Article 8 of the Convention.
2.4. Article 33 of the Constitution. Everyone who stays lawfully on the territory of Ukraine is guaranteed freedom of movement, free choice of residence, the right to leave the territory of Ukraine freely, except for restrictions established by law. A citizen of Ukraine may not be deprived of the right to return to Ukraine at any time.
The restriction of this right necessitates a waiver of obligations under articles 12 to 13 of the Covenant and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.
2.5. Article 34 of the Constitution. Everyone is guaranteed the right to freedom of thought and speech, to freely express their views and beliefs. Everyone has the right to freely collect, store, use and disseminate information orally, in writing, or otherwise - at their discretion.
The restriction of this right necessitates a waiver of obligations under article 19 of the Covenant and articles 9 to 10 of the Convention.
2.6. Article 38 of the Constitution. Citizens have the right to participate in the management of state affairs, in all-Ukrainian and local referendums, to freely elect and be elected to state authorities and local self-government bodies. Citizens enjoy equal access to public service, as well as to service in local self-government bodies.
The restriction of this right necessitates a waiver of obligations under article 25 of the Covenant and Article 3 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention.
2.7. Article 39 of the Constitution. Citizens have the right to assemble peacefully, without weapons, and to hold rallies, meetings, marches, and demonstrations, which are notified in advance to the executive or local government.
The restriction of this right necessitates a waiver of obligations under article 21 of the Covenant and article 11 of the Convention.
2.8. Article 41 of the Constitution. Everyone has the right to own, use and dispose of their property, the results of their intellectual and creative activities. No one may be unlawfully deprived of his property. The right of private property is inviolable.
The restriction of this right necessitates a waiver of obligations under article 25 of the Covenant and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention.
2.9. Article 42 of the Constitution. Everyone has the right to engage in entrepreneurial activity, which is not prohibited by law.
The restriction of this right necessitates a waiver of obligations under article 17 of the Covenant and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention.
2.10. Article 43 of the Constitution. Everyone has the right to work, which includes the opportunity to earn a living by work which he freely chooses or agrees to freely.
The restriction of this right necessitates a waiver of obligations under articles 22, 25 of the Covenant, and article 14 of the Convention.
2.11. Article 44 of the Constitution. Those who work have the right to strike to protect their economic and social interests.
The restriction of this right necessitates a waiver of obligations under articles 21, 22 of the Covenant, and Article 11 of the Convention.
2.12. Article 53 of the Constitution. Everyone has the right to education.
The restriction of this right necessitates a waiver of obligations under articles 24, 25 of the Covenant and Article 2 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention.
According to the first part of Article 8 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Legal Regime of Martial Law’ in Ukraine or in certain localities where martial law is imposed, the military command together with
military administrations (if formed) may independently or with the involvement of executive bodies, the Council Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, local governments introduce and implement temporary restrictions of constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen, as well as the rights and legitimate interests of legal entities under the decree of the President of Ukraine on martial law, the measures of martial law are as follows:
1) to establish (strengthen) the protection of objects of state importance, objects of state importance of the national transport system of Ukraine, and objects that ensure the livelihood of the population, and to introduce a special regime of their work. The procedure for establishing (strengthening) the protection of such facilities and their inventory that are subject to protection with the imposition of martial law, as well as the procedure for the special regime of their work shall be approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine;
2) to introduce compulsory labor for able-bodied persons not involved in work in the field of defense and livelihoods and not reserved for enterprises, institutions and organizations for the period of martial law in order to perform work of a defensive nature and eliminate the consequences of emergencies that arose during martial law, and to involve them in martial law in socially useful work performed to meet the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, other military formations, law enforcement agencies and civil defense forces, ensuring the functioning of the national economy and life support system population and do not require, as a rule, special training of persons. For employees involved in the performance of socially useful work, the previous place of work (position) is retained for the time of such work. The procedure for involving able-bodied persons in martial law in socially useful work and issues of their social protection, taking into account the requirements of the law, shall be determined by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine;
3) use the capacity and labor resources of enterprises, institutions and organizations of all forms of ownership for the needs of defense, change the mode of their work, make other changes in production activities and working conditions in accordance with labor legislation;
4) forcibly expropriate property in private or communal ownership, confiscate property of state enterprises, state economic associations for the needs of the state under the legal regime of martial law in the manner prescribed by law and issue appropriate documents of the prescribed form;
5) to introduce a curfew in accordance with the procedure established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (ban on staying on the streets and in other public places during a certain period of the day without specially issued permits and certificates), as well as to establish a special light masking regime;
6) to establish, in accordance with the procedure established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, a special regime of entry and exit, to restrict the freedom of movement of citizens, foreigners and stateless persons, as well as the movement of vehicles;
7) to check the documents of persons in the manner prescribed by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, and if necessary to inspect things, vehicles, luggage and cargo, office space and housing of citizens, except for restrictions established by the Constitution of Ukraine;
8) prohibit holding peaceful assemblies, rallies, marches and demonstrations, other mass events;
9) to raise in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine the issue of banning the activities of political parties, public associations, if it is aimed at eliminating Ukraine's independence,
forcibly changing the constitutional order, violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state, undermining its security, illegal seizure power, propaganda of war, violence, incitement of interethnic, racial, religious hatred, encroachment on human rights and freedoms, public health;
10) to establish, in accordance with the procedure established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, a ban or restriction on the choice of the place of stay or residence of persons in the territory where martial law is in force;
11) regulate in the manner prescribed by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, the work of suppliers of electronic communications networks and / or services, printing companies, publishers, broadcasters, broadcasters and other enterprises, institutions, organizations and cultural institutions and the media, and use local radio stations, television centers and printing houses for military purposes and conducting outreach work among the troops and the population; prohibit the operation of transceiver radios for personal and collective use and the transmission of information via computer networks;
12) in case of violation of the requirements or non-compliance with the measures of martial law, to withdraw from enterprises, institutions and organizations of all forms of ownership, individual citizens electronic communication equipment, television, video and audio equipment, computers and, if necessary, other technical means of communication;
13) to prohibit, in accordance with the procedure established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, trade-in weapons, strong chemical and poisonous substances, as well as alcoholic beverages and substances produced based on alcohol;
14) to establish a special regime in the field of production and sale of medical products containing narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and precursors, other potent substances, the list of which is determined by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine;
15) to seize from enterprises, institutions and organizations training and combat equipment, explosives, radioactive substances and materials, potent chemicals and toxic substances;
16) prohibit citizens who are on the military or special register at the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, the Security Service of Ukraine or the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine, change residence (location) without the permission of the military commissar or head of the Security Service of Ukraine or the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine; limit the passage of alternative (non-military) service;
17) to establish military and housing conscription for individuals and legal entities for the accommodation of servicemen, members of the rank and file of law enforcement agencies, personnel of the Civil Protection Service, evacuated population and the location of military units, subdivisions and institutions;
18) to establish the procedure for using the fund of protective structures of civil protection;
19) to evacuate the population if there is a threat to their life or health, as well as material and cultural values, if there is a threat of damage or destruction, according to the list approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine;
20) to introduce, if necessary, in the manner prescribed by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, standardized provision of the population with basic food and non-food goods;
21) take additional measures to strengthen the protection of state secrets;
22) intern (forcibly settle) citizens of a foreign state that threatens to attack or carry out aggression against Ukraine;
23) to carry out the obligatory evacuation of detained persons in temporary detention facilities in accordance with the procedure established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine; suspects, accused persons subject to precautionary measures - detention in pre-trial detention facilities; transfer of convicts serving sentences such as arrest, restriction of liberty, imprisonment for a term and imprisonment from penitentiary institutions located in areas close to the areas of hostilities to the relevant institutions located in a safe area.
The application of these measures necessitates a derogation from the obligations under articles 3, 8 (paragraph 3), 9, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27 of the Covenant and articles 4 (paragraph 3), 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, Articles 1, 2 of the Additional Protocol, Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.
II
Martial law in Ukraine was imposed from 05:30 on February 24, 2022, for a period of 30 days.
III
Regarding the security situation in Ukraine
(according to the General Staff' of the Armed Forces of Ukraine as of 15:00 on February 26, 2022)
The Russian occupier continues the offensive operation against Ukraine in the previously selected areas with the support of long-range operational and tactical aircraft and with the use of high-precision longrange weapons.
The enemy insidiously inflicts air and artillery strikes on civilian infrastructure.
Enemy reconnaissance and sabotage groups operate insidiously, disguising themselves in civilian clothes and infiltrating cities to destabilize the situation by carrying out sabotage operations.

16-03-2022

[…] with the reference to its previous communications No. 4132/28-110-17626 of 28 February 2022 and No. 4132/28-194/600-17987 of 4 March 2022 has the honour to enclose herewith a further communication of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on derogation in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations avails itself of the opportunity to renew to the Secretary-General of the United Nations the assurances of its highest consideration.
Communication of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine
Regarding derogation measures According to the Law of Ukraine of 03.03.2022 No. 2111-IX ‘On Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine’ and Law of Ukraine ‘On Pre-trial Detention on additional regulation of law enforcement in martial law’ in the case of introduction in Ukraine or its localities (administrative territory) of martial law, state of emergency, anti-terrorist operation or measures to ensure national security and defense, repel and deter armed aggression of the Russian Federation and/or other States and the emergence of an objective impossibility and if:
1) there is no technical possibility to access the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations - the decision to initiate a pre-trial investigation is made by the investigator, the prosecutor, on which the relevant resolution is issued; information to be entered into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations shall be entered into it as soon as possible, and procedural actions during criminal proceedings shall be recorded in the relevant procedural documents, as well as by technical means of recording criminal proceedings, except when recording by technical means is impossible for technical reasons;
2) there is no objective possibility of execution of powers provided for in Articles 140, 163, 164, 170, 173, 189, 233, 234, 235, 245, 247, 248, and 294 of this Code within the time limits established by law, as well as the power to choose a measure of restraint in the form of detention for up to 30 days to persons who are suspected of committing crimes under Articles 109-115, 121, 127, 146, 1461, 147, 152, 153, 185, 186, 187, 189-191, 201, 258-258s, 260-263, 294, 348, 349, 365, 377-3 79, 402-444 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine - and, in exceptional cases, also in the commission of other serious or particularly serious crimes, if the delay in choosing a measure of restraint may lead to the loss of traces of a criminal offense or the escape of a person suspected of committing such crimes - such powers are performed by the head of the relevant prosecutor's office, taking into account the requirements of Chapter 37 of this Code, at the request of the prosecutor or investigator agreed with the prosecutor;
3) there is no objective possibility of appeal to the court with an indictment - the term of pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings is suspended and resumed if the grounds for the suspension cease to exist. Prior to the suspension of the pre-trial investigation, the prosecutor is obliged to decide on the extension of the detention period.
2. The decision of the investigating judge on detention or the prosecutor's decision on detention taken in accordance with the requirements and taking into account the circumstances provided for this Article, may be extended up to one month by the head of the relevant prosecutor's office at the request of the prosecutor or investigator prosecutor. The term of detention may be extended several times within the pre-trial investigation period.
3. Decisions taken by the prosecutor in the cases and in accordance with the procedure provided for in this Article shall be immediately notified to the high-level prosecutor and the court as soon as possible, according to a list determined by the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine.
4. Complaints against decisions, actions or omissions of the prosecutor, taken or committed in the exercise of powers specified in part one of this article, shall be considered by the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the criminal offense was committed, after ensuring its operation in another locality or the nearest located court.
5. If itis impossible to hold a preparatory hearing, the pre-trial detention measure chosen during the pre-trial investigation shall be considered extended until the relevant issue is resolved in the preparatory hearing, but not longer than two months.
6. In case of expiration of the court ruling on detention and impossibility of court consideration of the issue of extension of detention in the manner prescribed by this Code, the chosen precautionary measure in the form of detention shall be considered extended until the court decides, but not longer than for two months.
The application of the norms of this Law necessitates deviation from Ukraine's obligations under paragraph 3 of Article 2, Articles 9, 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
II
Regarding the time and territory affected by the derogation
The abovementioned legislative norms came into force on March 8, 2022 and are applicable during a state of emergency and martial law.
A state of emergency in Ukraine was imposed on the territory of Vinnytsia, Volyn, Dnipropetrovsk, Zhytomyr, Zakarpattia, Zaporizhia, Ivano-Frankivsk, Kyiv, Kirovohrad, Lviv, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Poltava, Rivne, Sumy, Temopil, Kharkiv, Kherson, Kherson, Khmelnytsky Chemivtsi, Chernihiv regions, the city of Kyiv at 00 hours 00 minutes on February 24, 2022, for a period of 30 days.
Martial law in Ukraine was imposed at 05:30 on February 24, 2022 for a period of 30 days.”

28-03-2022

[…] with the reference to its previous communications No. 4132/28-110-17626 of 28 February 2022, No. 4132/28-194/600-1798[8] of 4 March 2022 and No. 4132/28-194/501-19782 of 16 March 2022 has the honour to enclose herewith a further communication of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on derogation in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[…]
Communication of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine
Regarding derogation measures
In connection with the ongoing military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, based on the proposal of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, in accordance with paragraph 20 of Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine ‘On Legal Status of Martial Law’ the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated 14.03.2022 N° 133/2022 ‘On the extension of Martial Law in Ukraine’ was adopted.
The Decree was approved by the Law of Ukraine dated 15.03.2022 No. 2119-IX ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine On Extension of Martial Law in Ukraine’.
The Law was immediately announced through the media and entered into force on the day of its publication on March 18, 2022.
By the Decree Martial Law was extended in Ukraine from 05 hours 30 minutes on March 26, 2022 for a period of 30 days.
The Decree entered into force simultaneously with the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine’.

29-04-2022

[…] with the reference to its previous communications No. 4132/28-110-17626 of 28 February 2022, No. 4132/28-194/600-1798[8] of 4 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-19782 of 16 March 2022 and No. 4132/28-194/501-[22806] of 28 March 2022 has the honour to enclose herewith a further communication of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on derogation in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[…]
Communication Regarding derogation measures
In connection with the ongoing military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, based on the proposal of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, in accordance with paragraph 20 of Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine ‘On Legal Status of Martial Law’ the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated 18.04.2022 N° 259/2022 ‘On the extension of Martial Law in Ukraine’ was adopted.
The Decree was approved by the Law of Ukraine dated 21.04.2022 No. 2212-IX ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine On Extension of Martial Law in Ukraine’.
The Law was immediately announced through the media and entered into force on the day of its publication on April 22, 2022.
By the Decree Martial Law was extended in Ukraine from 05 hours 30 minutes on April 25, 2022 for a period of 30 days.
The Decree entered into force simultaneously with the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine’.

09-06-2022

[…] with the reference to its previous communications No. 4132/28-110-17626 of 28 February 2022, No. 4132/28-194/600-1798[8] of 4 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-19782 of 16 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-[22806] of 28 March 2022 and No. 4132/28-194/501-29977 of 29 April 2022 has the honour to enclose herewith a further communication of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on derogation in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[…]
Communication Regarding derogation measures
In connection with the ongoing military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, based on the proposal of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, in accordance with paragraph 20 of Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine ‘On Legal Status of Martial Law’ the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated May 17, 2022 N° 341/2022 ‘On the extension of Martial Law in Ukraine’ was adopted.
The Decree was approved by the Law of Ukraine dated May 22, 2022 No. 2263-IX ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine On Extension of Martial Law in Ukraine’.
The Law was immediately announced through the media and entered into force on the day of its publication on May 22, 2022.
By the Decree Martial Law was extended in Ukraine from 05 hours 30 minutes on May 25, 2022 for a period of 90 days.
The Decree entered into force simultaneously with the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine’.

20-06-2022

[…] with the reference to its previous communications No. 4132/28-110-17626 of 28 February 2022, No. 4132/28-194/600-17987 of 4 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-19782 of 16 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-19782 of 28 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-29977 of 29 April 2022 and No. 4132/28-194/501-39692 of 8 June 2022 has the honour to enclose herewith a further communication on derogation in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[…]
I
Derogation measures
1. The Law of Ukraine of April 14, 2022 No. 2201 ‘On Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine to Improve the Procedure for Conducting Criminal Proceedings within Martial Law Regime’ (hereinafter - Law No. 2201) sets out a new wording in Article 615 ‘Special Regime of Criminal Proceedings in Martial Law’ of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, according to which during martial law if:
- there is no objective possibility of further conduct, completion of pre-trial investigation and appeal to the court with an indictment, request for coercive measures of medical or educational nature, request for release from criminal liability - the term of pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings is suspended on the basis of a reasoned decision of the prosecutor outlining the relevant circumstances and is subject to renewal if the grounds for suspension cease to exist. Prior to the suspension of the pre-trial investigation, the prosecutor is obliged to decide on the extension of the detention period (subparagraph 3 of part 1 of Article 615);
- there is no objective possibility to perform procedural actions within the time limits specified in Article 220 ‘Consideration of petitions during the pre-trial investigation’, Article 221 ‘Acquaintance with the materials of the pre-trial investigation before its completion’, Article 304 ‘Deadline for filing a complaint against the decision, action or inaction of the investigator, coroner or prosecutor, its return or refusal to initiate proceedings’, Article 306 ‘Procedure for reviewing complaints against decisions, actions or inaction of the investigator, coroner or prosecutor during the pre-trial investigation’, Article 308 ‘Appeal for failure to meet reasonable deadlines’, Article 376 ‘Proclamation of a court decision’, Article 395 ‘Procedure and terms of appeal’, Article 426 ‘Procedure and terms of cassation appeal’ of the Criminal Procedure Code, - such procedural actions shall be carried out immediately if possible, but not later than 15 days after the cessation or abolition of martial law (subparagraph 5 of the part 1 of Article 615);
- there are cases for detention of a person without the decision of the investigating judge. the court, defined by Article 208 ‘Detention by an authorized official’ of the Criminal Procedure Code, or there are reasonable circumstances that suggest that escape is possible in order to avoid criminal responsibility of a person suspected of committing a crime — an authorized official has the right without the decision of the investigating judge, court or resolution of the head of the prosecutor’s office to detain such a person. The term of detention of a person without the decision of the investigating judge, court or resolution of the head of the prosecutor’s office during martial law may not exceed 216 hours from the moment of detention, which is determined in accordance with Article 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code (subparagraph 6 of the part 1 of Article 615);
- testimony obtained during the interrogation of a witness, victim, including the simultaneous interrogation of two or more interrogated persons, in criminal proceedings conducted in martial law. may be used as evidence in court only if the course and results of such interrogations were recorded using available technical means of video recording. Testimony obtained during the interrogation of a suspect, including the simultaneous interrogation of two or more persons already interrogated, in
criminal proceedings conducted in martial law may be used as evidence in court only if the defense counsel participated in such interrogation, and the course and results of the interrogation were recorded using available technical means of video recording (subparagraph 11 of the part 1 of Article 615);
- coroner, investigator. prosecutor ensures the participation of the defense counsel in a separate procedural action, including in case of impossibility of the defense counsel’s appearance — with the use of technical means (video. audio) to ensure remote participation of the defense counsel. Coroner, investigator, prosecutor ensures the participation of an interpreter to translate the explanations, testimony or documents of the suspect, the victim at the earliest opportunity. In the presence of circumstances that make it impossible for an interpreter to participate in criminal proceedings, coroner, investigator, prosecutor has the right to personally translate explanations, testimony or documents if he/she speaks one of the languages of the suspect, victim (subparagraph 12 of part 1 of Article 615).
Provisions of Article 87 ‘Inadmissibility of evidence obtained as a result of significant violation of human rights and freedoms’, Article 95 ‘Indications’ of the Criminal Procedure Code are applied taking into account the features specified in Article 615 of the Criminal Procedure Code (as amended by Law No. 2201).
The application of Law No. 2201 necessitate derogation in respect of Articles 2 (paragraph 3), 9, 14 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 5, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom
II
Regarding the time and territory covered by the derogation from commitments
The Law No. 2201 entered into force on May l, 2022 and is valid during martial law, which was imposed throughout Ukraine from 05 hours 30 minutes on February 24, 2022 and extended on May 25, 2022 for 90 days by the Law or Ukraine of April 21, 2022 No. 2212 ‘On approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine ‘On the extension or martial law in Ukraine’.

19-08-2022

16-12-2022

[…] with the reference to its previous communications No. 4132/28-110-17626 of 28 February 2022, No. 4132/28-194/600-1798[8] of 4 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-19782 of 16 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-[22806] of 28 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-29977 of 29 April 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-39692 of 8 June 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-42891 of 17 June 2022 and No. 4132/28-194/501-63210 of 19 August 2022 has the honour to enclose herewith a further communication on derogation in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[…]
Communication Regarding derogation measures
In connection with the ongoing military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, based on the proposal of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, in accordance with paragraph 20 of Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine ‘On Legal Status of Martial Law’ the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated August 12, 2022 N° 573/2022 ‘On the extension of Martial Law in Ukraine’ was adopted.
The Decree was approved by the Law of Ukraine dated November 16, 2022 No. 2738 ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine On Extension of Martial Law in Ukraine’.
The Law was immediately announced through the media and entered into force on the day of its publication on November 16, 2022.
By the Decree Martial Law was extended in Ukraine from 05 hours 30 minutes on November 21, 2022 for a period of 90 days.
The Decree entered into force simultaneously with the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine’.

14-02-2023

[…] with the reference to its previous communications No. 4132/28-110-17626 of 28 February 2022, No. 4132/28-194/600-1798[8] of 4 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-19782 of 16 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-[22806] of 28 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-29977 of 29 April 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-39692 of 8 June 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-42891 of 17 June 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-63210 of 19 August 2022 and No. 4132/28-194/501-104500 of 16 December 2022 has the honour to enclose herewith a further communication on derogation in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[…]
Communication Regarding derogation measures
In connection with the ongoing military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, based on the proposal of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, in accordance with paragraph 20 of Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine ‘On Legal Status of Martial Law’ the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated February 6, 2023 N° 58/2023 ‘On the extension of Martial Law in Ukraine’ was adopted.
The Decree was approved by the Law of Ukraine dated February 7, 2023 No. 2915 ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine On Extension of Martial Law in Ukraine’.
The Law was immediately announced through the media and entered into force on the day of its publication on February 14, 2023.
By the Decree Martial Law was extended in Ukraine from 05 hours 30 minutes on February 19, 2023 for a period of 90 days.

25-05-2023

[...] with the reference to its previous communications No. 4132/28-110-17626 of 28 February 2022, No. 4132/28-194/600-1798[8] of 4 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-19782 of 16 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-[22806] of 28 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-29977 of 29 April 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-39692 of 8 June 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-42891 of 17 June 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-63210 of 19 August 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-104500 of 16 December 2022 and No. 4132/28-194/501-16855 of 14 February 2023 has the honour to enclose herewith a further communication on derogation in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[…]
Communication Regarding derogation measures
In connection with the ongoing military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, based on the proposal of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, in accordance with paragraph 20 of Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine ‘On Legal Status of Martial Law’ the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated May 1, 2023, N° 254/2023 ‘On the extension of Martial Law in Ukraine’ was adopted.
The Decree was approved by the Law of Ukraine dated May 2, 2023, No. 3057-IX ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine On the Extension of Martial Law in Ukraine’.
The Law was immediately announced through the media. May 19, 2023 is the date of entry into force of this Law.
By the Decree Martial Law was extended in Ukraine from 05 hours 30 minutes on May 20, 2023, for a period of 90 days.
The Decree entered into force simultaneously with the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine’.

30-08-2023

[...] with the reference to its previous communications No. 4132/28-110-17626 of 28 February 2022, No. 4132/28-194/600-1798[8] of 4 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-19782 of 16 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-[22806] of 28 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-29977 of 29 April 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-39692 of 8 June 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-42891 of 17 June 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-63210 of 19 August 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-104500 of 16 December 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-16855 of 14 February 2023 and No. 4132/28-194/501-60498 of 25 May 2023 has the honour to enclose herewith a further communication on derogation in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[...]
Communication Regarding derogation measures
In connection with the ongoing military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, based on the proposal of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, in accordance with paragraph 20 of Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine ‘On Legal Status of Martial Law’ the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated July 26, 2023, N° 451/2023 ‘On the extension of Martial Law in Ukraine’ was adopted.
The Decree was approved by the Law of Ukraine dated July 27, 2023, No. 3275-IX ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine On the Extension of Martial Law in Ukraine’.
The Law was immediately announced through the media. August 17, 2023 is the date of entry into force of this Law.
By the Decree Martial Law was extended in Ukraine from 05 hours 30 minutes on August 18, 2023, for a period of 90 days.
The Decree entered into force simultaneously with the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine’.

17-11-2023

[…] with the reference to its previous communications No. 4132/28-110-17626 of 28 February 2022, No. 4132/28-194/600-1798[8] of 4 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-19782 of 16 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-[22806] of 28 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-29977 of 29 April 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-39692 of 8 June 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-42891 of 17 June 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-63210 of 19 August 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-104500 of 16 December 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-16855 of 14 February 2023, No. 4132/28-194/501-60498 of 25 May 2023 and No. 4132/28-194/501-103419 [of 30 August 2023] has the honour to enclose herewith a further communication on derogation in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[…]
Communication Regarding derogation measures
In connection with the ongoing military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, based on the proposal of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, in accordance with paragraph 20 of Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine ‘On Legal Status of Martial Law’ the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated November 6, 2023, N° 734/2023 ‘On the Extension of Martial Law in Ukraine’ was adopted.
The Decree was approved by the Law of Ukraine dated November 8, 2023, No. 3429-IX ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine On the Extension of Martial Law in Ukraine’.
The Law was immediately announced through the media. November 10, 2023 is the date of entry into force of this Law.
By the Decree Martial Law was extended in Ukraine from 05 hours 30 minutes on November 16, 2023, for a period of 90 days.
The Decree entered into force simultaneously with the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine’.

02-01-2024

[…] with reference to its previous communication No. 4132/28-194/501-139368 of 17 November 2023 has the honour to enclose herewith a clarifying communication on derogation in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[…]
Communication Regarding derogation measures
Due to the ongoing large scale military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, based on the proposal of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine ‘On Legal Regime of Martial Law’ the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated November 6, 2023, No. 734/2023 ‘On the Prolongation of the Term of Martial Law in Ukraine’ was adopted.
The abovementioned Decree was approved by the Law of Ukraine dated November 8, 2023, No. 3429-IX ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine On the Prolongation of the Term of Martial Law in Ukraine’. The Law entered into force simultaneously with the abovementioned Decree on November 10, 2023. It was immediately announced through the media.
According to the Decree the regime of martial law was prolonged from 05 hours 30 minutes on November 16, 2023, for a period of 90 days.”

16-02-2024

[…] with the reference to its previous communications No. 4132/28-110-17626 of 28 February 2022, No. 4132/28-194/600-1798[8] of 4 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-19782 of 16 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-[22806] of 28 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-29977 of 29 April 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-39692 of 8 June 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-42891 of 17 June 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-63210 of 19 August 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-104500 of 16 December 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-16855 of 14 February 2023, No. 4132/28-194/501-60498 of 25 May 2023, No. 4132/28-194/501-103419 of 30 August 2023 and No. 4132/28-194/501-533 of 2 January 2024 has the honour to enclose herewith a further communication on derogation in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[…]
Communication Regarding derogation measures
Due to the ongoing large scale military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, based on the proposal of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine ‘On Legal Regime of Martial Law’ the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated February 05, 2024, No. 49/2024 ‘On the Prolongation of the Term of Martial Law in Ukraine’ was adopted.
The abovementioned Decree was approved by the Law of Ukraine dated February 06, 2024, No. 3564-IX ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine On the Prolongation of the Term of Martial Law in Ukraine’. The Law entered into force simultaneously with the abovementioned Decree on February 13, 2024. It was immediately announced through the media.
According to the Decree the regime of martial law was prolonged from 05 hours 30 minutes on February 14, 2024, for a period of 90 days.

25-03-2024

[…] with reference to its previous communications No. 4132/28-110-17626 of 28 February 2022, No. 4132/28-194/600-1798[8] of 4 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-19782 of 16 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-[22806] of 28 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-29977 of 29 April 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-39692 of 8 June 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-42891 of 17 June 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-63210 of 19 August 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-104500 of 16 December 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-16855 of 14 February 2023, No. 4132/28-194/501-60498 of 25 May 2023, No. 4132/28-194/501-103419 of 30 August 2023, No. 4132/28-194/501-533 of 2 January 2024 and No. 4132/28-194/501-22561 of 16 February 2024, has the honour to enclose herewith a further communication on derogation in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[…]
Regarding measures derogating from obligations
Article 615 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC) as amended by the Law of Ukraine of 27 July 2022 No. 2462-IX shall provide that in the event of martial law:
- in the absence of the possibility to draw up procedural documents about investigative (search) or other procedural actions, recording is carried out by technical means with subsequent drawing up the protocol no later than 72 hours after the completion of these actions (para two of part one);
- in the absence of the possibility for further proceeding, completion of the pre-trial investigation and submission an indictment, a request for the application of coercive measures of a medical or educational nature, a request to discharge a person from criminal responsibility to the court – the term of the pretrial investigation in criminal proceeding is suspended on the basis of a motivated resolution of the prosecutor with a statement of the relevant circumstances and is subject to renewal if the grounds for suspension no longer exist. Before suspension of the pre-trial investigation, the prosecutor is obliged to decide on the issue of extending the term of detention (para seven of part one);
- in the absence of the possibility for performing procedural actions within the time limits specified by the CPC such actions are carried out immediately, where possible, but no later than 15 days after the termination or cancellation of martial law (para nine of part one);
- in the case of impossibility for holding a preparatory court session, the preventive measure in the form of detention selected by the investigating judge, the head of the prosecutor’s office during the pre-trial investigation is considered to be extended until the relevant issue is resolved in the preparatory court session but for not longer than for 2 months (part five);
- in the case of the expiration of the court decision on detention and the impossibility of consideration by the court of extending the period of detention in accordance with the procedure established by the CPC, the chosen preventive measure in the form of detention is considered extended until the relevant issue is resolved by the court but not longer than for 2 months (part six);
- testimony obtained during the interrogation of a suspect in criminal proceedings can be used as evidence in court, if the defender participated in the interrogation, and its course and results were recorded by technical means of video recording. Video recording of witness’ and victim’s testimony obtained during interrogation is also allowed (part eleven);
- the inquiring officer, the investigator, the prosecutor shall ensure: (i) remote participation of the defender in a separate procedural action using technical means of video and audio communication if his/her appearance is impossible; (ii) participation at the earliest opportunity of an interpreter to translate explanations, statements or documents of the suspect, the victim. In the presence of circumstances that make his/her participation impossible, the inquiring officer, the investigator, the prosecutor shall have the right to personally carry out the appropriate translation, in the case of knowledge of one of the languages spoken by the suspect, the victim (part twelve);
The possibility of applying the above-mentioned norms provided for in Article 615 of the CPC makes it necessary to continue derogation from Ukraine’s obligations under para 3 of Article 2, Articles 9, 14 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 5, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms without prejudice to the fundamental principles of a fair trial and legal protection, including the principle of ne bis in idem.
Regarding the time and territory to which the derogation applies
The above-mentioned norms of the CPC can be applied during the martial law imposed on the territory of Ukraine from 05:30 on February 24, 2022.

20-05-2024

[…] with the reference to its previous communications No. 4132/28-110-17626 of 28 February 2022, No. 4132/28-194/600-1798[8] of 4 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-19782 of 16 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-[22806] of 28 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-29977 of 29 April 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-39692 of 8 June 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-42891 of 17 June 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-63210 of 19 August 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-104500 of 16 December 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-16855 of 14 February 2023, No. 4132/28-194/501-60498 of 25 May 2023, No. 4132/28-194/501-103419 of 30 August 2023, No. 4132/28-194/501-533 of 2 January 2024, No. 4132/28-194/501-22561 of 16 February 2024 and No. 4132/28-194/501-53129 of 17 April 2024 has the honour to enclose herewith a further communication on derogation in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[…]
Due to the ongoing large scale military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, based on the proposal of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine ‘On Legal Regime of Martial Law’ the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated May 06, 2024, No. 271/2024 ‘On the Prolongation of the Term of Martial Law in Ukraine’ was adopted.
The abovementioned Decree was approved by the Law of Ukraine dated May 08, 2024, No. 3684-IX ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine ‘On the Prolongation of the Term of Martial Law in Ukraine’, which was immediately announced through the media. Both the Law and the decree entered into force simultaneously on May 10, 2024.
According to the Decree the regime of martial law was prolonged from 05 hours 30 minutes on May 14, 2024, for the term of 90 days.

21-08-2024

[…] with the reference to its previous communications No. 4132/28-110-17626 of 28 February 2022, No. 4132/28-194/600-1798[8] of 4 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-19782 of 16 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-[22806] of 28 March 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-29977 of 29 April 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-39692 of 8 June 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-42891 of 17 June 2022, No. 4132/28-94/501-63210 of 19 August 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-104500 of 16 December 2022, No. 4132/28-194/501-16855 of 14 February 2023, No. 4132/28-194/501-60498 of 25 May 2023, No. 4132/28-194/501-103419 of 30 August 2023, No. 4132/28-194/501-533 of 2 January 2024, No. 4132/28-194/501-22561 of 16 February 2024, No. 4132/28-194/501-53129 of 17 April 2024 and No. 4132/28-194/501-68126 of 20 May 2024 has the honour to enclose herewith a further communication on derogation in accordance with the obligations of the Government of Ukraine under Article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[..]
Due to the ongoing large scale military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, based on the proposal of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine ‘On Legal Regime of Martial Law’ the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated July 23, 2024, No. 469/2024 ‘On the Prolongation of the Term of Martial Law in Ukraine’ was adopted.
The abovementioned Decree was approved by the Law of Ukraine dated July 23, 2024, No. 3891-IX ‘On Approval of the Decree of the President of Ukraine ‘On the Prolongation of the Term of Martial Law in Ukraine’, which was immediately announced through the media. Both the Law and the Decree entered into force simultaneously on August 08, 2024.
According to the Decree the regime of martial law was prolonged from 05 hours 30 minutes on August 12, 2024, for the term of 90 days.

United Kingdom

16-09-1968

First, the Government of the United Kingdom declare their understanding that, by virtue of Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations, in the event of any conflict between their obligations under Article 1 of the Covenant and their obligations under the Charter (in particular, under Articles 1, 2 and 73 thereof) their obligations under the Charter shall prevail.
Secondly, the Government of the United Kingdom declare that:
(a) In relation to Article 14 of the Covenant, they must reserve the right not to apply, or not to apply in full, the guarantee of free legal assistance contained in sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 3 in so far as the shortage of legal practitioners and other considerations render the application of this guarantee in British Honduras, Fiji and St. Helena impossible;
(b) In relation to Article 23 of the Covenant, they must reserve the right not to apply the first sentence of paragraph 4 in so far as it concerns any inequality which may arise from the operation of the law of domicile;
(c) In relation to Article 25 of the Covenant, they must reserve the right not to apply:
(i) Sub-paragraph (b) in so far as it may require the establishment of an elected legislature in Hong Kong and the introduction of equal suffrage, as between different electoral rolls, for elections in Fiji; and
(ii) Sub-paragraph (c) in so far as it applies to jury service in the Isle of Man and to the employment of married women in the Civil Service of Northern Ireland, Fiji, and Hong Kong.
Lastly, the Government of the United Kingdom declare that the provisions of the Covenant shall not apply to Southern Rhodesia unless and until they inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they are in a position to ensure that the obligations imposed by the Covenant in respect of that territory can be fully implemented.

20-05-1976

Firstly the Government of the United Kingdom maintain their declaration in respect of article 1 made at the time of signature of the Covenant.
The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to apply to members of and persons serving with the armed forces of the Crown and to persons lawfully detained in penal establishments of whatever character such laws and procedures as they may from time to time deem to be necessary for the preservation of service and custodial discipline and their acceptance of the provisions of the Covenant is subject to such restrictions as may for these purposes from time to time be authorised by law.
Where at any time there is a lack of suitable prison facilities or where the mixing of adults and juveniles is deemed to be mutually beneficial, the Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply article 10 (2) (b) and 10 (3), so far as those provisions require juveniles who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults, and not to apply article 10 (2) (a) in Gibraltar, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands in so far as it requires segregation of accused and convicted persons.
The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply article 11 in Jersey.
The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to interpret the provisions of article 12 (1) relating to the territory of a State as applying separately to each of the territories comprising the United Kingdom and its dependencies.
The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to continue to apply such immigration legislation governing entry into, stay in and departure from the United Kingdom as they may deem necessary from time to time and, accordingly, their acceptance of article 12 (4) and of the other provisions of the Covenant is subject to the provisions of any such legislation as regards persons not at the time having the right under the law of the United Kingdom to enter and remain in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom also reserves a similar right in regard to each of its dependent territories.
The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply article 13 in Hong Kong in so far as it confers a right of review of a decision to deport an alien and a right to be represented for this purpose before the competent authority.
The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply or not to apply in full the guarantee of free legal assistance in sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 3 of article 14 in so far as the shortage of legal practitioners renders the application of this guarantee impossible in the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, the Gilbert Islands, the Pitcairn Islands Group, St. Helena and Dependencies and Tuvalu.
The Government of the United Kingdom interpret article 20 consistently with the rights conferred by articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant and having legislated in matters of practical concern in the interests of public order (ordre public) reserve the right not to introduce any further legislation. The United Kingdom also reserve a similar right in regard to each of its dependent territories.
The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to postpone the application of paragraph 3 of article 23 in regard to a small number of customary marriages in the Solomon Islands.
The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to enact such nationality legislation as they may deem necessary from time to time to reserve the acquisition and possession of citizenship under such legislation to those having sufficient connection with the United Kingdom or any of its dependent territories and accordingly their acceptance of article 24 (3) and of the other provisions of the Covenant is subject to the provisions of any such legislation.
The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply sub-paragraph (b) of article 25 in so far as it may require the establishment of an elected Executive or Legislative Council in Hong Kong [...].
Lastly, the Government of the United Kingdom declare that the provisions of the Covenant shall not apply to Southern Rhodesia unless and until they inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they are in a position to ensure that the obligations imposed by the Covenant in respect of that territory can be fully implemented.
The Government of the United Kingdom declare under article 41 of this Covenant that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such other State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to the United Kingdom made a declaration under article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself.

Objection Argentina, 03-10-1983

[The Government of Argentina makes a] formal objection to the [declaration] of territorial extension issued by the United Kingdom with regard to the Malvinas Islands (and dependencies), which that country is illegally occupying and refers to as the "Falkland Islands".
The Argentine Republic rejects and considers null and void the [said declaration] of territorial extension.

28-02-1985

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to their right, by notification to the Depositary under the relevant provisions of the above-mentioned Convention, to extend the application of the Convention in question to the Falkland Islands or to the Falkland Islands Dependencies, as the case may be.
For this reason alone, the Government of the United Kingdom are unable to regard the Argentine [communication] under reference as having any legal effect.

Objection Argentina, 08-08-1986

The Argentine Republic rejects the extension, notified to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 20 May 1976 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the application of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 16 December 1966, to the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and reaffirms its sovereign rights to those archipelagos, which form an integral part of its national territory.
The General Assembly of the United Nations had adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6 and 40/21 in which it recognizes the existence of a sovereignty dispute regarding the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and urges the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pursue negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute, through the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall inform the General Assembly of the progress made.

13-01-1988

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rejects the statements made by the Argentine Republic, regarding the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, when ratifying [the said Covenants and acceding to the said Protocol].
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has no doubt as to British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and its consequent right to extend treaties to those territories.

Objection Argentina, 05-10-2000

[The Argentine Republic] wishes to refer to the report submitted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Human Rights Committee concerning its overseas territories (CCPR/C/UKOT/99/5).
In that connection, the Argentine Republic wishes to recall that by its note of 3 October 1983 it rejected the extension of the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the Malvinas Islands, which was effected by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 20 May 1976.
The Government of Argentina rejects the designation of the Malvinas Islands as Overseas Dependent Territories of the United Kingdom or any other similar designation.
Consequently, the Argentine Republic does not recognize the section concerning the Malvinas Islands contained in the report which the United Kingdom has submitted to the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/UKOT/99/5) or any other document or instrument having a similar tenor that may derive from this alleged territorial extension.
The United Nations General Assembly has adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, in which it recognizes that a dispute exists concerning sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands and urges the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to continue negotiations with a view to resolving the dispute peacefully and definitively as soon as possible, assisted by the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who is to report to the General Assembly on the progress made.
The Argentine Republic reaffirms its rights of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime spaces, which are an integral part of its national territory.

02-02-1993

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notifies the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation to sub-paragraph c) of Article 25 made upon ratification.

20-12-2000

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rejects as unfounded the claims made by the Argentine Republic in its communication to the depositary of 5 [October] 2000. The Government of the United Kingdom recalls that in its declaration received by the depositary on 13 January 1988 it rejected the objection by the Argentine Republic to the extension by the United Kingdom of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the Falkland Islands and to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands and over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and its consequential rights to apply the Convention with respect to those territories.

04-02-2015

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, on behalf of the territory of the Bailiwick of Jersey, having reviewed the said reservation, hereby withdraws the [reservation to article 11].

United States of America

08-06-1992

Reservations:
(1) That article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(2) That the United States reserves the right, subject to its Constitutional constraints, to impose capital punishment on any person (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing or future laws permitting the imposition of capital punishment, including such punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age.
(3) That the United States considers itself bound by article 7 to the extent that `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel and unusual treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
(4) That because U.S. law generally applies to an offender the penalty in force at the time the offence was committed, the United States does not adhere to the third clause of paragraph 1 of article 15.
(5) That the policy and practice of the United States are generally in compliance with and supportive of the Covenant's provisions regarding treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, the United States reserves the right, in exceptional circumstances, to treat juveniles as adults, notwithstanding paragraphs 2 (b) and 3 of article 10 and paragraph 4 of article 14. The United States further reserves to these provisions with respect to States with respect to individuals who volunteer for military service prior to age 18.
Understandings:
(1) That the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee all persons equal protection of the law and provide extensive protections against discrimination. The United States understands distinctions based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or any other status - as those terms are used in article 2, paragraph 1 and article 26 - to be permitted when such distinctions are, at minimum, rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. The United States further understands the prohibition in paragraph 1 of article 4 upon discrimination, in time of public emergency, based `solely' on the status of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin, not to bar distinctions that may have a disproportionate effect upon persons of a particular status.
(2) That the United States understands the right to compensation referred to in articles 9 (5) and 14 (6) to require the provision of effective and enforceable mechanisms by which a victim of an unlawful arrest or detention or a miscarriage of justice may seek and, where justified, obtain compensation from either the responsible individual or the appropriate governmental entity. Entitlement to compensation may be subject to the reasonable requirements of domestic law.
(3) That the United States understands the reference to `exceptional circumstances' in paragraph 2 (a) of article 10 to permit the imprisonment of an accused person with convicted persons where appropriate in light of an individual's overall dangerousness, and to permit accused persons to waive their right to segregation from convicted persons. The United States further understands that paragraph 3 of article 10 does not diminish the goals of punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation as additional legitimate purposes for a penitentiary system.
(4) That the United States understands that subparagraphs 3 (b) and (d) of article 14 do not require the provision of a criminal defendant's counsel of choice when the defendant is provided with court-appointed counsel on grounds of indigence, when the defendant is financially able to retain alternative counsel, or when imprisonment is not imposed. The United States further understands that paragraph 3 (e) does not prohibit a requirement that the defendant make a showing that any witness whose attendance he seeks to compel is necessary for his defense. The United States understands the prohibition upon double jeopardy in paragraph 7 to apply only when the judgment of acquittal has been rendered by a court of the same governmental unit, whether the Federal Government or a constituent unit, as is seeking a new trial for the same cause.
(5) That the United States understands that this Covenant shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the state or local governments may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of the Covenant."
Declarations:
(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing.
(2) That it is the view of the United States that States Party to the Covenant should wherever possible refrain from imposing any restrictions or limitations on the exercise of the rights recognized and protected by the Covenant, even when such restrictions and limitations are permissible under the terms of the Covenant. For the United States, article 5, paragraph 2, which provides that fundamental human rights existing in any State Party may not be diminished on the pretext that the Covenant recognizes them to a lesser extent, has particular relevance to article 19, paragraph 3 which would permit certain restrictions on the freedom of expression. The United States declares that it will continue to adhere to the requirements and constraints of its Constitution in respect to all such restrictions and limitations.
(3) That the United States declares that the right referred to in article 47 may be exercised only in accordance with international law.
The United States declares that it accepts the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications under article 41 in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

Objection Sweden, 18-06-1993

[...] In this context the Government recalls that under international treaty law, the name assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. Thus, the Government considers that some of the understandings made by the United States in substance constitute reservations to the Covenant.
A reservation by which a State modifies or excludes the application of the most fundamental provisions of the Covenant, or limits its responsibilities under that treaty by invoking general principles of national law, may cast doubts upon the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The reservations made by the United States of America include both reservations to essential and non-derogable provisions, and general references to national legislation. Reservations of this nature contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. All States Parties share a common interest in the respect for the object and purpose of the treaty to which they have chosen to become parties.
Sweden therefore objects to the reservations made by the United States to:
- article 2; cf. Understanding (1);
- article 4; cf. Understanding (1);
- article 6; cf. Reservation (2);
- article 7; cf. Reservation (3);
- article 15; cf. Reservation (4);
- article 24; cf. Understanding (1).
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Sweden and the United States of America.

Objection Finland, 28-09-1993

[...] It is recalled that under international treaty law, the name assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. Understanding (1) pertaining to articles 2, 4 and 26 of the Covenant is therefore considered to constitute in substance a reservation to the Covenant, directed at some of its most essential provisions, namely those concerning the prohibition of discrimination. In the view of the Government of Finland, a reservation of this kind is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant, as specified in article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
As regards reservation (2) concerning article 6 of the Coven- ant, it is recalled that according to article 4(2), no restrictions of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are allowed for. In the view of the Government of Finland, the right to life is of fundamental importance in the Covenant and the said reservation therefore is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
As regards reservation (3), it is in the view of the Government of Finland subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.
For the above reasons the Government of Finland objects to reservations made by the United States to articles 2, 4 and 26 [cf. Understanding (1)], to article 6 [cf. Reservation (2)] and to article 7 [cf. Reservation (3)]. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Finland and the United States of America.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 28-09-1993

With regard to the reservations to articles 6 and 7 made by the United States of America:
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservations with respect to capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age, since it follows from the text and history of the Covenant that the said reservation is incompatible with the text, the object and purpose of article 6 of the Covenant, which according to article 4 lays down the minimum standard for the protection of the right to life.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation with respect to article 7 of the Covenant, since it follows from the text and the interpretation of this article that the said reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.
In the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands this reservation has the same effect as a general derogation from this article, while according to article 4 of the Covenant, no derogations, not even in times of public emergency, are permitted.
It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the understandings and declarations of the United States do not exclude or modify the legal effect of provisions of the Covenant in their application to the United States, and do not in any way limit the competence of the Human Rights Committee to interpret these provisions in their application to the United States.
Subject to the proviso of article 21, paragraph 3 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, these objections do not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States.

Objection Germany, 29-09-1993

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the United States' reservation referring to article 6, paragraph 5 of the Covenant, which prohibits capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age. The reservation referring to this provision is incompatible with the text as well as the object and purpose of article 6, which, as made clear by paragraph 2 of article 4, lays down the minimum standard for the protection of the right to life.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany interprets the United States' `reservation' with regard to article 7 of the Covenant as a reference to article 2 of the Covenant, thus not in any way affecting the obligations of the United States of America as a state party to the Covenant.

Objection Denmark, 01-10-1993

Having examined the contents of the reservations made by the United States of America, Denmark would like to recall article 4, para 2 of the Covenant according to which no derogation from a number of fundamental articles, inter alia 6 and 7, may be made by a State Party even in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.
In the opinion of Denmark, reservation (2) of the United States with respect to capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age as well as reservation (3) with respect to article 7 constitute general derogations from articles 6 and 7, while according to article 4, para 2 of the Covenant such derogations are not permitted.
Therefore, and taking into account that articles 6 and 7 are protecting two of the most basic rights contained in the Covenant, the Government of Denmark regards the said reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and consequently Denmark objects to the reservations.
These objections do not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Denmark and the United States.

Objection France, 04-10-1993

At the time of the ratification of [the said Covenant], the United States of America expressed a reservation relating to article 6, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age.
France considers that this United States reservation is not valid, inasmuch as it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
Such objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between France and the United States.

Objection Norway, 04-10-1993

With regard to reservations to articles 6 and 7 made by the United States of America:
1. In the view of the Government of Norway, the reservation (2) concerning capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age is according to the text and history of the Covenant, incompatible with the object and purpose of article 6 of the Covenant. According to article 4 (2), no derogations from article 6 may be made, not even in times of public emergency. For these reasons the Government of Norway objects to this reservation.
2. In the view of the Government of Norway, the reservation (3) concerning article 7 of the Covenant is according to the text and interpretation of this article incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. According to article 4 (2), article 7 is a non-derogable provision, even in times of public emergency. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to this reservation.
The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Norway and the United States of America.

Objection Belgium, 05-10-1993

The Government of Belgium wishes to raise an objection to the reservation made by the United States of America regarding article 6, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, which prohibits the imposition of the sentence of death for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age.
The Government of Belgium considers the reservation to be incompatible with the provisions and intent of article 6 of the Covenant which, as is made clear by article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, establishes minimum measures to protect the right to life.
The expression of this objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Belgium and the United States of America.

Objection Italy, 05-10-1993

The Government of Italy, [...], objects to the reservation to art. 6 paragraph 5 which the United States of America included in its instrument of ratification.
In the opinion of Italy reservations to the provisions contained in art. 6 are not permitted, as specified in art.4, para 2, of the Covenant.
Therefore this reservation is null and void since it is incompatible with the object and the purpose of art. 6 of the Covenant.
Furthermore in the interpretation of the Government of Italy, the reservation to art. 7 of the Covenant does not affect obligations assumed by States that are parties to the Covenant on the basis of article 2 of the same Covenant.
These objections do not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Italy and the United States.

Objection Portugal, 05-10-1993

The Government of Portugal considers that the reservation made by the United States of America referring to article 6, paragraph 5 of the Covenant which prohibits capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age is in compatible with article 6 which, as made clear by paragraph 2 of article 4, lays down the minimum standard for the protection of the right to life.
The Government of Portugal also considers that the reservation with regard to article 7 in which a State limits its responsibilities under the Covenant by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the Reserving State to the object and purpose of the Covenant and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law.
The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations made by the United States of America. These objections shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Portugal and the United States of America.

Objection Spain, 05-10-1993

[...] After careful consideration of the reservations made by the United States of America, Spain wishes to point out that pursuant to article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, a State Party may not derogate from several basic articles, among them articles 6 and 7, including in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.
The Government of Spain takes the view that reservation (2) of the United States having regard to capital punishment for crimes committed by individuals under 18 years of age, in addition to reservation (3) having regard to article 7, constitute general derogations from articles 6 and 7, whereas, according to article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, such derogations are not to be permitted.
Therefore, and bearing in mind that articles 6 and 7 protect two of the most fundamental rights embodied in the Covenant, the Government of Spain considers that these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and, consequently, objects to them.
This position does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America.

13-05-2014

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.

Vietnam

24-09-1982

That the provisions of article 48, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and article 26, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, under which a number of States are deprived of the opportunity to become parties to the Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature. The Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States without any discrimination or limitation

Yemen

09-02-1987

The accession of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen to this Covenant shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or serve as grounds for the establishment of relations of any sort with Israel.

Zimbabwe

20-08-1991

The Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe recognizes with effect from today's date, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another state party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant [provided that such State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Zimbabwe, made a declaration under article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself].

Go to top