Print
Download XMLTweede Facultatieve Protocol bij het Internationaal Verdrag inzake burgerrechten en politieke rechten, gericht op de afschaffing van de doodstraf
Partijen met voorbehouden, verklaringen en bezwaren
| Partij | Voorbehoud / verklaring | Bezwaren |
|---|---|---|
| Azerbeidzjan | Ja | Ja |
| Brazilië | Ja | Ja |
| Chili | Ja | Nee |
| El Salvador | Ja | Ja |
| Griekenland | Ja | Nee |
| Guinee-Bissau | Ja | Nee |
| Moldavië | Ja | Nee |
| Spanje | Ja | Nee |
Azerbeidzjan
22-01-1999
The Republic of Azerbaijan, adopting the [said Protocol], in exceptional cases, adopting the special law, allows the application of death penalty for the grave crimes, committed during the war or in condition of the threat of war.
Bezwaar Frankrijk, 08-02-2000
The Government of the French Republic has taken note of the reservation made by Azerbaijan to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, which was adopted on 15 December 1989. This reservation, in allowing the application of the death penalty for grave crimes committed during war or ‘in condition of the threat of war', exceeds the scope of the reservations permitted under article 2, paragraph 1, of the Protocol. Under this article, only a reservation made ‘at the time of ratification or accession that provides for the application of the death penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime' is admissible. Consequently, the Government of the French Republic expresses its objection to this reservation, without prejudice to the entry into force of the Protocol between Azerbaijan and France.
Bezwaar Duitsland, 03-03-2000
The reservation allows the application of the death penalty for grave crimes committed
during war 'or in condition of the threat of war'. Thus the reservation is partly
in contradiction of article 2 of the Protocol since it does not limit the application
of the death penalty to the most serious crimes of a military nature committed during
the time of war.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the reservation
by the Government of Azerbaijan. This objection does not preclude the entry into force
of the Protocol between Azerbaijan and Germany.
Bezwaar Finland, 17-03-2000
The Government of Finland notes that, according to Article 2 of the Second Optional
Protocol, a reservation other than the kind referred to in the same Article is not
acceptable. The reservation made by the Government of Azerbaijan is partly in contradiction
with Article 2 as it does not limit the application of death penalty to the most serious
crimes of a military nature committed during the time of war.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government
of Azerbaijan to the said Protocol.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Second Optional Protocol
between Azerbaijan and Finland. The Optional Protocol will thus become operative between
the two states without Azerbaijan benefitting from the reservation.
Bezwaar Zweden, 27-04-2000
The Government of Sweden recalls that reservations other than the kind referred to
in Article 2 of the Protocol are not permitted. The reservation made by the Government
of Azerbaijan goes beyond the limit of Article 2 of the Protocol, as it does not limit
the application of the death penalty to the most serious crimes of a military nature
committed during the time of war.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the
Government of Azerbaijan to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights.
This shall not preclude the entry into force of the Second Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights between the Republic of Azerbaijan
and the Kingdom of Sweden, without Azerbaijan benefiting from the reservation.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 17-07-2000
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that, according to Article
2 of the Second Optional Protocol, a reservation other than the kind referred to in
the same Article is not acceptable. The reservation made by the Government of Azerbaijan
is in contradiction with Article 2 as it does not limit the application of death penalty
to the most serious crimes of a military nature committed during the time of war.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid
reservation made by the Government of Azerbaijan.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Kingdom of the Netherlands and Azerbaijan.
05-10-2000
It is provided for the application of the death penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction of a person for a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime.
Brazilië
25-09-2009
[...] with an express reservation to article 2.
Bezwaar Finland, 27-09-2010
The Government of Finland welcomes the accession of Brazil to the Second Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and has taken
note of the reservation made by Brazil to Article 2 thereof upon accession.
The Government of Finland recalls that it is the object and purpose of the Second
Optional Protocol to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances and reservations
are, as a main rule, not admissible. This object of aiming at the complete abolition
of the death penalty enjoys the full support of Finland. However, the Government observes
that, in the light of the wording of Article 2(1), a reservation to the Protocol is
allowed to the extent it concerns the application of the death penalty in time of
war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature committed
during wartime. The acceptability of such a reservation requires that the State Party
making the reservation communicates, at the time of ratification or accession, to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations the relevant provisions of its national
legislation applicable during wartime.
Accordingly, the Government of Finland would find the reservation made by Brazil acceptable,
provided it meets the requirements set out in Article 2(1) and (2). According to information
available to the Government, the applicable provisions of the national legislation
of Brazil were not communicated to the Secretary-General at the time of accession.
Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to the reservation. Should, to the contrary,
Brazil have communicated the provisions to the Secretary-General pursuant to Article
2(2), this objection may be considered null and void.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between Brazil
and Finland. The Protocol will thus become operative between the two states without
Brazil benefiting from its reservation.
Chili
26-09-2008
The State of Chile formulates the reservation authorised under article 2, paragraph 1, of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, and may in consequence apply the death penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime.
El Salvador
08-04-2014
The Government of the Republic of El Salvador accedes to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty with an express reservation permitted to States under article 2 of the Protocol, which consists on the application of the death penalty in accordance with article 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador, which reads as follows: 'The death penalty may be imposed only in the cases provided by the military laws during an international state of war'.
Bezwaar Zweden, 25-08-2014
The Government of Sweden welcomes the accession of El Salvador to the Second Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and has examined
the reservation made by El Salvador to Article 2 thereof upon accession.
The Government of Sweden recalls that it is the object and purpose of the Second Optional
Protocol to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances and that no reservations
are permitted other than reservations made in strict accordance with Article 2 of
the Protocol. The reservation made by the Government of El Salvador goes beyond the
limit of Article 2 of the Protocol, as it does not explicitly limit the application
of the death penalty to the most serious crimes of a military nature committed during
wartime, which must be specified.
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 El
Salvador to the Second Optional Protocol 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 Protocol between El Salvador and Sweden.
The Protocol will enter into force between El Salvador and Sweden without El Salvador
benefiting from this reservation.
Bezwaar Zwitserland, 06-03-2015
The Swiss Federal Council has examined the reservation made by the Government of the
Republic of El Salvador upon ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty,
adopted on 15 December 1989.
The Federal Council recalls that, pursuant to article 2, paragraph 1, of the Protocol,
no reservation is admissible except for a reservation that provides for the application
of the death penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime
of a military nature committed during wartime. The Swiss Federal Council believes
that the reservation does not meet those conditions of validity as it does not limit
the death penalty in time of war to the most serious crimes. Neither the article of
the constitution quoted in the reservation nor the military laws to which it refers
indicate such a limitation.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to
become parties are respected by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake
any legislative changes necessary to comply with their treaty obligations.
The Swiss Federal Council objects to the reservation made by the Republic of El Salvador.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol, in its entirety,
between the Republic of El Salvador and Switzerland.
Bezwaar Polen, 27-03-2015
The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the reservation made by [the]
Republic of El Salvador upon accession to the Second Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty,
adopted in New York on December 15, 1989.
The Government of the Republic of Poland notes that the purpose and object of the
Protocol is the complete abolition of the death penalty and that no reservation is
admissible, except for a reservation which provides for the application of the death
penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military
nature committed during wartime.
While making the reservation [the] Republic of El Salvador invoked the article 27
of its Constitution, which refers to unspecified military laws. The Government of
the Republic of Poland notes that [the] Republic of El Salvador refers in its reservation
to the domestic legislation possibly affecting the application of the Protocol, including
the admissibility of application of death penalty, without specifying the exact content
of this legislation. As a result, it is impossible to clearly define the extent to
which the reserving State will accept the application of the death penalty and if
such an application will be limited to the most serious crimes of a military nature
committed during wartime. Thus the reservation is not compatible with the art. 2 of
the Protocol and it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol. 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.
Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Poland objects to the reservation made
by [the] Republic of El Salvador upon accession to the Second Optional Protocol to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of
the death penalty and considers the reservation null and void.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the
Republic of El Salvador and [the] Republic of Poland.
Bezwaar Noorwegen, 30-03-2015
The Permanent Mission of Norway to the United Nations presents its compliments to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and, with reference to Depositary Notification
C.N.201.2014.TREATIES-IV.l2, has the honour to inform that the Government of Norway
has examined the reservation made by the Government of El Salvador upon its accession
to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.
The Government of Norway recalls that, pursuant to paragraph 1 of article 2, of the
Optional Protocol, no reservation is permitted except for a reservation that provides
for the application of the death penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction for
a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime. The Government
of Norway notes that the reservation made by El Salvador goes beyond those situations
where a reservation is permitted in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 2 of the
Optional Protocol as the reservation does not explicitly limit the application of
the death penalty to the most serious crimes of a military nature committed during
wartime.
The Government of Norway therefore objects to the reservation made by the Republic
of El Salvador. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Second
Optional Protocol, in its entirety, between Norway and El Salvador. The Second Optional
Protocol thus becomes operative between Norway and the Republic of El Salvador without
El Salvador benefiting from the aforesaid reservation.
Bezwaar Duitsland, 31-03-2015
The Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the United Nations presents
its compliments to the Treaty Section and, with reference to depositary notification
C.N.201.2014.TREATIES-IV.l2 dated April 8, 2014 regarding the reservation made by
the Republic of El Salvador upon its accession to the Second Optional Protocol to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the Abolition
of the Death penalty of 15 December 1989, has the honour to communicate the following:
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservation
made by the Republic of El Salvador upon its accession to the Second Optional Protocol.
It recalls, that the complete abolition of the death penalty is the object and purpose
of the Second Optional Protocol, and that according to Article 2 reservations are
not permissible with the one exception of a reservation that provides for the application
of the death penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime
of a military nature committed during war time. The Government of the Federal Republic
of Germany believes that the reservation made by the Republic of El Salvador goes
beyond the limits of Article 2 of the Optional Protocol, as it does not explicitly
limit the application of the death penalty to the most serious crimes of a military
nature. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore considers the
reservation made by the Republic of El Salvador to be incompatible with the object
and purpose of the Second Optional Protocol and that it consequently has to be considered
impermissible.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to this reservation.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Second Optional Protocol
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the Abolition
of the Death Penalty of 15 December 1989 between the Federal Republic of Germany and
the Republic of El Salvador.
Bezwaar Portugal, 01-04-2015
The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservation made by the
Republic of El Salvador to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, New York,
15 December 1989.
Under Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Second Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty,
New York, 15 December 1989, no reservation is admissible to the present Protocol,
except for a reservation made at the time of ratification or accession that provides
for the application of the death penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction for
a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the reservation made by the
Republic of El Salvador goes beyond the limit of the exception foreseen in Article
2, paragraph 1, since its scope is unclear and does not clarify the cases in which
the death penalty will be applicable.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation
made by the Republic of El Salvador to Article 2 of the Second Optional Protocol to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition
of the death penalty, New York, 15 December 1989.
However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention
between the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of El Salvador.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 02-04-2015
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands welcomes the accession of El Salvador
to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, and has taken note of the reservation made by El Salvador with respect to
Article 2 thereof upon accession.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that it is the object and
purpose of the Second Optional Protocol to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances
and reservations are, as a main rule, not admissible. This object of aiming at the
complete abolition of the death penalty enjoys the full support of the Kingdom of
the Netherlands. However, the Government observes that, in the light of the wording
of Article 2(1), a reservation to the Protocol is allowed to the extent that it concerns
the application of the death penalty in times of war pursuant to a conviction for
a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime. The acceptability
of such a reservation requires that the State Party making the reservation communicates,
at the time of ratification or accession, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
the relevant provisions of its national legislation applicable during wartime.
Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands would find the reservation
made by El Salvador acceptable, provided that it meets the requirements set out in
Article 2(1) and (2). However, according to information available to the Government,
the applicable provisions of the national legislation of El Salvador specifying the
application of the death penalty to the most serious crimes of a military nature in
wartime were not communicated to the Secretary-General at the time of accession. Therefore,
the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol [between the
Kingdom of the Netherlands and El Salvador].
Bezwaar Italië, 02-04-2015
The Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations presents its compliments to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations in his capacity as depositary of the 1989
Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.
The Government of Italy has examined the reservation made by the Republic of El Salvador
upon accession to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, adopted in New
York on December 15, 1989.
The Government of Italy recalls that it is the object and purpose of the Second Optional
Protocol to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances and that no reservations
are permitted other than reservations made in strict accordance with Article 2 of
the Protocol. The reservation made by the Government of El Salvador goes beyond the
limit of Article 2 of the Protocol, as it does not explicitly limit the application
of the death penalty to the most serious crimes of a military nature committed during
wartime, which must be specified.
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.
The Government of Italy therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by El
Salvador to the Second Optional Protocol 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 Protocol between El
Salvador and Italy. The Convention will enter into force between El Salvador and Italy
without El Salvador [benefiting from the reservation.]
Bezwaar Frankrijk, 06-04-2015
The Government of the French Republic has examined the reservation made by the Government
of the Republic of El Salvador upon accession to the Second Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the
death penalty.
In that reservation, the Government of the Republic of El Salvador states that it
intends to make use of the right contained in article 2, paragraph 1 of the Protocol,
providing for application of the death penalty in certain situations, pursuant to
article 27 of the Constitution of El Salvador, according to which “The death penalty
may be imposed only in the cases provided by the military laws during an international
state of war”.
Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Protocol, however, requires that application of the
death penalty be limited, “in time of war” to cases in which there is a “conviction
for a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime”.
The absence of a specific restriction on the reservation to the “most serious” crimes
committed during wartime seems not to meet the requirements of article 2, paragraph
1 of the Protocol.
In that regard, the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of El Salvador
is inadmissible pursuant to the very provisions of the Protocol. Thus, the Government
of the French Republic objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic
of El Salvador to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. This objection
does not preclude the entry into force of this Protocol between France and El Salvador.
Bezwaar Oostenrijk, 07-04-2015
The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by the Republic of El
Salvador upon accession to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, adopted
on 15 December 1989.
The Government of Austria recalls that it is the object and purpose of the Second
Optional Protocol to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances and that no reservations
are permitted other than reservations made within the limits of Article 2 of the Protocol.
In the light of the wording of Article 2 (1), a reservation to the Protocol is allowed
to the extent that it concerns the application of the death penalty in times of war
pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature committed during
wartime. According to Article 2 (2), the State Party making such a reservation shall
at the time of ratification or accession communicate to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations the relevant provisions of its national legislation applicable during
wartime.
According to the information available, the applicable provisions of the national
legislation of El Salvador specifying the application of the death penalty to the
most serious crimes of a military nature in wartime were not communicated to the Secretary-General.
The Government of Austria therefore objects to this reservation.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between Austria
and the Republic of El Salvador.
Bezwaar Ierland, 07-04-2015
The Government of Ireland welcomes the accession by the Republic of El Salvador to
the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.
The Government of Ireland has examined the reservation made by the Government of the
Republic of El Salvador to Article 2 thereof upon accession and recalls that it is
the object and purpose of the Second Optional Protocol to abolish the death penalty
in all circumstances and that no reservations are permitted other than reservations
made in strict accordance with Article 2 of the Protocol.
The Government of Ireland considers that the reservation made by the Government of
the Republic of El Salvador goes beyond the strict limits of Article 2 of the Protocol,
as it neither explicitly limits the application of the death penalty to the most serious
crimes of a military nature committed during wartime nor indicates the relevant provisions
of the Republic of El Salvador's national legislation applicable during wartime, which
must be communicated, at the time of accession, to the Secretary-General of the United
Nations. Should, however, the Government of the Republic of El Salvador have communicated
clarification regarding these provisions to the Secretary-General pursuant to Article
2(2), this objection may be considered null and void.
The Government of Ireland 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 shall not be permitted.
The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the
Government of the Republic of El Salvador to Article 2 of the Second Optional Protocol
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition
of the death penalty.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between Ireland
and the Republic of El Salvador.
Bezwaar Finland, 07-04-2015
The Permanent Mission of Finland to the United Nations presents its compliments to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations and, referring to the Depositary Notification
C.N.201.2014.TREATIES-IV.12 of 8 April 2014 concerning the accession of the Republic
of El Salvador to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, has the honour
to communicate the following statement:
The Government of Finland has carefully examined the reservation made by the Republic
of El Salvador to Article 2 of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.
The Government of Finland recalls that it is the object and purpose of the Second
Optional Protocol to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances and reservations
are, as a main rule, not admissible. This object of aiming at the complete abolition
of the death penalty enjoys the full support of Finland. However, the Government observes
that, in light of the wording of Article 2(1), a reservation to the Protocol is allowed
to the extent it concerns the application of the death penalty in time of war pursuant
to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime.
The acceptability of such a reservation requires that the State Party making the reservation
communicates, at the time of ratification or accession, to the Secretary-General of
the United Nations the relevant provisions of its national legislation applicable
during wartime.
Accordingly, the Government of Finland would find the reservation made by the Republic
of El Salvador acceptable provided it meets the requirements set out in Article 2(1)
and (2). According to information available to the Government, the applicable provisions
of the national legislation of the Republic of El Salvador were not communicated to
the Secretary-General at the time of accession. Therefore, the Government of Finland
objects to the reservation.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between Finland
and the Republic of El Salvador. The Protocol will thus become operative between the
two States without the Republic of El Salvador benefitting from its reservation.
Bezwaar Spanje, 07-04-2015
The Permanent Mission of Spain to the United Nations presents its compliments to the
Secretariat of the United Nations and has the honour to communicate that Kingdom of
Spain declares that it objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic
of El Salvador to article 2 of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (New York,
15 December 1989).
The Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation made by the Republic of El Salvador
to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and considers that it does not fall within the limits of the exception provided
for in article 2, paragraph 1, of that Optional Protocol. The Government of the Kingdom
of Spain considers that the reservation made by the Republic of El Salvador goes beyond
those limits, since it does not specify its scope or the cases in which the death
penalty would be applicable.
Accordingly, the Kingdom of Spain objects to the aforementioned reservation made by
the Republic of El Salvador to article 2 of the Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty,
without prejudice to the entry into force of the [Protocol] as between the Kingdom
of Spain and the Republic of El Salvador.
Bezwaar Togo, 14-09-2016
The Togolese Government, which has chosen to be unreservedly abolitionist, has examined
the reservation made by the Government of El Salvador to article 2 of the Second Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the
abolition of the death penalty. The Togolese Government recalls that article 1, paragraph
1, of the Second Optional Protocol, by stipulating that no one within the jurisdiction
of a State Party to the present Protocol shall be executed, specifically and unambiguously
commits States Parties to abolish the death penalty under all circumstances and without
exceptions.
However, by not explicitly limiting the application of the death penalty to the most
serious crimes of a military nature committed during wartime or indicating the relevant
provisions of El Salvador’s national legislation applicable during wartime, which
must be communicated, at the time of accession, to the Secretary-General of the United
Nations, as required by the provisions of article 2 of the Protocol, the reservation
made by the Government of El Salvador is incompatible with the spirit and letter of
the Protocol.
The Togolese Government therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation. However, this
objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between the Togolese
Republic and the Republic of El Salvador.
01-06-2015
… [W]ith reference to the accession of El Salvador, on 8 April 2014, to the Second
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming
at the abolition of the death penalty, and the reservation formulated by El Salvador
to that Protocol pursuant to article 2 thereof.
In that connection, the Permanent Mission of El Salvador first of all takes note of
the objections made by a number of countries, with regard to the scope of the reservation,
and submits to the Secretary-General the following response which sets out the understanding
of the Republic of El Salvador regarding the scope of the reservation and by means
of which El Salvador hopes to respond to the issues raised by the objecting States:
The State of El Salvador followed the procedure established by its legal framework
for signature and ratification of international instruments of any kind. Consequently,
on 9 January 2014, the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador ratified the Second Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the
abolition of the death penalty, in respect of which, as permitted to States under
article 2 of the aforementioned Protocol, it formulated a reservation to bring the
implementation of the Protocol into line with the provisions of the Constitution of
El Salvador.
The express reservation is the following:
"The Government of the Republic of El Salvador accedes to the Second Optional Protocol
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition
of the death penalty with an express reservation permitted to States under article
2 of the Protocol, which consists of the application of the death penalty in accordance
with article 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador, which reads as
follows: 'The death penalty may be imposed only in the cases provided by the military
laws during an international state of war'."
Consequently, that reservation limits the applicability of the death penalty in El
Salvador to the simultaneous occurrence of two conditions: 1) It must be a case provided
for under military law and 2) El Salvador must be in an international state of war.
The reservation constitutes the mechanism that allowed El Salvador to accede to the
Protocol while upholding the constitutional mandate that prohibits the ratification
of treaties in which constitutional provisions are in any way restricted or affected,
unless the ratification is accompanied by the corresponding reservations
With regard to the reference to Salvadoran military laws in the reservation, it should
be clarified that the Code of Military Justice is the national legal instrument, in
the military sphere, governing the application of the death penalty in El Salvador.
Article 1 of the said Code states that the provisions of the Code shall apply exclusively
to members of the armed forces on active service, in respect of crimes and offences
of a purely military nature, and article 9 of the Code refers to the imposition of
the death penalty for the crimes indicated in the Constitution, with strict respect
for the penal and procedural safeguards provided therein.
The military crimes in respect of which the death penalty may be imposed as the primary
penalty in an international state of war, as stipulated in the Code of Military Justice,
are the crimes of treason (article 54), espionage (article 64), rebellion (article
76) and conspiracy to desert (article 140).
It is worth noting that, since 1973, El Salvador has not carried out any executions.
Since the entry into force of the Constitution of the Republic in 1983, the application
of the death penalty has been prohibited for civil offences and exclusively reserved
for grave breaches of the military penal code. Since then, and notwithstanding the
outbreak of a civil conflict, El Salvador has in practice maintained a de facto abolition
of the death penalty, and has obviously thus complied with the moratorium on the use
of the death penalty promoted in the context of the United Nations.
In addition, as a party to the American Convention on Human Rights, El Salvador has
made an international commitment to the right to life enshrined in article 4 of that
Convention. It has thus expressed its intention to apply the death penalty for the
most serious crimes, pursuant to a final Judgment rendered by a competent court and
in accordance with its laws, also being prevented from reestablishing the death penalty
as a criminal penalty and from extending it to other crimes.
In that regard, the Government of El Salvador reiterates its categorical position
that at the time of its accession to the Protocol and the formulation of its reservation,
the Government was in full compliance with the provisions of article 2 of the Protocol.
Griekenland
05-05-1997
Subject to article 2 for the application of the death penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime.
Guinee-Bissau
24-09-2013
Hereby declare that the declaration the Government has made in accordance with Article
41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to recognize the competence
of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications when a State
Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations do not extend
to the provisions of the Second Optional Protocol, as provided in Article 4 thereof.
Also, declare that the competence that the Government of Guinea-Bissau recognizes
for the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals
subject to its jurisdiction does not extend to the provisions of the Second Optional
Protocol, in accordance with the option provided in Article 5 thereof.
Moldavië
20-09-2006
Until the full re-establishment of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldava, the provisions of the Convention shall be applied only on the territory controlled effectively by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova.
Spanje
11-04-1991
Pursuant to article 2, Spain reserves the right to apply the death penalty in the exceptional and extremely serious cases provided for in Fundamental Act No. 13/1985 of 9 December 1985 regulating the Military Criminal Code, in wartime as defined in article 25 of that Act.
13-01-1998
The Government of Spain notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation made upon ratification.