Print
Download XMLVerdrag tegen foltering en andere wrede, onmenselijke of onterende behandeling of bestraffing
Partijen met voorbehouden, verklaringen en bezwaren
Afghanistan
01-04-1987
While ratifying the above-mentioned Convention, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan,
invoking paragraph 1 of the article 28, of the Convention, does not recognize the
authority of the committee as foreseen in the article 20 of the Convention.
Also according to paragraph 2 of the article 30, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan,
will not be bound to honour the provisions of paragraph 1 of the same article since
according to that paragraph 1 the compulsory submission of disputes in connection
with interpretation or the implementation of the provisions of this Convention by
one of the parties concerned to the International Court of Justice is deemed possible.
Concerning to this matter, it declares that the settlement of disputes between the
States Parties, such disputes may be referred to arbitration or to the International
Court of Justice with the consent of all the Parties concerned and not by one of the
Parties.
17-04-2018
Withdrawal of the reservations to Articles 20 and 30 (1) of the Convention made upon ratification.
Algerije
12-09-1989
Article 21
The Algerian Government declares, pursuant to article 21 of the Convention, that it
recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider
communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is
not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
Article 22
The Algerian Government declares, pursuant to article 22 of the Convention, that it
recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims
of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Andorra
22-11-2006
1. The Principality of Andorra recognizes, in accordance with article 21 of the Convention,
the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications
to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling
its obligations under the Convention.
2. The Principality of Andorra recognizes the competence of the Committee against
Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject
to its jurisdiction, who claim to be victims of a violation of the provisions of the
Convention.
Argentinië
24-09-1986
The Argentine Republic recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. It also recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Australië
28-01-1993
The Government of Australia hereby declares that it recognises, for and on behalf
of Australia, the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling
its obligations under the aforesaid Convention; and
The Government of Australia hereby declares that it recognises, for and on behalf
of Australia, the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to Australia's jurisdiction who claim to
be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the aforesaid Convention.
Azerbeidzjan
04-02-2002
.....the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Bahama's
31-05-2018
The Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas does not recognize the competence
of the Committee against Torture as provided for in Article 20 of the UNCAT.
The Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas does not consider itself bound by
paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Convention.
The Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas reserves the right to award compensation
to torture victims referred to in Article 14 of the Convention Against Torture only
at the discretion of the Supreme or Appellate Courts, or the Attorney-General of the
Commonwealth of The Bahamas.
Bahrein
06-03-1998
[...]
2. The State of Bahrain does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 30
of the Convention.
Bangladesh
05-10-1998
The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh will apply article 14 para 1 in consonance with the existing laws and legislation in the country.
Bezwaar Frankrijk, 30-09-1999
The Government of France notes that the declaration made by Bangladesh in fact constitutes a reservation since it is aimed at precluding or modifying the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty. A reservation which consists in a general reference to domestic law without specifying its contents does not clearly indicate to the other parties to what extent the State which issued the reservation commits itself when acceding to the Convention. The Government of France considers the reservation of Bangladesh incompatible with the objective and purpose of the treaty, in respect of which the provisions relating to the right of victims of acts of torture to obtain redress and compensation, which ensure the effectiveness and tangible realization of obligations under the Convention, are essential, and consequently lodges an objection to the reservation entered by Bangladesh regarding article 14, paragraph 1. This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Convention between Bangladesh and France.
Bezwaar Finland, 13-12-1999
The Government of Finland has examined the contents of the declaration made by the
Government of Bangladesh to Article 14 paragraph 1 to the Convention Against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and notes that the declaration
constitutes a reservation as it seems to modify the obligations of Bangladesh under
the said article.
A reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying
its contents does not clearly define for the other Parties of the Convention the extent
to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore may raise
doubts as to the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under
the Convention. Such a reservation is also, in the view of the Government of Finland,
subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party
may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to
perform its treaty obligations.
Therefore the Government of Finland objects to the aforesaid reservation to Article
14 paragraph 1 made by the Government of Bangladesh. This objection does not preclude
the entry into force of the Convention between Bangladesh and Finland. The Convention
will thus become operative between the two States without Bangladesh benefitting from
these reservations.
Bezwaar Spanje, 13-12-1999
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this declaration is actually
a reservation, since its purpose is to exclude or modify the application of the legal
effect of certain provisions of the Convention. Moreover, in referring in a general
way to the domestic laws of Bangladesh, without specifying their content, the reservation
raises doubts among the other States parties as to the extent to which the People's
Republic of Bangladesh is committed to ratifying the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain believes that the reservation lodged by the
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh is incompatible with the objective
and purpose of the Convention, for which the provisions concerning redress and compensation
for victims of torture are essential factors in the concrete fulfilment of the commitments
made under the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain therefore states an objection to the above-mentioned
reservation lodged by the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
concerning article 14, paragraph 1, of that Convention.
This objection does not affect the entry into force of the above-mentioned Convention
between the Kingdom of Spain and the People's Republic of Bangladesh.
Bezwaar Zweden, 14-12-1999
With regard to the declaration to article 14 (1) made by Bangladesh upon accession:
In this context the Government of Sweden would like to recall, that under well-established
international treaty law, the name assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect
of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not determine its
status as a reservation to the treaty. Thus, the Government of Sweden considers that
the declaration made by the Government of Bangladesh, in the absence of further clarification,
in substance constitutes a reservation to the Convention.
The Government of Sweden notes that the said declaration imply that the said article
of the Convention is being made subject to a general reservation referring to the
contents of existing laws and regulations in the country.
The Government of Sweden is of the view that this declaration raises doubts as to
the commitment of Bangladesh to the object and purpose of the Convention and would
recall that, according to well-established international law, a 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 these treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid declaration made by the
Government of Bangladesh to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Bezwaar Duitsland, 17-12-1999
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany notes that the said declaration
constitutes a reservation of a general nature. A reservation according to which article
14 paragraph 1 of the Convention will only be applied by the Government of the People's
Republic of Bangladesh "in consonance with the existing laws and legislation in the
country" raises doubts as to the full commitment of Bangladesh to the object and purpose
of the Convention. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they
have chosen to become Parties are respected, as to their object and purpose, 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 therefore objects to the reservation
made by the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to the Convention. This
objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal
Republic of Germany and the People's Republic of Bangladesh.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 20-12-1999
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such a reservation,
which seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention
by invoking national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of this State to the
object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the
basis of international treaty law.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to
become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid
reservation made by the Government of Bangladesh.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Kingdom of the Netherlands and Bangladesh.
België
25-06-1999
In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, Belgium declares that
it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider
communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is
not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.
In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, Belgium declares that
it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider
communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim
to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Bolivia
14-02-2006
The Government of Bolivia recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture
as provided for under article 21 of the Convention.
The Government of Bolivia recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture
as provided for under article 22 of the Convention.
Bosnië en Herzegovina
04-06-2003
The State of Bosnia and Herzegovina ... , accepts without reservations the competence of the Committee Against Torture [in accordance with Article 22].
Botswana
08-09-2000
The Government of the Republic of Botswana considers itself bound by Article 1 of the Convention to the extent that 'torture' means the torture and inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment prohibited by Section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana.
Bezwaar Zweden, 02-10-2001
The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by Botswana upon ratification
of the 1984 Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment, regarding article 1 of the Convention. The Government of Sweden notes
that the said article of the Convention is being made subject to a general reservation
referring to the contents of existing legislation in Botswana. Article 1.2 of the
Convention states that the definition of torture in article 1.1 is "without prejudice
to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain
provisions of wider application".
The Government of Sweden is of the view that this reservation, in the absence of further
clarification, raises doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to the object and purpose
of the Convention. The government of Sweden would like to recall that, according to
customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to
become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that
States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with
their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the
Government of Botswana to the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Botswana
and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States,
without Botswana benefiting from its reservation.
Bezwaar Denemarken, 04-10-2001
The Government of Denmark has examined the contents of the reservation made by the
Government of Botswana to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The reservation refers to legislation in force
in Botswana as to the definition of torture and thus to the scope of application of
the Convention. In the absence of further clarification the Government of Denmark
considers that the reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to fullfil
her obligations under the Convention and is incompatible with the object and purpose
of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Government of Denmark objects to this reservation made by the
Government of Botswana. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the
Convention in its entirety between Botswana and Denmark without Botswana benefiting
from the reservation.
Bezwaar Noorwegen, 04-10-2001
The Government of Norway has examined the contents of the reservation made by the
Government of the Republic of Botswana upon ratification of the Convention Against
Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The reservation's reference to the national Constitution without further description
of its contents, exempts the other States Parties to the Convention from the possibility
of assessing the effects of the reservation. In addition, as the reservation concerns
one of the core provisions of the Convention, it is the position of the Government
of Norway that the reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.
Norway therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Botswana.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention
between the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Botswana. The Convention thus becomes
operative between Norway and Botswana without Botswana benefiting from the said reservation.
Brazilië
26-06-2006
The Federative Republic of Brazil recognizes the competence of the Committee against
Torture to receive and consider denunciations of violations of the provisions of the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
adopted in New York on December 10, 1984, as permitted by Article 22 of the Convention.
Brunei
22-09-2015
The Government of Brunei Darussalam reserves the right to formulate and communicate, upon ratification, such reservations, interpretative understandings, and/or declarations which it might consider necessary.
Bulgarije
12-05-1993
The Republic of Bulgaria declares that in accordance with article 21 (2) of the Convention
it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider
communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is
not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
The Republic of Bulgaria declares that in accordance with article 22 (1) of the Convention
it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider
communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim
to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of this Convention.
Burundi
10-06-2003
The Government of the Republic of Burundi declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee of the United Nations against Torture to receive and consider individual communications in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted at New York on 10 December 1984.
Canada
13-11-1989
The Government of Canada declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee
Against Torture, pursuant to article 21 of the said Convention, to receive and consider
communications to the effect that a state party claims that another state party is
not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
The Government of Canada also declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee
Against Torture, pursuant to article 22 of the said Convention, to receive and consider
communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim
to be victims of a violation by a state party of the provisions of the Convention.
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 the Convention
against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and
the Secretary-General's communication of 9 April 2014, numbered C.N.184.2014.TREATIES-IV.9,
relating to that treaty.
The Permanent Mission of Canada notes that this communication was made pursuant to
the Secretary General's capacity as Depositary for the Convention against Torture
and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Permanent Mission
of Canada notes the technical and administrative role of the Depositary, and that
it is for States Parties to a treaty, not the Depositary, to make their own determination
with respect to any legal issues raised by instruments circulated by a depositary.
In that context, the Permanent Mission of Canada notes that 'Palestine' does not meet
the criteria of a state under international law and is not recognized by Canada as
a state. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the Permanent Mission of Canada wishes
to note its position that in the context of the purported Palestinian accession to
the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, 'Palestine' is not able to accede to this convention, and that the Convention
against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment does
not enter into force, or have an effect on Canada's treaty relations, with respect
to the 'State of Palestine'.
Chili
23-09-1987
[...]
3. The Government of Chile reserve the right to formulate, upon ratifying the Convention,
any declarations or reservations it may deem necessary in the light of its domestic
law.
30-09-1988
[...]
The Government of Chile declares that in its relations with American States that are
Parties to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, it will apply
that Convention in cases where its provisions are incompatible with those of the present
Convention.
[...]
15-03-2004
Declaration under articles 21 and 22.
... the Government of Chile recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture
established pursuant to article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly of the
United Nations in resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984, with respect to acts occurring
after the communication of this declaration by the Republic of Chile to the Secretary-General
of the United Nations:
(a) To receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims
that the State of Chile is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention, in
accordance with article 21 thereof; and
(b) To receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject
to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the State of Chile of
the provisions of the Convention, in accordance with article 22 thereof.
China
04-10-1988
(1) The Chinese Government does not recognize the competence of the Committee against
Torture as provided for in article 20 of the Convention.
(2) The Chinese Government does not consider itself bound by paragraph l of article
30 of the Convention.
Costa Rica
27-02-2002
.....the Republic of Costa Rica, with a view to strengthening the international instruments
in this field and in accordance with full respect for human rights, the essence of
Costa Rica's foreign policy, recognizes, unconditionally and during the period of
validity of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment, the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling
its obligations under the Convention.
Furthermore, the Republic of Costa Rica recognizes, unconditionally and during the
period of validity of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims
of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
The foregoing is in accordance with articles 21 and 22 of the Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1984.
Cuba
17-05-1995
The Government of the Republic of Cuba deplores the fact that even after the adoption
of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) containing the Declaration on the granting
of independence to colonial countries and peoples, a provision such as paragraph 1
of article 2 was included in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The Government of the Republic declares, in accordance with article 28 of the Convention,
that the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of article 20 of the Convention will
have to be invoked in strict compliance with the principle of the sovereignty of States
and implemented with the prior consent of the States Parties.
In connection with the provisions of article 30 of the Convention, the Government
of the Republic of Cuba is of the view that any dispute between Parties should be
settled by negotiation through the diplomatic channel.
Cyprus
08-04-1993
The Republic of Cyprus recognizes the competence of the Committee established under
article 17 of the Convention [...]:
I. to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims
that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention (article
21), and
II. to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject
to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the
provisions of the Convention (Article 22).
Denemarken
27-05-1987
The Government of Denmark [. . .] recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive
and consider communications to the effect that the State Party claims that another
State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
The Government of Denmark [. . .] recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive
and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction
who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Dominica
05-12-2024
The Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica does not recognize the competence of
the Committee against Torture as provided for in Article 20 of the Convention.
The Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica does not consider itself bound by paragraph
1 of Article 30 of the Convention.
Duitsland
13-10-1986
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany reserves the right to communicate, upon ratification, such reservations or declarations of interpretation as are deemed necessary especially with respect to the applicability of article 3.
01-10-1990
Article 3
This provision prohibits the transfer of a person directly to a State where this person
is exposed to a concrete danger of being subjected to torture. In the opinion of the
Federal Republic of Germany, article 3 as well as the other provisions of the Convention
exclusively establish State obligations that are met by the Federal Republic of Germany
in conformity with the provisions of its domestic law which is in accordance with
the Convention.
19-10-2001
In accordance with article 21 (1) of the Convention, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. In accordance with article 22 (1) of the Convention, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the Federal Republic of Germany of the provisions of the Convention.
Ecuador
30-03-1988
Ecuador declares that, in accordance with the provisions of article 42 of its Political Constitution, it will not permit extradition of its nationals.
06-09-1988
The Ecuadorian State, pursuant to article 21 of the International Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, recognizes
the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications
to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling
its obligations under the Convention; it also recognizes in regard to itself the competence
of the Committee, in accordance with article 21.
It further declares, in accordance with the provisions of article 22 of the Convention,
that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims
of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Equatoriaal-Guinea
08-10-2002
First - The Government of Equatorial Guinea hereby declares that, pursuant to article
28 of this Convention, it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided
for in article 20 of the Convention.
Second - With reference to the provisions of article 30, the Government of Equatorial
Guinea does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 thereof.
Eritrea
25-09-2014
In accordance with Article 28 of the Convention, Eritrea declares that it does not
recognize the competence of the Committee provided for it in article 20.
The State of Eritrea does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 30 which
stipulates that all disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention
shall be referred to the International Court of Justice by one of the parties.
Fiji
14-03-2016
The Government of the Republic of Fiji does not recognize the definition of Torture
as provided for in article 1 of the Convention therefore shall not be bound by these
provisions. The definition of Torture in the Convention is only applicable to the
extent as expressed in the Fijian Constitution.
The Government of the Republic of Fiji recognizes the article 14 of the Convention
only to the extent that the right to award compensation to victims of an act of torture
shall be subject to the determination of a Court of law.
The Government of the Republic of Fiji does not recognize the competence of the Committee
against Torture as provided for in article(s) 20, 21 and 22 of the Convention and
therefore shall not be bound by these provisions.
The Government of the Republic of Fiji does not recognize paragraph 1 of article 30
of the Convention and therefore shall not be bound by this provision.
Bezwaar Zweden, 26-10-2016
The Government of Sweden has examined the contents of the reservation made by the
Republic of Fiji in relation to article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Republic of Fiji expresses
that ‘[t]he Government of the Republic of Fiji does not recognize the definition of
Torture as provided for in article 1 of the Convention therefore shall not be bound
by these provisions. The definition of Torture in the Convention is only applicable
to the extent as expressed in the Fijian Constitution’.
As regards the reservation to the definition of torture provided for in article 1
of the Convention, Sweden would like to state the following.
Reservations by which a State Party limits its responsibilities under the Convention
by not considering itself bound by certain articles and by invoking general references
to national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving state to the object
and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of
international treaty law.
It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to
become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government
of Sweden therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden
and the Republic of Fiji, without the Republic of Fiji benefitting from its aforementioned
reservation.
Bezwaar Zwitserland, 27-02-2017
The Swiss Federal Council has examined the reservations made by the Government of
the Republic of Fiji upon ratification of the Convention of 10 December 1984 against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The reservation made regarding the definition of torture contained in article 1 of
the Convention, as well as the fact that in general it subordinates the definition
of torture to the Constitution of the Republic of Fiji, constitutes a reservation
of general scope that may raise doubts about the full commitment of the Republic of
Fiji to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Swiss Federal Council notes
that, according to article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 on the Law
of Treaties, no reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention
is permissible.
It is in the common interest of States that the object and purpose of the instruments
to which they choose to become parties be respected by all parties thereto, and that
States be prepared to amend their legislation in order to fulfil their treaty obligations.
Consequently, the Swiss Federal Council objects to the reservation made by the Republic
of Fiji concerning article 1 of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude
the entry into force of the Convention, in its entirety, between Switzerland and the
Republic of Fiji.
Bezwaar Finland, 01-03-2017
… The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the reservations
made by the Republic of Fiji concerning the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Regarding the reservation to Article 1 of the Convention, the Government of Finland
notes that reservations by which a State Party limits its responsibilities under the
Convention by invoking national law may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving
State to the object and purpose of the Convention. Such reservations are also subject
to the general principle of treaty law according to which a party may not invoke the
provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty
obligations.
In view of the Government of Finland, the reservation made by Fiji to Article 1 of
the Convention is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. According
to Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and customary international
law, such reservations shall not be permitted.
Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to the aforesaid reservation made by
the Republic of Fiji. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the
Convention between Finland and the Republic of Fiji. The Convention will thus become
operative between the two States without the Republic of Fiji benefitting from the
aforementioned reservation…
Bezwaar Ierland, 09-03-2017
The Government of Ireland welcomes the ratification by the Republic of Fiji of the
Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(1984) on 14 March 2016.
The Government of Ireland has examined the reservation to Article 1 made by the Government
of the Republic of Fiji upon ratification.
The Government of Ireland considers 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 Convention may cast doubts
on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.
The Government of Ireland is furthermore of the view that such a reservation may undermine
the basis of international treaty law and is incompatible with the object and purpose
of the Convention.
The Government of Ireland recalls that under international treaty law a reservation
incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the
Government of the Republic of Fiji to Article 1 of the Convention against Torture
and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland
and the Republic of Fiji.
Bezwaar Noorwegen, 13-03-2017
The Government of Norway has examined the reservation made by the Government of the
Republic of Fiji in relation to article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, in which the Government of the
Republic of Fiji declares: ‘The Government of the Republic of Fiji does not recognize
the definition of Torture as provided for in article 1 of the Convention therefore
shall not be bound by these provisions. The definition of Torture in the Convention
is only applicable to the extent as expressed in the Fijian Constitution.’
By declaring itself not bound by an essential provision of the Convention and invoking
general reference to the national Constitution without further description of its
content, the Republic of Fiji exempts the other States Parties to the Convention from
the possibility of assessing the full effects of the reservation. The Government of
Norway is of the view that the reservation casts doubts as to the full commitment
of the Government of the Republic of Fiji to the object and purpose of the Convention.
Furthermore, such a reservation may contribute to undermining the basis of international
treaty law.
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. The
Government of Norway therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Fiji. The Convention thus becomes operative
between the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Fiji without the Republic of Fiji
benefiting from the aforesaid reservation.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 13-03-2017
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservations
made by Fiji upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
With respect to the reservation to Article 1 of the Convention, the Government of
the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that Fiji does not consider itself bound by the
definition of torture contained therein and that it considers this definition only
to be applicable to the extent as expressed in the Fijian Constitution.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such a reservation,
which seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention
by invoking provisions of its domestic law, is likely to deprive the provisions of
the Convention of their effect and therefore must be regarded as incompatible with
the object and purpose of the Convention.
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 reservation
of Fiji to Article 1 of the Convention.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Kingdom of the Netherlands and Fiji.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 15-03-2017
The United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations in New York […] wishes to lodge an
objection to one of the reservations made by Fiji upon accession to the Convention
against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment.
The reservation is as follows:
Reservation
‘The Government of the Republic of Fiji does not recognize the definition of Torture
as provided for in article 1 of the Convention therefore shall not be bound by these
provisions. The definition of Torture in the Convention is only applicable to the
extent as expressed in the Fijian Constitution.’
The Government of the United Kingdom considers that the effect of the reservation
is to exclude or modify the definition of torture, which is incompatible with the
object and purpose of the treaty.
Further, the Government of the United Kingdom note that a reservation which consists
of a general reference to a system of law without specifying its contents 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.
Bezwaar Oostenrijk, 16-03-2017
The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Fiji
upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.
Austria considers that by recognizing the definition of torture according to Article
1 of the Convention only to the extent as expressed in the Fijian Constitution Fiji
has made a reservation of a general and indeterminate scope. This reservation does
not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which
the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention.
Austria therefore considers the reservation to be incompatible with the object and
purpose of the Convention and objects to it.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Republic of Austria and the Republic of Fiji.
Bezwaar Duitsland, 16-03-2017
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the reservation made
by the Republic of Fiji upon its ratification of ... the Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984
with respect to Article 1 thereof.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the reservation to
Article 1 makes the application of the Convention conditional on a definition contained
in the national Constitution. The reservation is of a general and indeterminate nature
and raises doubts as to the extent of the Republic of Fiji’s commitment to fulfil
its obligations under the Convention. In the opinion of the Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany such a reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose
of the Convention. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects
to this reservation as being impermissible.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Fiji.
Bezwaar Portugal, 21-03-2017
The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the contents of the reservations
made by the Republic of Fiji upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the reservation made upon
ratification regarding Article 1 is incompatible with the object and purpose of the
Convention.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that reservations by which a State
limits its responsibilities under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by not recognizing the definition of
torture and invoking domestic law raises doubts as to the commitment of the reserving
State to the object and purpose of the Convention, as the reservation is 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 Convention shall not be permitted. The Government
of the Portuguese Republic thus objects to this reservation.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Fiji.
Bezwaar Italië, 23-03-2017
The Government of the Italian Republic welcomes the ratification by the Republic of
Fiji of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
or Punishment on 14 March 2016.
The Government of the Italian Republic has carefully examined the reservation made
by the Republic of Fiji to Article 1 of the Convention.
The Italian Government considers that, by declaring not to recognize the definition
of Torture as provided for in Article 1 of the Convention, and to only accept the
definition of Torture as expressed in the Fijian Constitution, the Republic of Fiji
has made a reservation of a general and indeterminate scope. As such the reservation
introduces an element of uncertainty for the other States Parties to the Convention
as to how the reserving State intends to implement the obligations of the Convention.
The Italian Republic considers that the reservation made by the Republic of Fiji regarding
Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading
Treatment or Punishment is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention
and therefore objects to it.
This objection nonetheless shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention
between the Republic of Fiji and the Italian Republic.
Bezwaar Peru, 12-04-2017
The Government of the Republic of Peru has examined the contents of the reservation
made by the Government of the Republic of Fiji to the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted in New York on
10 December 1984.
In this regard, the Government of the Republic of Peru considers that the reservation
concerning article 1 may be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention,
as invoking norms of internal law creates ambiguity concerning the commitments of
the State with regard to the provisions of the Convention.
Furthermore, the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Fiji is unacceptable
under public international law, as pursuant to article 27 of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties of 1969 a State party may not invoke the provisions of its
internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
In light of the foregoing, the Government of the Republic of Peru objects to the reservation
made by the Republic of Fiji concerning article 1 of the Convention.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Republic of Peru and the Republic of Fiji, without the Republic of Fiji benefitting
from the abovementioned reservation.
Bezwaar Letland, 17-04-2017
The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservations made
by the Republic of Fiji upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other
[Cruel,] Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The Republic of Latvia considers that the definition of torture as expressed in Article
1 of the Convention forms the very basis of the Convention and thereof International
Human Rights Law, thus no derogations from it can be made.
Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that [the] reservation
made by the Republic of Fiji seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving
State under the Convention by invoking provisions of its domestic law and are likely
to deprive the provisions of the Convention of their effect and, hence, must be regarded
as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention against Torture and
Other [Cruel,] Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Thus, the Republic of Latvia considers that general reservation to Article 1 of the
Convention cannot be considered in line with [the] object and purpose of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to the reservation
made by the Republic of Fiji concerning Article 1 of the Convention. This objection
shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention, in its entirety, between
the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Fiji.
28-01-2020
Withdrawal of reservation to Article 1.
Finland
30-08-1989
Finland declares that it recognizes fully the competence of the Committee against Torture as specified in article 21, paragraph 1 and article 22, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Frankrijk
18-02-1986
The Government of France declares in accordance with article 30, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that it shall not be bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of [article 30].
23-06-1988
The Government of France declares [. . .] that it recognizes the competence of the
Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that
a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under
the Convention.
The Government of France declares [. . .] that it recognizes the competence of the
Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf
of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation
by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Georgië
30-06-2005
In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture and
other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York on December
10, 1984 Georgia hereby declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee
against Torture under the conditions laid down in article 21, to receive and consider
communications to the effect that another state party claims that Georgia is not fulfilling
its obligations under this Convention.
In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture and
other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York on December
10, 1984 Georgia hereby declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee
against Torture under the conditions laid down in article 22, to receive and consider
communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim
to be victims of a violation by Georgia of the provisions of the Convention.
Ghana
07-09-2000
[The Government of Ghana declares] in accordance with Article 30 (2) of the said Convention
that the submission under Article 30 (1) to arbitration or the International Court
of Justice of disputes between State Parties relating to the interpretation or application
of the said Convention shall be by the consent of ALL the Parties concerned and not
by one or more of the Parties concerned.
The Government of the Republic of Ghana recognises the competence of the Committee
Against Torture to consider complaints brought by or against the Republic in respect
of another State Party which has made a Declaration recognising the competence of
the Committee as well as individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic who
claim to be victims of any violations by the Republic of the provsions of the said
Convention.
The Government of the Republic of Ghana interprets Article 21 and Article 22 as giving
the said Committee the competence to receive and consider complaints in respect of
matters occurring after the said Convention had entered into force for Ghana and shall
not apply to decisions, acts, omissions or events relating to matters, events, omissions,
acts or developments occurring before Ghana becomes a party.
Griekenland
06-10-1988
Article 21
The Hellenic Republic declares, pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention,
that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and
consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State
Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.
Article 22
The Hellenic Republic declares, pursuant to article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention,
that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and
consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction
who claims to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the
Convention.
Guatemala
25-09-2003
In accordance with article 22 of the Convention..., the Republic of Guatemala recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation of the provisions of the Convention in respect of acts, omissions, situations or events occurring after the date of the present declaration.
Guinee-Bissau
24-09-2013
1. Recognize the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider
communications in which a Party claims that another Party is not fulfilling its obligations
under this Convention, and
2. Also declare that we recognize the Committee's competence to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals within our jurisdiction claiming
to be victims of a violation of any of the rights contained in this Convention.
Heilige Stoel
26-06-2002
The Holy See considers the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment a valid and suitable instrument for fighting against
acts that constitute a serious offence against the dignity of the human person. In
recent times the Catholic Church has consistently pronounced itself in favour of unconditional
respect for life itself and unequivocally condemned "whatever violates the integrity
of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts
to coerce the will itself" (Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium
et spes, 7 December 1965).
The law of the Church (Code of Canon Law, 1981) and its catechism (Catechism of the
Catholic Church, 1987) enumerate and clearly identify forms of behaviour that can
harm the bodily or mental integrity of the individual, condemn their perpetrators
and call for the abolition of such acts. On 14 January 1978, Pope Paul VI, in his
last address to the diplomatic corps, after referring to the torture and mistreatment
practised in various countries against individuals, concluded as follows: "How could
the Church fail to take up a stern stand ... with regard to torture and to similar
acts of violence inflicted on the human person?" Pope John Paul II, for his part,
has not failed to affirm that "torture must be called by its proper name" (message
for the celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 1980). He has expressed his
deep compassion for the victims of torture (World Congress on Pastoral Ministry for
Human Rights, Rome, 4 July 1998), and in particular for tortured women (message to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations, 1 March 1993). In this spirit the Holy
See wishes to lend its moral support and collaboration to the international community,
so as to contribute to the elimination of recourse to torture, which is inadmissible
and inhuman.
The Holy See, in becoming a party to the Convention on behalf of the Vatican City
State, undertakes to apply it insofar as it is compatible, in practice, with the peculiar
nature of that State.
Honduras
22-07-2024
The State of Honduras declares, pursuant to Article 22 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction, once domestic remedies have been exhausted, who claim to be victims of a violation of the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted in 1984.
Hongarije
13-09-1989
[The Government of Hungary] recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture provided for in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.
Ierland
11-04-2002
Ireland declares, in accordance with article 21 of the Convention, that it recognizes
the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications
to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling
its obligations under this Convention.
Ireland declares, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention, that it recognizes
the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims
of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
IJsland
23-10-1996
[The Government of Iceland declares], pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the [said] Convention, that Iceland recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention and, pursuant to article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that Iceland recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Indonesië
28-10-1998
The Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that the provisions of paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 of article 20 of the Convention will have to be implemented in strict
compliance with the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States.
The Government of the Republic of Indonesia does not consider itself bound by the
provision of article 30, paragraph 1, and takes the position that disputes relating
to the interpretation and application of the Convention which cannot be settled through
the channel provided for in paragraph 1 of the said article, may be referred to the
International Court of Justice only with the consent of all parties to the disputes.
Israël
03-10-1991
1. In accordance with article 28 of the Convention, the State of Israel hereby declares
that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article
20.
2. In accordance with paragraph 2 of article 30, the State of Israel hereby declares
that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of that article.
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
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
and refers to the communication by the depositary, dated 9 April 2014, regarding the
Palestinian request to accede to this Convention (Reference number C.N.184.2014.TREATIES-IV.9).
'Palestine' does not satisfy the criteria for statehood under international law and
lacks the legal capacity to join the aforesaid convention both under general international
law and the terms of bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreements.
The Government of Israel does not recognize 'Palestine' as a State, and wishes to
place on record, for the sake of clarity, its position that it does not consider 'Palestine'
a party to the Convention and regards the Palestinian request for accession as being
without legal validity and without effect upon Israel's treaty relations under the
Convention.
Italië
10-10-1989
Article 21: Italy hereby declares, in accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of
the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture
to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that
another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention;
Article 22: Italy hereby declares, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of
the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture
to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to
its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of violations by a State Party of the provisions
of the Convention.
Japan
29-06-1999
The Government of Japan declares under article 21 of the Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
Kameroen
12-10-2000
[The Republic of Cameroon declares], that [it] recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from a State Party claiming that the Republic of Cameroon is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. However, such communications will not be receivable unless they refer to situations and facts subsequent to this declaration and emanate from a State Party which has made a similar declaration indicating its reciprocal acceptance of the competence of the Committee with regard to itself at least twelve (12) months before submitting its communication. [The Republic of Cameroon also declares] that it recognizes, in the case of situations and facts subsequent to this declaration, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Kazachstan
21-02-2008
In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, [...] the Republic of Kazakhstan hereby
declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture under
the conditions laid down in article 21, to receive and consider communications to
the effect that another state party claims that the Republic of Kazakhstan is not
fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, [...] the Republic of Kazakhstan hereby
declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture under
the conditions laid down in article 22, to receive and consider communications from
or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of
a violation by the Republic of Kazakhstan of the provisions of the Convention.
Koeweit
08-03-1996
With reservations as to article (20) and the provision of paragraph (1) from article (30) of the Convention.
Kroatië
12-10-1992
[The] Republic of Croatia . . . accepts the competence of the Committee in accordance with articles 21 and 22 of the said Convention.
Laos
26-09-2012
The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, pursuant to Article 28 of
the Convention, does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture
under Article 20.
The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound
by the provisions of Article 30, paragraph 1, to refer any dispute concerning the
interpretation and application of the Convention to the International Court of Justice.
It is the understanding of the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic
that the term 'torture' in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention means torture
as defined in both national law and international law.
The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that, pursuant to
Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention it makes extradition conditional on the existence
of a treaty. Therefore, it does not consider the Convention as the legal basis for
extradition in respect of the offences set forth therein. It further declares that
bilateral agreements will be the basis for extradition as between the Lao People's
Democratic Republic and other States Parties in respect of any offences.
Bezwaar Portugal, 13-09-2013
The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservations and declaration
made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic on ratification of the Convention against
Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10
December 1984.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the declaration made by the
Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 1 of the Convention, insofar as it refers
to the national law of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, constitutes in substance
a reservation of general scope, which does not specify the extent of the derogation
and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic underlines that according to Customary International
Law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible
with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted, and recalls
that it is in the common interest of all States that Treaties to which they have chosen
to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties, and
that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply
with their obligations under the Treaties.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid declaration
made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic of the Convention against
Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10
December 1984.
The present objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between
the Portuguese Republic and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
Bezwaar Ierland, 18-09-2013
1. The Government of Ireland has examined the reservations and declarations made by
the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the Convention against Torture
and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), made on 26
September 2012.
2. The Government of Ireland is of the view that this declaration in substance constitutes
a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention.
3. The Government of Ireland considers that a reservation which consists of a general
reference to domestic laws of the reserving State and which does not clearly specify
the extent of the derogation from the provision of the Convention may cast doubts
on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.
4. The Government of Ireland is furthermore of the view that such a reservation may
undermine the basis of international treaty law and is incompatible with the object
and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Ireland recalls that according to Article
19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible
with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted.
5. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by
the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 1 (1) of the Convention against Torture
and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
6. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between
Ireland and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 19-09-2013
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservations
and the declarations made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification
of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made
by the Lao People's Democratic Republic regarding Article 1 of the Convention in substance
constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation
the application of the Convention is made subject to national legislation in force
in the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that reservations of this
kind must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention
and would recall that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty
shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation
of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 1 of the Convention.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
Bezwaar Finland, 20-09-2013
The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the declaration [made
by the Lao People's Democratic Republic relating to article 1, paragraph 1 of the
Convention] and considers that it amounts to a reservation as it seems to modify the
obligations of the Lao People's Democratic Republic under the said article.
A reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying
its contents does not clearly define for other Parties of the Convention the extent
to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore, raises
doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under
the Convention. Such a reservation is also subject to the general principle of treaty
interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic
law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to
become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, and that States are prepared
to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under
the treaties.
The Government of Finland wishes to recall that according to customary international
law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible
with the object and purpose of the treaty is not permitted. In its present formulation,
the reservation to article 1, paragraph 1, is in contradiction with the object and
purpose of the Convention.
Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to the aforesaid reservation to article
1, paragraph 1, made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic. This objection does
not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and the Lao People's
Democratic Republic. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States
without the Lao People's Democratic Republic benefitting from this reservation.
Bezwaar Italië, 23-09-2013
The Government of Italy has examined the reservations and declarations formulated
by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the 1984 Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment.
The Government of Italy considers that the declaration formulated by the Lao People's
Democratic Republic regarding Article 1, paragraph 1, of the above Convention constitutes
in substance a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention to the extent that
with this reservation the application of the Convention is made subject to national
legislation in force in the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
The Government of Italy considers that reservations of this kind must be regarded
as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and would like to recall
that according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
For these reasons the Government of Italy objects to the above mentioned reservation
formulated by the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Italy
and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
Bezwaar Griekenland, 23-09-2013
The Government of the Hellenic Republic has examined the reservations and declarations
formulated by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the 1984 Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the declaration formulated
by the Lao People's Democratic Republic regarding Article 1 paragraph 1 of the above
Convention constitutes in substance a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention
to the extent that with this reservation the application of the Convention is made
subject to national legislation in force in the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
The Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that reservations of this kind must
be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and would
like to recall that according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall
not be permitted.
For these reasons the Government of the Hellenic Republic objects to the above mentioned
reservation formulated by the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Greece
and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
Bezwaar Zweden, 23-09-2013
The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby
the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not
determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Sweden considers
that the declaration made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic, according to which
the term 'torture' in Article 1 paragraph 1 of the Convention shall mean torture as
defined in both national law and international law, in substance constitutes a reservation
modifying the scope of the Convention.
The Government of Sweden notes that this reservation implies that the application
of the Convention is made subject to a general reservation referring to existing legislation
in the Lao People's Democratic Republic. The Government of Sweden is of the view that
such a reservation, which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation, raises
serious doubt as to the commitment of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to the
object and purpose of the Convention.
According to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty
shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which
they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by
all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary
to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the
Lao People's Democratic Republic to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and considers the reservation null and
void.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Lao People's Democratic Republic and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its
entirety between the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Sweden, without the Lao
People's Democratic Republic benefiting from its reservation.
Bezwaar Oostenrijk, 23-09-2013
The Government of Austria has examined the declaration made by the Lao People's Democratic
Republic upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In Austria's view the declaration amounts to
a reservation. The Government of Austria considers that by the reference to national
law regarding Art. 1 of the Convention the Lao People's Democratic Republic has made
a reservation of general and indeterminate scope. This reservation does not clearly
define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving
State has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The Government of Austria therefore
considers the reservation to Art. 1 incompatible with the object and purpose of the
Convention and objects to it. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force
of the Convention between Austria and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 24-09-2013
The Government of the United Kingdom have examined the Declaration made by the Government
of the Lao People's Democratic Republic in respect of Article 1, paragraph 1 of the
Convention: 'It is the understanding of the Government of the Lao People's Democratic
Republic that the term 'torture' in Article 1, paragraph1 of the Convention means
torture as defined in both national law and international law.'
The Government of the United Kingdom considers that the Declaration is capable of
being understood as an attempt by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic
to exclude or modify the definition of torture set out in under Article 1 of the Convention.
To the extent that the Declaration is intended to exclude or modify the definition
of torture under Article 1 of the Convention, and is accordingly a reservation, the
United Kingdom objects to the said reservation.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Lao People's Democratic
Republic.
Bezwaar Duitsland, 25-09-2013
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration
made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon its ratification of the Convention
against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10
December 1984 with respect to Article 1, paragraph 1, thereof.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the declaration,
notwithstanding its designation, amounts to a reservation which is meant to limit
the scope of application of the Convention. A reservation which makes the application
of the Convention conditional on a definition contained in national laws is of a general
and indeterminate nature and raises doubts as to the extent of the State's commitment
to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. In the opinion of the Government of
the Federal Republic of Germany such a reservation is incompatible with the object
and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to this reservation
as being impermissible.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Federal Republic of Germany and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
Bezwaar Tsjechië, 25-09-2013
The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the reservations and declarations
made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic on ratification of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter
as the "Convention").
The Government of the Czech Republic is of the view that the declaration made by the
Lao People's Democratic Republic with regard to the definition of torture in Article
1, paragraph 1, of the Convention is of general and vague nature and, therefore, its
character and scope cannot be properly assessed. The declaration leaves open the question
whether it amounts to a reservation and whether such a reservation is compatible with
the object and purpose of the Convention, i.e., to what extent the Lao People's Democratic
Republic commits itself to the binding definition of torture as contained in Article
1, paragraph 1, of the Convention, which forms part of the object and purpose of the
Convention and cannot be excluded or modified by the definitions of torture contained
in national law of the States Parties to the Convention.
The Government of the Czech Republic wishes to recall that reservations may not be
general or vague, since such reservations, without indicating in precise terms their
scope, make it impossible to assess whether or not they are compatible with the object
and purpose of the treaty. Therefore, the Government of the Czech Republic objects
to the aforesaid declaration made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic
Republic. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention
between the Lao People's Democratic Republic and the Czech Republic, without the Lao
People's Democratic Republic benefiting from its declaration.
Bezwaar Letland, 26-09-2013
The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservations and
declarations made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic to the Convention upon ratification.
Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia believes that the first declaration,
making the notion of 'torture' as it is understood by this Convention subject to national
legislation of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, should not be considered an interpretative
declaration having a mere declarative purpose. The interpretative declaration is deemed
to change the legal effect of the Convention by limiting its applicability. Thus,
it should be considered a reservation as stipulated in Article 2 (1) (d) of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia holds an opinion that this reservation
contains vague reference to national legislation thus making impossible to determine
to what extent the Lao People's Democratic Republic considers itself bound by the
provisions of the Convention. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia
regards this reservation as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
Whereof, the Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that customary international
law as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular
Article 19 (c) thereof, sets out that a reservation incompatible with the object and
purpose of a treaty is not permissible.
Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to the declaration
of the Lao People's Democratic Republic made upon the ratification of the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
At the same time, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention
between the Republic of Latvia and the Lao People's Democratic Republic benefiting
from its reservation.
Bezwaar Noorwegen, 07-10-2013
The Government of Norway has examined the declarations contained in the instrument
of ratification to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (New York, 10 December 1984), made by the Lao People's Democratic
Republic on 26 September 2012.
The Government of Norway is of the view that the declaration with regard to Article
1, paragraph 1, of the Convention in substance constitutes a general reservation aimed
at limiting the scope of the Convention with reference to national law, without identifying
the provisions in question. The Government of Norway accordingly considers that the
reservation casts serious doubts on the commitment of the Government of the Lao People's
Democratic Republic to the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore objects
to the said reservation.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Kingdom of Norway and the Lao People's Republic. The Convention thus becomes operative
between the Kingdom of Norway and the Lao People's Democratic Republic without the
Lao People's Democratic Republic benefiting from the aforesaid reservation.
Liechtenstein
02-11-1990
The Principality of Liechtenstein recognizes, in accordance with article 21, paragraph
1, of the Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and
consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State
Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
The Principality of Liechtenstein recognizes in accordance with article 22, paragraph
1, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims
of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Luxemburg
29-09-1987
Article l
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg hereby declares that the only "lawful sanctions" that
it recognizes within the meaning of article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention are
those which are accepted by both national law and international law.
Article 21
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg hereby declares [. . .] that it recognizes the competence
of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect
that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations
under this Convention.
Article 22
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg hereby declares [. . .] that it recognizes the competence
of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on
behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation
by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Malediven
26-12-2019
Article 22:
The Government of the Republic of Maldives hereby declares that it recognizes the
competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf
of individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Maldives, who claim
to be victims of violations by a State Party of the provisions of the aforesaid Convention.
Malta
13-09-1990
The Government of Malta fully recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture as specified in article 21, paragraph 1, and article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Marokko
21-06-1993
[...]
2. In accordance with article 30, paragraph 2, the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco
does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the same article.
19-10-2006
The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco declares, under article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, that it recognizes, on the date of deposit of the present document, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation, subsequent to the date of deposit of the present document, of the provisions of the Convention.
Mauritanië
17-11-2004
Article 20
The Mauritanian Government does not recognize the competence granted to the Committee
in article 20 of the Convention, which provides as follows:
1. If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded
indications that torture is being systematically practiced in the territory of a State
Party, the Committee shall invite that State Party to cooperate in the examination
of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information
concerned.
2. Taking into account any observations which may have been submitted by the State
Party concerned, as well as any other relevant information available to it, the Committee
may, if it decides that this is warranted, designate one or more of its members to
make a confidential inquiry and to report to the Committee urgently.
3. If an inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, the Committee
shall seek the cooperation of the State Party concerned. In agreement with that State
Party, such an inquiry may include a visit to its territory.
4. After examining the findings of its member or members submitted in accordance with
paragraph 2 of this article, the Committee shall transmit these findings to the State
Party concerned together with any comments or suggestions which seem appropriate in
view of the situation.
5. All the proceedings of the Committee referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this article
shall be confidential, and at all stages of the proceedings the cooperation of the
State Party shall be sought. After such proceedings have been completed with regard
to an inquiry made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee may, after consultations
with the State Party concerned, decide to include a summary account of the results
of the proceedings in its annual report made in accordance with article 24.
Article 30, paragraph 1
1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or
application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation shall,
at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from
the date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization
of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International
Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.
Pursuant to article 30, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Government of Mauritania
declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of this article, which
provides that in the event of a dispute concerning the interpretation or application
of the Convention, one of the Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court
of Justice by request.
Mexico
15-03-2002
The United Mexican States recognizes as duly binding the competence of the Committee
against Torture, established by article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly on 10 December 1984.
Pursuant to Article 22 of the Convention, the United Mexican States declares that
it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims
of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Moldavië
02-09-2011
In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Republic of Moldova
recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider
communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is
not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Republic of Moldova
recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider
communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim
to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Monaco
06-12-1991
In accordance with paragraph 2 of article 30 of the Convention, the Principality of
Monaco declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of that article.
In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Principality of
Monaco declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture
to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that
another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Principality of
Monaco declares, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture
to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to
its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions
of the Convention.
Montenegro
23-10-2006
Confirmed upon succession:
Yugoslavia recognizes, in compliance with article 21, paragraph 1 of the Convention,
the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications
in which one State Party to the Convention claims that another State Party does not
fulfil the obligations pursuant to the Convention;
Yugoslavia recognizes, in conformity with article 22, paragraph 1 of the Convention,
the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims
of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der
21-12-1988
It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the
term "lawful sanctions" in article 1, paragraph 1, must be understood as referring
to those sanctions which are lawful not only under national law but also under international
law.
With respect to article 21:
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby declares that it recognizes
the competence of the Committee against Torture under the conditions laid down in
article 21, to receive and consider communications to the effect that another State
Party claims that the Kingdom is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention;
With respect to article 22:
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby declares that it recognizes
the competence of the Committee against Torture, under the conditions laid down in
article 22, to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals
subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the Kingdom
of the provisions of the Convention.
Nieuw-Zeeland
10-12-1989
The Government of New Zealand reserves the right to award compensation to torture
victims referred to in article 14 of the Convention Against Torture only at the discretion
of the Attorney-General of New Zealand.
1. In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, [the Government
of New Zealand declares] that it recognises the competence of the Committee Against
Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims
that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention; and
2. In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, [the Government
of New Zealand] recognises the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive
and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction
who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Noorwegen
09-07-1986
Norway recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling
its obligations under this Convention.
Norway recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims
of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Oekraïne
20-10-2015
In February 2014 the Russian Federation launched armed aggression against Ukraine
and occupied a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea
and the city of Sevastopol, and today exercises effective control over certain districts
of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine. These actions are in gross violation
of the Charter of the United Nations and constitute a threat to international peace
and security. The Russian Federation, as the Aggressor State and Occupying Power,
bears full responsibility for its actions and their consequences under international
law.
The United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/68/262 of 27 March 2014 confirmed
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized
borders. The United Nations also called upon all States, international organizations
and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.
In this regard, Ukraine states that from 20 February 2014 and for the period of temporary
occupation by the Russian Federation of a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol – as a result of the armed aggression
of the Russian Federation committed against Ukraine and until the complete restoration
of the constitutional law and order and effective control by Ukraine over such occupied
territory, as well as over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of
Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine as a result of the aggression
of the Russian Federation, the application and implementation by Ukraine of the obligations
under the above [Convention], as applied to the aforementioned occupied and uncontrolled
territory of Ukraine, is limited and is not guaranteed.
Documents or requests made or issued by the occupying authorities of the Russian Federation,
its officials at any level in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol
and by the illegal authorities in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts
of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine, are null and void
and have no legal effect regardless of whether they are presented directly or indirectly
through the authorities of the Russian Federation.
The provisions of the [Convention] regarding the possibility of direct communication
or interaction do not apply to the territorial organs of Ukraine in the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, as well as in certain districts of
the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control
of Ukraine. The procedure of the relevant communication is determined by the central
authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv.
Oman
09-06-2020
1. The Sultanate of Oman declares that it does not recognize the competence of the
Committee against Torture as set out in article 20 of the Convention.
2. The Sultanate of Oman declares that it is not bound by the provisions of article
30, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Oostenrijk
29-07-1987
1. Austria will establish its jurisdiction in accordance with article 5 of the Convention
irrespective of the laws applying to the place where the offence occurred, but in
respect of paragraph 1 (c) only if prosecution by a State having jurisdiction under
para graph 1 (a) or paragraph 1 (b) is not to be expected.
2. Austria regards article 15 as the legal basis for the inadmissibility provided
for therein of the use of statements which are established to have been made as a
result of torture.
Austria recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and
consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State
Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
Austria recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and
consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to Austrian jurisdiction
who claim to be victims of a violation of the provisions of the Convention.
26-11-2018
Withdrawal of declaration made upon ratification in respect of Article 5 of the Convention.
Pakistan
23-06-2010
[...]
Article 8
The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares the pursuant to Article
8, paragraph 2, of the Convention, it does not take this Convention as the legal basis
for cooperation on extradition with other State Parties.
[...]
Article 28
In accordance with Article 28, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Government of the
Islamic
Republic of Pakistan hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of
the Committee provided for in Article 20.
Article 30
The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not consider itself bound
by Article 30, Paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Palestina
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.262.2014.TREATIES-IV.9,
dated 15 May 2014, conveying a communication of the United States of America regarding
the accession of the State of Palestine to the Convention against Torture and other
Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, dated 10 December 1984.
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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, which entered into force on 2 May 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.296.2014.TREATIES-IV.9,
dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Israel regarding the accession of
the State of Palestine to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, dated 10 December 1984.
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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, which entered into force on 2 May 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.278.2014.TREATIES-IV.9,
dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession of
the State of Palestine to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, dated 10 December 1984.
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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, which entered into force on 2 May 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.
Panama
24-08-1987
The Republic of Panama declares in accordance with article 30, paragraph 2 of the Convention that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of the said article.
Paraguay
29-05-2002
... the Government of the Republic of Paraguay recognizes the competence of the Committee
against Torture, pursuant to articles 21 and 22 of the Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, approved by the General
Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984.
... the Honourable National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay has granted its approval
for the recognition of the competence of the Committee to receive communications from
States parties and individuals.
Peru
17-10-2002
The Republic of Peru recognizes, in accordance with Article 21 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the competence
of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect
that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations
under the said Convention.
Likewise, the Republic of Peru recognizes, in accordance with the provisions of Article
22 of the above-mentioned Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture
to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to
its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions
of the Convention.
Polen
13-01-1986
Under article 28, the Polish People's Republic does not consider itself bound by article
20 of the Convention.
Furthermore, the Polish People's Republic does not consider itself bound by article
30, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
12-05-1993
The Government of the Republic of Poland, in accordance with articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that the Republic of Poland is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention or communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of Poland of the provisions of the Convention.
Portugal
09-02-1989
Article 21
Portugal hereby declares, in accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention,
that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and
consider communications to the effect that the State Party claims that another State
Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
Article 22
Portugal hereby declares, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1 of the Convention,
that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and
consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction
who claim to be victims of violation by State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Qatar
11-01-2000
(a) Any interpretation of the provisions of the Convention that is incompatible with
the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic religion;
and
(b) The competence of the Committee as indicated in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.
Bezwaar Spanje, 14-03-2000
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation made by the Government
of the State of Qatar to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment on 11 January 2000, as to any interpretation of
the Convention that is incompatible with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic
religion.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that, by making a general reference
to Islamic law and religion rather than to specific content, this reservation raises
doubts among the other States parties as to the extent of the commitment of the State
of Qatar to abide by the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers the reservation made by the Government
of the State of Qatar to be incompatible with the purpose and aim of the Convention,
in that it relates to the entire Convention and seriously limits or even excludes
its application on a basis which is not clearly defined, namely, a general reference
to Islamic law.
Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the above-mentioned
reservation made by the Government of the State of Qatar to the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This objection
does not prevent the Convention's entry into force between the Government of Spain
and the Government of the State of Qatar.
Bezwaar Luxemburg, 06-04-2000
The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has examined the reservation made
by the Government of the State of Qatar to [the Convention] regarding any interpretation
incompatible with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic religion.
The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg considers that this reservation, by
referring in a general way to both Islamic law and the Islamic religion without specifying
their content, raises doubts among other States Parties about the degree to which
the State of Qatar is committed to the observance of the Convention. The Government
of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg believes that the aforementioned reservation of the
Government of the State of Qatar is incompatible with the objective and purpose of
the Convention, because it refers to it as a whole and seriously limits or even excludes
its application on a poorly defined basis, as in the case of the global reference
to Islamic law.
Consequently, the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg objects to the aforementioned
reservation made by the Government of the State of Qatar to [the Convention]. This
objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Convention between the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg and the State of Qatar.
Bezwaar Zweden, 27-04-2000
The Government of Sweden has examined the reservations made by the Government of Qatar
at the time of its accession to the [Convention], as to the competence of the committee
and to any interpretation of the provisions of the Convention that is incompatible
with the precepts of Islamic laws and the Islamic religion.
The Government of Sweden is of the view that as regards the latter, this general reservation,
which does not clearly specify the provisions of the Convention to which it applies
and the extent of the derogation therefrom, raises doubts as to the commitment of
Qatar to the object and purpose of the Convention.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to
become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, and that States are prepared
to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under
the treaties.
According to customary law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not
be permitted. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid general
reservation made by the Government of Qatar to the [Convention].
This shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the State of
Qatar and the Kingdom of Sweden, without Qatar benefiting from the said reservation.
Bezwaar Finland, 16-01-2001
The Government of Finland has examined the context of the reservation made by the
Government of Qatar regarding any interpretation incompatible with the precepts of
Islamic law and the Islamic religion. The Government of Finland notes that a reservation
which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents
does not clearly define for the other Parties to the Convention the extent to which
the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and may therefore raise doubts
as to the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.
Such a reservation, in the view of the Government of Finland, is subject to the general
principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions
of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.
The Government of Finland also notes that the reservation of Qatar, being of such
a general nature, raises doubts as to the full commitment of Qatar to the object and
purpose of the Convention and would like to recall that, according to the Vienna Convention
on the Law of the Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose
of the Convention shall not be permitted.
For the above-mentioned reasons the Government of Finland objects to the reservation
made by the Government of Qatar. This objection does not preclude the entry into force
of the Convention between Qatar and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative
between the two States without Qatar benefitting from this reservation.
Bezwaar Noorwegen, 18-01-2001
It is the Government of Norway's position that paragraph (a) of the reservation, due
to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is contrary to the object and purpose
of the Convention, and thus impermissible according to well established treaty law.
The Government of Norway therefore objects to paragraph (a) of the reservation.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention
between the Kingdom of Norway and Qatar. The Convention thus becomes operative between
Norway and Qatar without Qatar benefitting from the said reservation.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 19-01-2001
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservation concerning
the national law of Qatar, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving
State under the Convention by invoking national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment
of this State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute
to undermining the basis of international treaty law.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to
become party should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid
reservation made by the Government of Qatar.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Kingdom of the Netherlands and Qatar.
Bezwaar Duitsland, 23-01-2001
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the reservation to
the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment made by the Government of Qatar. The Government of the Federal Republic
of Germany is of the view that the reservation with regard to compatibility of the
rules of the Convention with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic religion
raises doubts as to the commitment of Qatar to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers this reservation to be
incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Therefore the Government
of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the
Government of Qatar to the Convention.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Federal Republic of Germany and Qatar.
Bezwaar Frankrijk, 24-01-2001
The Government of the French Republic has carefully considered the reservation made by the Government of Qatar to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984, whereby it excludes any interpretation of the Convention which would be incompatible with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. The reservation, which seeks to give precedence to domestic law and practices over the Convention to an indeterminate extent, is comprehensive in scope. Its terms undermine the commitment of Qatar and make it impossible for the other States parties to assess the extent of that commitment. The Government of France consequently objects to the reservation made by Qatar.
Bezwaar Italië, 05-02-2001
The Government of the Italian Republic has examined the reservation to the Convention
against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment made
by the Government of Qatar. The Government of the Italian Republic believes that the
reservation concerning the compatibility of the rules of the Convention with the precepts
of the Islamic law and the Islamic Religion raises doubts as the commitment of Qatar
to fulfill its obligations under the Convention. The Government of the Italian Republic
considers this reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention
according to article 19 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This
reservation does not fall within the rule of article 20, paragraph 5 and can be objected
anytime.
Therefore, the Government of the Italian Republic objects to the aforesaid reservation
made by the Government of Qatar to the Convention.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Italy
and Qatar.
Bezwaar Denemarken, 21-02-2001
The Government of Denmark has examined the contents of the reservation made by the
Government of Qatar to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment regarding any interpretation of the provisions of
the Convention that is incompatible with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic
religion. The Government of Denmark considers that the reservation, which is of a
general nature, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and
raises doubts as to the commitment of Qatar to fulfil her obligations under the Convention.
It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark that no time limit applies to objections
against reservations which are inadmissible under international law.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Government of Denmark objects to this reservation
made by the Government of Qatar. This objection does not preclude the entry into force
of the Convention between Qatar and Denmark.
Bezwaar Portugal, 20-07-2001
The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservation made by the
Government of Qatar to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (New York, 10 December 1984), whereby it excludes
any interpretation of the said Convention which would be incompatible with the precepts
of Islamic Law and the Islamic Religion.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic is of the view that 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, creating
legitimate doubts on its commitment to the Convention and, moreover, contribute to
undermine the basis of International Law.
Furthermore, the said reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the
Convention.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic wishes, therefore, to express its disagreement
with the reservation made by the Government of Qatar.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 09-11-2001
The Government of the United Kingdom have examined the reservation made by the Government
of Qatar on 11 January 2000 in respect of the Convention, which reads as follows:
'.....with reservation as to: (a) Any interpretation of the provisions of the Convention
that is incompatible with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic religion.'
The Government of the United Kingdom note that a reservation which consists of a general
reference to national law without specifying its contents 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 reservation made by the Government of Qatar.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Qatar.
14-03-2012
[...] the State of Qatar :
1) partially withdraws its general reservation, while keeping in effect a limited
general reservation within the framework of Articles 1 and 16 of the Convention, and
2) withdraws its reservation to the mandate of the Committee against Torture as stipulated
in Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.
Russische Federatie
01-10-1991
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that, pursuant to article 21 of the
Convention, it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive
and consider communications in respect of situations and events occurring after the
adoption of the present declaration, to the effect that a State Party claims that
another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics also declares that, pursuant to article 22
of the Convention, it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider
communications in respect of situations or events occurring after the adoption of
the present declaration, from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction
who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Samoa
28-03-2019
Article 14
The Government of the Independent State of Samoa reserves the right to award compensation
to torture victims or their families and the question of adequate compensation referred
to in Article 14, at the discretion of the Courts of Samoa.
Article 20
The Government of the Independent State of Samoa does not recognise the competence
of the Committee against Torture as provided for in Article 20 of the Convention.
Article 30
The Government of the Independent State of Samoa does not consider itself bound by
paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Convention.
San Marino
04-08-2015
The Republic of San Marino hereby declares, in accordance with article 21, paragraph
1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture
to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that
another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention […]
[…] The Republic of San Marino hereby declares, in accordance with article 22, paragraph
1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture
to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to
its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of violations by a State Party of the provisions
of the Convention.
Saudi-Arabië
23-09-1997
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not recognize the jurisdiction of the Committee as
provided for in article 20 of this Convention.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shall not be bound by the provisions of paragraph (1)
of article 30 of this Convention.
Senegal
16-10-1996
The Government of the Republic of Senegal declares, in accordance with article 21,
paragraph 1, of the Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee
against Torture to receive and consider communciations to the effect that a State
Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this
Convention.
The Government of the Republic of Senegal declares, in accordance with article 22,
paragraph 1, of the Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee
against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals
subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party
of the provisions of the Convention.
Servië
12-03-2001
Confirmed upon succession:
Yugoslavia recognizes, in compliance with article 21, paragraph 1 of the Convention,
the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications
in which one State Party to the Convention claims that another State Party does not
fulfil the obligations pursuant to the Convention;
Yugoslavia recognizes, in conformity with article 22, paragraph 1 of the Convention,
the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims
of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Seychellen
06-08-2001
Article 22:
The Republic of Seychelles accepts without reservations the competence of the Committee
Against Torture.
Slovenië
16-07-1993
1. The Republic of Slovenia declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee
against Torture, pursuant to article 21 of the said Convention, to receive and consider
communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is
not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
2. The Republic of Slovenia also declares that it recognizes the competence of the
Committee against Torture, pursuant to article 22 of the said Convention, to receive
and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction
who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Slowakije
17-03-1995
The Slovak Republic, pursuant to article 21 of the [said Convention] recognizes the
competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications
to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling
its obligations under this Convention.
The Slovak Republic further declares, pursuant to article 22 of the Convention, that
it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation
by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Spanje
21-10-1987
Spain declares that, pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, it recognizes
the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect
that a State Party claims that the Spanish State is not fulfilling its obligations
under this Convention. It is Spain's understanding that, pursuant to the above-mentioned
article, such communications shall be accepted and processed only if they come from
a State Party which has made a similar declaration.
Spain declares that, pursuant to article 22, paragraph l, of the Convention, it recognizes
the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications sent by, or
on behalf of, persons subject to Spanish jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a
violation by the Spanish State of the provisions of the Convention. Such communications
must be consistent with the provisions of the above-mentioned article and, in particular,
of its paragraph 5.
Sri Lanka
16-08-2016
The Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka declares, pursuant to Article 22 of the Convention against Torture, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by Sri Lanka of the provisions of the Convention.
Sudan
10-08-2021
… the Government of the Republic of the Sudan, in accordance with article (30) paragraph (2) doesn’t consider itself bound by the provisions of the article (30) paragraph (1) of this Convention.
Syrië
19-08-2004
In accordance with the provisions of article 28, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the
Syrian Arab Republic does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture
provided for in article 20 thereof;
The accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to this Convention shall in no way signify
recognition of Israel or entail entry into any dealings with Israel in the context
of the provisions of this Convention.
Togo
25-03-1987
The Government of the Togolese Republic reserves the right to formulate, upon ratifying the Convention, any reservations or declarations which it might consider necessary.
18-11-1987
The Government of the Republic of Togo recognizes the competence of the Committee
against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State
Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this
Convention.
The Government of the Republic of Togo recognizes the competence of the Committee
against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals
subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party
of the provisions of the Convention.
Tsjechië
03-09-1996
The Czech Republic declares that in accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the
Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider
communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is
not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
The Czech Republic declares, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention,
it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals within its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of
violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Turkije
02-08-1988
The Government of Turkey declares in accordance with article 30, paragraph 2, of the
Convention, that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph
1 of this article.
The Government of Turkey declares, pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention
that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and
consider communications to the effect that a State Party is not fulfilling its obligations
under the Convention.
The Government of Turkey declares, pursuant to article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention
that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and
consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction
who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Tuvalu
25-03-2024
The Government of Tuvalu does not recognize paragraph 1 of article 30 of the Convention and therefore shall not be bound by this provision.
Uganda
19-12-2001
In accordance with Article 21 of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Uganda declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications submitted by another State party, provided that such other State Party has made a declaration under Article 21 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in regard to itself.
Uruguay
27-07-1988
The Government of Uruguay recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications referring to the said articles [21 and 22].
Venezuela
26-04-1994
The Government of the Republic of Venezuela recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture as provided for under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.
Verenigd Koninkrijk
15-03-1985
The United Kingdom reserves the right to formulate, upon ratifying the Convention, any reservations or interpretative declarations which it might consider necessary.
08-12-1988
The Government of the United Kingdom declares under article 21 of the said Convention
that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and
consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such other
State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication
in regard to the United Kingdom, made a declaration under article 21 recognizing the
competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in regard to itself.
[Territorial application]
Bezwaar Argentinië, 14-04-1988
The Government of Argentina reaffirms its sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, which
form part of its national territory, and, with regard to the Malvinas Islands, formally
objects to and rejects the declaration of territorial extension issued by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the instrument of ratification of
the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 8 December
1988.
The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII),
31/49, 37/9, 38/12 and 39/6 in which it recognizes the existence of a sovereignty
dispute regarding the question of the Malvinas Islands and has repeatedly requested
the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
to resume negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful and definitive
solution to the dispute and their remaining differences relating to that question,
through the good offices of the Secretary-General. The General Assembly also adopted
resolutions 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, which request the parties to initiate negotiations
with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems
pending between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Malvinas
Islands.
Bezwaar Argentinië, 17-04-1991
The Argentine Government rejects the extension of the application of the [said] Convention
to the Malvinas Islands, effected by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland on 8 December 1988, and reaffirms the rights of sovereignty of the Argentine
Republic over those Islands, which are an integral part of its national territory.
The Argentine Republic recalls that 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 the existence of a sovereignty dispute and requests
the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to
resolve peacefully and definitively the pending questions of sovereignty, in accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations.
Verenigde Arabische Emiraten
19-07-2012
In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 28 of the Convention, the United Arab Emirates
declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture
referred to in article 20 of the Convention.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of article 30 of the Convention, the United Arab Emirates
does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 30 relating to arbitration
in this Convention.
The United Arab Emirates also confirms that the lawful sanctions applicable under
national law, or pain or suffering arising from or associated with or incidental to
these lawful sanctions, do not fall under the concept of "torture" defined in article
1 of this Convention or under the concept of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment mentioned in this Convention.
Bezwaar Oostenrijk, 31-01-2013
The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by the United Arab Emirates
upon accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.
The Government of Austria considers that by the reference to national law regarding
Art. 1 of the Convention the United Arab Emirates have made a reservation of general
and indeterminate scope. This reservation does not clearly define for the other States
Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the
obligations of the Convention.
The Government of Austria therefore considers the reservation of the United Arab Emirates
to Art. 1 incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and objects to
it.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Austria
and the United Arab Emirates.
Bezwaar Zweden, 07-03-2013
The Government of Sweden has examined the declaration and reservations made by the
United Arab Emirates at the time of its accession to the Convention.
The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby
the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not
determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Sweden considers
that the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates in substance constitutes a reservation
limiting the scope of the Convention.
The Government of Sweden notes that the reservation, according to which 'the lawful
sanctions applicable under national law, or pain or suffering arising from or associated
with or incidental to these lawful sanctions, do not fall under the concept of 'torture'
defined in article 1 of this Convention or under the concept of cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment mentioned in this Convention', implies that the
application of the Convention is made subject to a general reservation referring to
existing legislation in the United Arab Emirates. The Government of Sweden is of the
view that such a reservation, which does not clearly specify the extent of its scope,
raises serious doubt as to the commitment of the United Arab Emirates to the object
and purpose of the Convention.
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
United Arab Emirates to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment and considers this reservation null and void. This
objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United
Arab Emirates and Sweden. The Convention enters into force between the United Arab
Emirates and Sweden, without the United Arab Emirates benefiting from this reservation.
Bezwaar Zwitserland, 01-07-2013
The Swiss Federal Council has examined the reservations and the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates upon accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of 10 December 1984. The Council believes that the declaration related to article 1 of the Convention, insofar as it refers to the national law of the United Arab Emirates, constitutes in substance a reservation of general scope, which does not specify the extent of the derogation and is therefore incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Consequently, the Swiss Federal Council objects to the reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates.
Bezwaar Roemenië, 02-07-2013
The Government of Romania has examined the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates
which sustains that 'the lawful sanctions applicable under national law, or pain or
suffering arising from or associated with or incidental to these lawful sanctions,
do not fall under the concept of 'torture' defined in article 1 of this Convention
or under the concept of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment mentioned
in this Convention' and regards this declaration as a disguised reservation. The reservation
refers to the legislation in force in the United Arab Emirates as to the definition
of torture and thus to the scope of the application of the Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Furthermore, if the intention of the United Arab Emirates is to subordinate the application
of the Convention entirely to the provisions of its internal law as it results from
the text of the declaration, the reservation is contrary to the general rule (contained
in article 27 VCLT) according to which a party may not invoke its internal law as
justification for failure to perform a treaty. Thus, the reservation is inconsistent
with the object and purpose of the treaty. Romania appreciates that the term 'lawful
sanctions' under article 1, paragraph 1 of the Convention must not be subordinated
only to domestic law but it incorporates also a standard of legality under international
law.
For these reasons, the Government of Romania objects to the aforesaid reservation
made by the United Arab Emirates to the Convention as being incompatible with its
object and purpose even though the objection does not constitute an obstacle to the
entry into force of the Convention between Romania and the United Arab Emirates. At
the same time, the Government of Romania recommends the United Arab Emirates to reconsider
its reservation and expresses the hope in its withdrawal.
Bezwaar Tsjechië, 15-07-2013
The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the declaration and reservations
made by the United Arab Emirates at the time of its accession to the Convention against
Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government
of the Czech Republic considers that the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates
in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention. The Government
of the Czech Republic is of the view that the reservation, according to which 'the
lawful sanctions applicable under national law, or pain or suffering arising from
or associated with or incidental to these lawful sanctions, do not fall under the
concept of 'torture' defined in article 1 of this Convention or under the concept
of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment mentioned in this Convention'
raises serious doubt as to the commitment of the United Arab Emirates to the object
and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Czech Republic therefore considers
the aforesaid reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention
and objects to it.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
United Arab Emirates and the Czech Republic. The Convention enters into force between
the United Arab Emirates and the Czech Republic, without the Untied Arab Emirates
benefiting from this reservation.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 16-07-2013
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservations
and the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates upon accession to the Convention
against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made
by the United Arab Emirates regarding Article 1 of the Convention in substance constitutes
a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation
the application of the Convention is made subject to national legislation in force
in the United Arab Emirates.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that reservations of this
kind must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention
and would recall that, according to customary international law, as codified in the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object
and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation
of the United Arab Emirates to Article 1 of the Convention.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Arab Emirates.
Bezwaar Polen, 17-07-2013
The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the reservation made by the
United Arab Emirates upon accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel.
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by General Assembly of the United
Nations on 10 December 1984, with regard to Article 1 of the Convention.
The reservation made by the United Arab Emirates with regard to Article 1 of the Convention
is of general nature and in view of the reference to national law does not allow to
define the extent to which State Party making a reservation will be bound by the Convention's
provisions. In consequence, according to Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention of
the Law of Treaties, which is a treaty and customary norm, the reservation shall not
be permitted as incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.
Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Poland objects to the reservation made
by the United Arab Emirates upon accession to the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by General Assembly of
the United Nations on 10 December 1984, with regard to Article 1.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Republic of Poland and the United Arab Emirates.
Bezwaar Ierland, 18-07-2013
The Government of Ireland has examined the declaration contained in the instrument
of accession to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, made by the United Arab Emirates on 19 July 2012.
The Government of Ireland is of the view that this declaration in substance constitutes
a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention.
The Government of Ireland considers that a reservation which consists of a general
reference to domestic laws of the reserving State and which does not clearly specify
the extent of the reservation to the provisions of the Convention may cast doubts
on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.
The Government of Ireland is furthermore of the view that such a reservation may undermine
the basis of international treaty law and is incompatible with the object and purpose
of the Convention.
The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the
United Arab Emirates to Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel,
Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland
and the United Arab Emirates.
Bezwaar Portugal, 19-07-2013
The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the declaration made by theUnited
Arab Emirates upon accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
orDegrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the declaration made by the
United Arab Emirates, to Article 1, is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the
scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object
and purpose.
The reservation furthermore is not compatible with the terms of Article 2 of the Convention
according to which each State Party shall take effective measures to prevent acts
of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic recalls that, according to Article 19 (c)
of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the
object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation
made by the United Arab Emirates to Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984.
However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention
between the Portuguese Republic and the United Arab Emirates.
Bezwaar Duitsland, 22-07-2013
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration
made by the United Arab Emirates upon its accession to the Convention against Torture
and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the declaration,
notwithstanding its designation, amounts to a reservation, which is meant to limit
the scope of application of the Convention. The Government of the Federal Republic
of Germany also considers that a reservation which subjects the application of the
Convention to national laws on sanctions is of a general and indeterminate nature
and raises doubts as to the extent of the commitment to fulfill obligations under
the Convention. According to the opinion of the Government of the Federal Republic
of Germany such a reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to this reservation
as being impermissible.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Federal Republic of Germany and the United Arab Emirates.
Bezwaar Finland, 22-07-2013
The Government of Finland has examined the contents of the declaration made by the
Government of the United Arab Emirates to Article 1 to the Convention Against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and notes that the declaration
constitutes a reservation as it seems to modify the obligations of the United Arab
Emirates under the said article.
A reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying
its contents does not clearly define for the other Parties of the Convention the extent
to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore may raise
doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to fulfill its obligations under
the Convention. Such a reservation is also, in the view of the Government of Finland,
subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party
may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to
perform its treaty obligations.
In its present formulation, the reservation to Article 1 is incompatible with the
object and purpose of the Convention. According to Article 19, paragraph (c) of the
Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, such reservations shall not be permitted.
Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to the aforesaid reservation to Article
1 made by the Government of the United Arab Emirates. This objection does not preclude
the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and the United Arab Emirates.
The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without the United
Arab Emirates benefitting from this reservation.
Bezwaar België, 23-07-2013
Belgium has examined the declaration formulated by the United Arab Emirates upon its
accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. The Government of Belgium considers that, in referring to
national law in connection with article 1 of the Convention, the United Arab Emirates
has formulated a reservation of general, indeterminate scope that does not define
clearly for the other States parties to the Convention the extent to which the State
that formulated the reservation has accepted the obligations arising from the Convention.
The Government of Belgium considers that the reservation formulated by the United
Arab Emirates concerning article 1 is incompatible with the object and purpose of
the Convention.
Belgium recalls that, pursuant to article 19, paragraph (c), of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties, a reservation may not be formulated when it is incompatible
with the object and purpose of the treaty in question. Belgium therefore objects to
the declaration, while specifying that this objection shall not preclude the entry
into force of the Convention between the United Arab Emirates and Belgium.
Bezwaar Noorwegen, 24-07-2013
The Government of Norway is of the view that this declaration in substance constitutes
a general reservation aimed at limiting the scope of the Convention with reference
to national law, without identifying the provisions in question. It is the understanding
of the Government of Norway that the term 'lawful sanctions' in article 1, paragraph
1 of the Convention must be understood as referring to sanctions which are lawful
not only under national law but also under international law. The Government of Norway
accordingly considers that the reservation casts serious doubts on the commitment
of the United Arab Emirates to the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore
objects to the said reservation.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Kingdom of Norway and the United Arab Emirates. The Convention thus becomes operative
between the Kingdom of Norway and the United Arab Emirates without the United Arab
Emirates benefiting from the aforesaid reservation.
Verenigde Staten van Amerika
18-04-1988
The Government of the United States of America reserves the right to communicate, upon ratification, such reservations, interpretive understandings, or declarations as are deemed necessary.
21-10-1994
I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:
(1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article
16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', only insofar
as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel,
unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
(2) That pursuant to article 30 (2) the United States declares that it does not consider
itself bound by Article 30 (1), but reserves the right specifically to agree to follow
this or any other procedure for arbitration in a particular case.
II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which
shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:
(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order
to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical
or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged
mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened
infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application,
or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other
procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the
threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application
of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the
senses or personality.
(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1
is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender's custody
or physical control.
(c) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands
that `sanctions' includes judicially-imposed sanctions and other enforcement actions
authorized by United States law or by judicial interpretation of such law. Nonetheless,
the United States understands that a State Party could not through its domestic sanctions
defeat the object and purpose of the Convention to prohibit torture.
(d) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands
that the term `acquiescence' requires that the public official, prior to the activity
constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal
responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.
(e) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the Unites States understands
that noncompliance with applicable legal procedural standards does not per se constitute
torture.
(2) That the United States understands the phrase, `where there are substantial grounds
for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,' as used in
article 3 of the Convention, to mean `if it is more likely than not that he would
be tortured.'
(3) That it is the understanding of the United States that article 14 requires a State
Party to provide a private right of action for damages only for acts of torture committed
in territory under the jurisdiction of that State Party.
(4) That the United States understands that international law does not prohibit the
death penalty, and does not consider this Convention to restrict or prohibit the United
States from applying the death penalty consistent with the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including any constitutional
period of confinement prior to the imposition of the death penalty.
(5) That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by
the United States Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial
jurisdiction over the matters covered by the Convention and otherwise by the state
and local governments. Accordingly, in implementing articles 10-14 and 16, the United
States Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end
that the competent authorities of the constituent units of the United States of America
may take appropriate measures for the fulfilment of the Convention.
III. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declarations:
(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 16 of
the Convention are not self-executing.
The United States declares, pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention,
that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and
consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State
Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. It is the understanding
of the United States that, pursuant to the above-mentioned article, such communications
shall be accepted and processed only if they come from a State Party which has made
a similar declaration.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 26-02-1996
The Government of the Netherlands considers the reservation made by the United States
of America regarding the article 16 of [the Convention] to be incompatible with the
object and purpose of the Convention, to which the obligation laid down in article
16 is essential. Moreover, it is not clear how the provisions of the Constitution
of the United States of America relate to the obligations under the Convention. The
Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the said reservation.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States of America.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the following understandings
to have no impact on the obligations of the United States of America under the Convention:
II. 1 a This understanding appears to restrict the scope of the definition of torture
under article 1 of the Convention.
1 d This understanding diminishes the continuous responsibility of public officials
for behaviour of their subordinates.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves its position with regard
to the understandings II. 1b, 1c and 2 as the contents thereof are insufficiently
clear.
Bezwaar Duitsland, 26-02-1996
The Government of Germany notified the Secretary-General that with respect to the reservations under I (1) and understandings under II (2) and (3) made by the United States of America upon ratification "it is the understanding of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany that [the said reservations and understandings] do not touch upon the obligations of the United States of America as State Party to the Convention.
Bezwaar Finland, 27-02-1996
A reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying
its contents does not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent
to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore may cast
doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under
the Convention. Such a reservation is also, in the view of the Government of Finland,
subject to the general principle to treaty interpretation according to which a party
may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to
perform a treaty.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservation made by the United
States to article 16 of the Convention [(cf. Reservation I.(1)]. In this connection
the Government of Finland would also like to refer to its objection to the reservation
entered by the United States with regard to article 7 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights.
Bezwaar Zweden, 27-02-1996
The Government of Sweden would like to refer to its objections to the reservations
entered by the United States of America with regard to article 7 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [For the text of the objections see under
"Objections" in chapter IV.4]. The same reasons for objection apply to the now entered
reservation with regard to article 16 reservation I (1) of [the Convention]. The Government
of Sweden therefore objects to that reservation.
It is the view of the Government of Sweden that the understandings expressed by the
United States of America do not relieve the United States of America as a party to
the Convention from the responsibility to fulfil the obligations undertaken therein.
13-05-2014
The United States Mission to the United Nations presents its compliments to the United
Nations and has the honor to refer to the Secretary-General's depositary notification
C.N.184.2014, dated April 9, 2014, regarding the purported accession of the 'State
of Palestine' to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, done at New York, December 10, 1984.
The Government of the United States of America does not believe the 'State of Palestine'
qualifies as a sovereign State and does not recognize it as such. Accession to the
Convention is limited to sovereign States. Therefore, the Government of the United
States of America believes that the 'State of Palestine' is not qualified to accede
to the Convention and affirms that it will not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship
with the 'State of Palestine' under the Convention.
Vietnam
05-02-2015
The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam declares, in accordance with article 28 paragraph
1, that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article
20, and in accordance with article 30, paragraph 2, that it does not consider itself
bound by article 30, paragraph 1.
The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam does not consider the Convention as the direct
legal basis for extradition in respect of the offences referred to in Article 4 of
the Convention. Extradition shall be decided on the basis of extradition treaties
to which Viet Nam is a party or the principle of reciprocity, and shall be in accordance
with Vietnamese laws and regulations.
Bezwaar Polen, 04-02-2016
The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the declaration made by the
Socialist Republic of Viet Nam upon ratification of the Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted in New York
on December 10, 1984. The declaration meets the definition of a reservation laid out
in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
The Government of the Republic of Poland notes that the purpose and object of the
Convention is to ensure an enhanced effectiveness of the protection from torture and
other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment globally. To this end State-parties
took it upon themselves to undertake legislative, administrative, judicial or other
measures to prevent the use of torture.
The Government of the Republic of Poland notes that the reservation of the Socialist
Republic of Viet Nam – to the extent it concerns not recognizing the Convention as
a direct legal basis for extradition in relation to offences referred to in Article
4 – leads to an exemption of certain provisions of that treaty. The efficacy of Article
7, paragraph 1, and Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention will depend on the extradition
treaties binding the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam or on the domestic authorities'
decision regarding the principle of mutuality. Furthermore, the reservation may cause
the avoidance of the obligation to supplement the catalogue of offences in the already-binding
extradition treaties with the offence of use of torture as stipulated in Article 8,
paragraph 1, of the Convention.
It is the opinion of the Government of the Republic of Poland that the reservation
is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention in relation to the indicated
provisions and as such is not permissible.
Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Poland objects to the reservation made
by the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam to the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted in New York on December
10, I984.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Socialist Republic of Viet Nam and the Republic of Poland.
Zuid-Afrika
10-12-1998
[The Republic of South Africa declares that] it recognises, for the purposes of article
30 of the Convention, the competence of the International Court of Justice to settle
a dispute between two or more State Parties regarding the interpretation or application
of the Convention, respectively.
The Republic of South Africa declares that:
(a) it recognises, for the purposes of article 21 of the Convention, the competence
of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications that a State
Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the
Convention;
(b) it recognises, for the purposes of article 22 of the Convention, the competence
of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications from, or on
behalf of individuals who claim to be victims of torture by a State Party.
Zuid-Korea
09-11-2007
The Republic of Korea recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture,
pursuant to Article 21 of the ..... Convention, to receive and consider communications
to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling
its obligations under this Convention ...
[The Republic of Korea] ..... recognizes the competence of the ..... Committee [against
Torture], pursuant to Article 22 of the ..... Convention, to receive and consider
communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim
to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Zweden
08-01-1986
Sweden recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling
its obligations under this Convention.
Sweden recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims
of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.
Zwitserland
02-12-1986
(a) Pursuant to the Federal Decree of 6 October 1986 on the approval of the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the
Federal Council declares, in accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention,
that Switzerland recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive
and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that Switzerland
is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
(b) Pursuant to the above-mentioned Federal Decree, the Federal Council declares,
in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that Switzerland recognizes
the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on
behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation
by Switzerland of the provisions of the Convention.