Print
Download XMLInternationaal Verdrag inzake de bescherming van alle personen tegen gedwongen verdwijning
Partijen met voorbehouden, verklaringen en bezwaren
| Partij | Voorbehoud / verklaring | Bezwaren |
|---|---|---|
| Albanië | Ja | Nee |
| Argentinië | Ja | Nee |
| België | Ja | Nee |
| Bosnië en Herzegovina | Ja | Nee |
| Chili | Ja | Nee |
| Colombia | Ja | Nee |
| Cuba | Ja | Nee |
| Denemarken | Ja | Nee |
| Duitsland | Ja | Nee |
| Ecuador | Ja | Nee |
| Fiji | Ja | Nee |
| Finland | Ja | Nee |
| Frankrijk | Ja | Nee |
| Japan | Ja | Nee |
| Kroatië | Ja | Nee |
| Litouwen | Ja | Nee |
| Luxemburg | Ja | Nee |
| Mali | Ja | Nee |
| Marokko | Ja | Nee |
| Mexico | Ja | Nee |
| Montenegro | Ja | Nee |
| Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der | Ja | Nee |
| Noorwegen | Ja | Nee |
| Oekraïne | Ja | Nee |
| Oman | Ja | Ja |
| Oostenrijk | Ja | Nee |
| Peru | Ja | Nee |
| Portugal | Ja | Nee |
| Servië | Ja | Nee |
| Slovenië | Ja | Nee |
| Slowakije | Ja | Nee |
| Spanje | Ja | Nee |
| Sri Lanka | Ja | Nee |
| Sudan | Ja | Nee |
| Tsjechië | Ja | Nee |
| Uruguay | Ja | Nee |
| Venezuela | Ja | Nee |
| Zuid-Korea | Ja | Nee |
| Zwitserland | Ja | Nee |
Albanië
08-11-2007
In accordance with Article 31 of [...] [the International Convention for the Protection
of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance], the Republic of Albania declares that
it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims
of a violation of provisions of this Convention by Albanian State.
In accordance with Article 32 of [...] [the International Convention for the Protection
of all Presons from Enforced Disappearance], the Republic of Albania declares that
it recognizes the compentence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations
under this Convention.
Argentinië
11-06-2008
In accordance with the provisions of article[s] 31, paragraph 1 [ ... ] of the International
Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Argentine
Republic recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to
receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to the
jurisdiction of the Argentine Republic claiming to be victims of a violation by the
State of any of the provisions of the Convention [ ... ].
In accordance with the provisions of [ ... ] article[s] 32 of the International Convention
for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Argentine Republic
recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances [... ] to receive
and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party
is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
België
02-06-2011
The Kingdom of Belgium declares that in accordance with article 31 of the Convention,
[Belgium] recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to
receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its
jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of this Convention
by the Kingdom of Belgium.
The Kingdom of Belgium declares, in accordance with article 32 of the Convention,
that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive
and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party
is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.
Bosnië en Herzegovina
13-12-2012
Bosnia and Herzegovina hereby declares that in accordance with article 31 of the International
Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted
in New York, December 20, 2006, Bosnia and Herzegovina recognizes the competence of
the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from
or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of
a violation of provisions of this Convention by Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Bosnia and Herzegovina hereby declares, in accordance with article 32 of the International
Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted
in New York, December 20, 2006, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee
on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State
Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the
Convention.
Chili
08-12-2009
The Republic of Chile hereby declares, in accordance with article 31 of this Convention,
that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims
of a violation by this State Party of provisions of this Convention.
The Republic of Chile hereby declares, in accordance with article 32 of this Convention,
that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations
under this Convention.
Colombia
07-09-2022
… the Republic of Colombian declares that, in accordance with article 31 of the Convention, it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Colombia, claiming to be victims of a violation of any of the provisions of the Convention by the Republic of Colombia.
Cuba
02-02-2009
The Republic of Cuba hereby declares, in accordance with article 42, paragraph 2, that it does not consider itself obliged to refer its disputes to the International Court of Justice, as provided for in paragraph 1 of the same article.
Denemarken
13-01-2022
Territorial exclusion in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland.
Duitsland
24-09-2009
Article 16
The prohibition of return shall only apply if the person concerned faces a real risk
of being subjected to enforced disappearance.
Regarding Art. 17 (2) (f)
Under German law it is guaranteed that deprivation of liberty is only lawful if it
has been ordered by a court or - in exceptional cases - subsequently authorized by
a court. Article 104 para. 2 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) expressly provides: 'Only
a judge may rule upon the permissibility or continuation of any deprivation of liberty.
If such a deprivation is not based on a judicial order, a judicial decision shall
be obtained without delay'. Article 104 para. 3 of the Basic Law provides that a person
who has been provisionally arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence
'shall be brought before a judge no later than the day following the arrest'.
In the event that a person is being held arbitrarily in contravention of Article 104
of the Basic Law, anyone can bring about a judicial decision leading to that person's
release by applying to the competent Local Court for his/her immediate release. If
the person concerned has been detained beyond the time limit permissible under the
Basic Law, the court has to order that person's release pursuant to section 128 (2),
first sentence, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung, StPO).
Article 17 para. 3
In the case of an involuntary placement of sick persons by a custodian or a person
having power of attorney, the information required under letters (a) to (h) is known
to the court which authorizes the placement. The court can ascertain the information
required under letters (a) to (h) at any time through the custodian or person having
power of attorney; the information is then included in the case-file. This information
is also to be regarded as records within the meaning of article 17 para. 3.
Regarding Article 18
Under German law, all persons with a legitimate interest are entitled to obtain information
from the court files. The restrictions provided for in German law for the protection
of the interests of the person concerned or for safeguarding the criminal proceedings
are permissible pursuant to Article 20 para. 1 of the Convention.
Regarding Article 24 para. 4
It is clarified that the envisaged provision on reparation and compensation does not
abrogate the principle of state immunity.
21-06-2012
In accordance with Article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of
all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CED) of 20 December 2006, the Federal Republic
of Germany declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced
Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals
subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Republic of Germany claiming to be victims
of a violation of provisions of this Convention by the Federal Republic of Germany.
In accordance with Article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of
all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CED) of 20 December 2006, the Federal Republic
of Germany declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced
Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims
that the Federal Republic of Germany is not fulfilling its obligations under this
Convention.
Ecuador
15-07-2011
In accordance with the provisions of article 31 (1) of the International Convention
for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Republic of Ecuador
recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims
of violations of provisions of this Convention by this State Party.
In accordance with the provisions of article 32 of the Convention for the Protection
of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Republic of Ecuador recognizes the
competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in which a State
Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the
Convention.
Fiji
19-08-2019
The Government of the Republic of Fiji declares that it does not consider itself bound
by provisions of Article 42(1).
Finland
24-03-2023
Emphasizing the importance of prior verification of the conditions for adoption, in the best interests of the child, and thus having reservations about a separate procedure for annulling adoption but recognizing, however, the possibility of reviewing adoption in exceptional cases, the Republic of Finland considers that it is not bound by the provisions of Article 25, paragraph 4 of the Convention in respect of annulling the adoption of the children referred to in Article 25, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) of the Convention.
24-03-2023
In accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 of the Convention, the Republic of Finland declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by Finland of provisions of the Convention.
24-03-2023
In accordance with Article 32 of the Convention, the Republic of Finland declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that Finland is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.
Frankrijk
09-12-2008
[ ... ] in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 31, [France] recognizes
the competence of the Committee on enforced disappearance to receive and consider
communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming
to be victims of a violation of provisions of this Convention by France.
[ ... ] in accordance with article 32, [France] recognizes the competence of the Committee
on enforced disappearance to receive and consider communications in which a State
Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this
Convention.
Japan
23-07-2009
In accordance with Article 32 of the Convention, the Government of Japan declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.
Kroatië
31-01-2022
Declaration under Article 31
The Republic of Croatia recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and
consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction
claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of this Convention.
Declaration under Article 32
The Republic of Croatia recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and
consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is
not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
Litouwen
14-08-2013
[...] in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention, the Seimas of the Republic
of Lithuania declares that the Republic of Lithuania recognizes the competence of
the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from
or on behalf of individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Lithuania
claiming to be victims of a violation by the Republic of Lithuania of provisions of
this Convention.
[...] in accordance with Article 32 of the Convention, the Seimas of the Republic
of Lithuania declares that the Republic of Lithuania recognizes the competence of
the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in
which a State Party to this Convention claims that the Republic of Lithuania is not
fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
Luxemburg
20-02-2023
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg declares, in accordance with article 31 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of persons subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg of the provisions of the Convention.
20-02-2023
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg declares, in accordance with article 32 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.
Mali
02-02-2010
The Government of the Republic of Mali declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive communications from individuals or any other State Party in accordance with the provisions of articles 31 and 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearance, adopted on December 20, 2006.
Marokko
14-05-2013
Pursuant to 42 (2) of the Convention, the Kingdom of Morocco does not consider itself
bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article and declares that for any dispute
between two or more States to be brought before the International Court of Justice,
it is necessary to have, in each case, the agreement of all States parties to the
dispute.
Mexico
02-10-2020
In accordance with the provisions of article 31 (1) of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the United Mexican States declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of the Convention by the United Mexican States.
Montenegro
20-09-2011
In accordance with Article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection al
All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted in New York, December 20, 2006, the
Government of Montenegro declares that Montenegro recognizes the competence of the
Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or
on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation
by Montenegro of provisions of this Convention.
In accordance with Article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection al
All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted in New York, December 20, 2006, the
Government of Montenegro declares that Montenegro recognizes the competence of the
Committee to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that
another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der
23-03-2011
In accordance with Article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of
all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for the European
part of the Netherlands and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of
Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba), declares that it recognizes the competence of the
Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or
on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation
by the Kingdom of the Netherlands of provisions of this Convention.
In accordance with Article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of
all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for the European
part of the Netherlands and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of
Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba), declares that it recognizes the competence of the
Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which
a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under
this Convention.
21-12-2017
In accordance with Article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of
all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for Aruba,
declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances
to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to
its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by the Kingdom of the Netherlands
of provisions of this Convention.
In accordance with Article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of
all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for Aruba,
declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances
to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another
State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
Noorwegen
22-08-2019
Article 17 (2):
The Kingdom of Norway declares its understanding that whether and to what extent the
various provisions of the Convention apply in situations of armed conflict will depend
on an interpretation of the provision in question in the light of international humanitarian
law, having regard to general principles of interpretation that apply where several
regimes of international law are relevant, such as the principle of harmonisation
and the principle of lex specialis.
To the extent that Article 17 (2) of the Convention may be interpreted as requiring
each State Party to establish ‘in its legislation’ conditions for and guarantees related
to deprivation of liberty that apply in situations of armed conflict, the Kingdom
of Norway reserves the right not to apply this provision in such situations. Deprivation
of liberty during armed conflict is not currently regulated in formal Norwegian law.
In Norway, the rules concerning deprivation of liberty during armed conflict are set
out in the Norwegian Armed Forces’ Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict and in the
rules adopted for each specific operation, including the rules of engagement.
Article 20 (1), in conjunction with Article 18:
The Kingdom of Norway declares its understanding that Article 20 (1) of the Convention,
which permits restrictions on the right to information referred to in Article 18 on
an exceptional basis, where ‘strictly necessary’ and ‘if the transmission of the information
would adversely affect the privacy’ of the person deprived of liberty, allows for
weight to be given to an assessment by the person concerned of whether these conditions
are met.
This applies provided that the information, viewed objectively, is of a sensitive
personal nature, that the person concerned is under the protection of the law and
that the deprivation of liberty is subject to judicial control.
Thus, it is the understanding of the Kingdom of Norway that, depending on the circumstances,
access to information may be denied if the person deprived of liberty does not consent
to the disclosure of sensitive personal information on grounds of privacy.
Oekraïne
14-08-2015
Regarding articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, Ukraine empowers the Prosecutor General’s
Office of Ukraine (concerning request during the pre-trial investigation) and Ministry
of Justice of Ukraine (concerning request during the court proceedings or execution
of judgments) to consider requests according to Articles 10-14 of Convention.
[…]
Regarding Article 42 of the Convention, Ukraine does not consider itself bound by
the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 42 concerning additional procedures of settlement
of disputes by arbitration or the International Court of Justice.
Regarding Article 31 of the Convention, Ukraine recognizes the competence of the Committee
on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf
of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of violation of
provisions of the Convention by Ukraine.
Regarding Article 32 of the Convention, Ukraine recognizes the competence of the Committee
on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State
Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the
Convention.
Oman
12-06-2020
Firstly, the Government of the Sultanate of Oman does not recognize the competence
of the Committee in cases of enforced disappearances provided in article 33 of the
aforementioned Convention.
Secondly, the Government of the Sultanate of Oman does not consider itself bound by
the provisions of article 42, paragraph 1 of the aforementioned Convention.
Bezwaar Duitsland, 13-01-2021
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservation
made by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman on June 12, 2020 to Article 33 of
the International Convention of December 20, 2006 for the Protection of All Persons
from Enforced Disappearance (hereinafter referred to as “the International Convention”).
(i) It notes that undertakings by the Committee on Enforced Disappearances (hereinafter
referred to as the “the Committee”) under Article 33 of the International Convention
are not conditional upon a general recognition of the Committee’s competence by the
State party. Rather, its competence under that provision is related to the elucidation
of allegations of serious violations of the Convention, based on reliable information
received by the Committee. Article 33, paragraphs 2 and 4, clarify that the Committee
may carry out the measures referred to in paragraph 1 only if it reaches agreement
with the State Party concerned on a case-by-case basis.
The Committee must also seek the consent of the State Party to take measures under
Article 33, even if the State party has generally accepted the Committee’s competence
under Articles 31 and 32. However, just as in the case of the conduct of measures
under Article 34, the competence of the Committee under Article 33 cannot be excluded
as a matter of principle.
(ii) The reservation made by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman is inadmissible
under article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties because it is
incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. The object and purpose of
the International Convention is to give the Committee, in cases of suspicion, based
on reliable information, of a serious violation of the International Convention, the
competence, with the consent of the State party to request on a case-bycase basis
one or more members of the Committee to undertake a visit and to report to the Committee
on the visit, in order to enable the Committee to communicate observations and recommendations
to the State party concerned on the basis of the information obtained. By not recognizing
the competence of the Committee, which is inherent in the International Convention,
the Government of the Sultanate of Oman is unduly restricting the Committee’s competence,
which exists as a matter of principle under Article 33 of the International Convention.
(iii) The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the reservation
to Article 33 of the International Convention.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 09-06-2021
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation
made by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman upon accession to the International
Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance on 12 June
2020, relating to article 33 thereof.
The competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances under article 33 – as opposed
to its competence under articles 31 and 32 – is not conditional upon general recognition
by individual State Parties. A visit under article 33 requires prior consultation
with the State Party concerned and notification in writing (paragraphs 1-2); moreover,
upon a substantiated request by the State Party, the Committee may decide to postpone
or cancel its visit (paragraph 3). Therefore, article 33 only refers to visits and
the involvement of the State Party concerned on a case-by-case basis. The competence
of the Committee under article 33 cannot be excluded as a matter of principle.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers a general exclusion of
the Committee’s competence under article 33 of the Convention, as conveyed in the
reservation of the Sultanate of Oman, an unduly restriction of the Committee’s competence
under the Convention. Such reservation unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention,
contrary to its object and purpose of preventing enforced disappearances and combatting
impunity for the crime of enforced disappearance, and the competence of the Committee
under article 33 to verify reliable information on serious violations of the Convention
to these ends.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to customary
international law as codified in article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a Convention
are not permissible.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation
of the Sultanate of Oman relating to article 33 of the International Convention for
the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. This objection shall not
preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands
and the Sultanate of Oman.
Bezwaar Zwitserland, 11-06-2021
The Swiss Federal Council has examined the first reservation made by the Sultanate
of Oman upon its accession to the International Convention for the Protection of All
Persons from Enforced Disappearance of 20 December 2006, expressed as follows: “Firstly,
the Government of the Sultanate of Oman does not recognize the competence of the Committee
in cases of enforced disappearances provided in article 33 of the aforementioned Convention.”
The Swiss Federal Council recalls that the competence of the Committee under article
33 of the Convention is a binding competence that does not require prior recognition
by the States parties.
The Swiss Federal Council considers that the reservation made by the Sultanate of
Oman – which has the effect of generally ruling out any visit by the Committee to
Oman in case of allegations of serious violations of the provisions of the Convention
based on credible information – violates one of the essential elements of the Convention,
which is necessary for its overall balance, in such a way as to compromise its rationale.
Consequently, the reservation made by the Sultanate of Oman is incompatible with the
object and purpose of the Convention.
It is in the common interest of States that instruments to which they have chosen
to become parties are respected by all the parties, as to their object and purpose,
and that States are prepared to comply with their treaty obligations.
The Swiss Federal Council therefore objects to the reservation made by the Sultanate
of Oman.
This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Convention, in its entirety,
between Switzerland and the Sultanate of Oman.
Bezwaar Portugal, 14-06-2021
The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservation made by the
Government of the Sultanate of Oman on 12 June 2020 to Article 33 of the International
Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted
in New York, on 20 December 2006 (henceforth referred to as “the Convention”).
Firstly, the Government of the Portuguese Republic notes that a reservation through
which a State Party generally excludes action by the Committee on Enforced Disappearances
(henceforth referred to as “the Committee”) under Article 33 defies a systematic interpretation
of the Convention.
Articles 31 and 32 of the Convention provide for the cases where a State may declare
to generally recognise the competence of the Committee for certain purposes. Conversely,
possible action by the Committee under Article 33 of the Convention is not reliant
on such a recognition of competence; on the contrary, it necessarily rests on a [case-by-case]
assessment.
Article 33 establishes procedures for the Committee to – subject to certain conditions
and with a view to provide observations and recommendations – conduct a visit to a
State Party if it receives reliable information indicating that said State Party is
seriously violating the provisions of the Convention. Such possible action by the
Committee is subject to cumulative conditions under Article 33:
i) The Committee must have received reliable information indicating that a State Party
is seriously violating the provisions of the Convention;
ii) The Committee must consult the State Party concerned on that received information;
iii) Only then, having decided to do so, may the Committee request one or more of
its members to undertake a visit and report back to it without delay (i.e., it is
not mandatory for the Committee to conduct the visit);
iv) For that visit to take place, the State Party concerned needs to agree to it,
having been prior[l]y notified by the Committee, in writing, of the intention to organize
a visit, indicating the composition of the delegation and the purpose of the visit.
The modalities of the visit are defined by the Committee and the State Party concerned.
Consequently, even in the cases where a State Party has declared to accept the competence
of the Committee in relation to Article 31 and/or Article 32 of the Convention, action
by the Committee under Article 33 is still subject to those conditions, including
the express consent by the State Party concerned.
Secondly, the Government of the Portuguese Republic recalls that, according to customary
international law codified under subparagraph c) of Article 19 of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose
of the Convention shall not be permitted.
Possible action by the Committee under Article 33 is an essential mechanism to the
protection of persons from enforced disappearance, as an important monitoring procedure
of the Convention.
The object and purpose of a treaty should be understood from a functional perspective,
i.e., including not only the guiding principles and general objectives of the treaty,
but also all the mechanisms and procedures established for the prosecution of said
objectives.
The object and purpose of the Convention is the protection of all persons from enforced
disappearances and the Convention provides mechanisms and procedures – including the
possible action by the Committee under Article 33 – aimed at preventing and mitigating
violations of the rights and freedoms protected under the Convention.
Thus, a reservation through which a State Party generally excludes action by the Committee
under Article 33 as a matter of principle is incompatible with the object and purpose
of the Convention.
Article 33 establishes a possible (non-mandatory) monitoring procedure by the Committee
in cases of reliably alleged serious violations of the Convention. That monitoring
procedure entails visits of one or more member of the Committee to the State Party
concerned, visits that are authorized on a case-by-case basis. Should a visit take
place, its outcome are observations and recommendations by the Committee.
In this regard, the Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that this reservation,
insofar as seeks to generally exclude possible action by the Committee under Article
33 of the Convention, is inadmissible for being incompatible with the object and purpose
of the Convention.
Hence, the Government of the Portuguese Republic objects to this reservation.
Notwithstanding, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention
between the Portuguese Republic and the Sultanate of Oman.
Bezwaar België, 14-06-2021
The Kingdom of Belgium has carefully examined the reservation made by the Sultanate
of Oman on 12 June 2020 to Article 33 of the International Convention for the Protection
of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, done at New York on 20 December 2006 (hereinafter
“the Convention”).
The Kingdom of Belgium notes that the reservation aims to exclude any visits by the
Committee on Enforced Disappearances (hereinafter “the Committee”) pursuant to Article
33.
However, visits which the Committee intends to make under Article 33 of the Convention
are not subject to prior recognition of the competence of the Committee by the State
concerned. Under Article 33, the Committee is competent to consider allegations, based
on credible information, of serious violations of the Convention by a State Party.
Paragraphs 2 and 4 specify that the Committee may only implement the measures provided
for in paragraph 1 if it reaches agreement with the State Party concerned. While States
Parties may request the postponement or cancellation of a visit, they cannot exclude
as a matter of principle any visit by the Committee under Article 33.
Committee visits of the kind provided for in Article 33 are an integral part of the
system established by the Convention and an essential element of its implementation.
By not recognizing the competence which Article 33 confers on the Committee, the Sultanate
of Oman is unduly limiting the Committee's competence, which is inherent in the Convention.
The Kingdom of Belgium therefore considers that this reservation is contrary to the
object and purpose of the Convention. The Kingdom of Belgium wishes to recall that,
under the terms of Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State
cannot formulate a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of
a treaty.
Consequently, the Kingdom of Belgium objects to the above-mentioned reservation made
by the Sultanate of Oman to the International Convention for the Protection of All
Persons from Enforced Disappearance. This objection does not preclude the entry into
force of the Convention as between Belgium and Oman.
Bezwaar Frankrijk, 15-06-2021
... the Government of the French Republic has carefully examined the reservation made
by the Sultanate of Oman upon its accession to the International Convention for the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, expressed as follows: “the
Government of the Sultanate of Oman does not recognize the competence of the Committee
in cases of enforced disappearances provided in article 33 of the aforementioned Convention.”
The object and purpose of the Convention is to prevent enforced disappearances and
to combat impunity for the crime of enforced disappearance. By virtue of article 26
of the Convention, a Committee on Enforced Disappearances, consisting of 10 experts
elected by the States Parties, is established to implement the provisions of the Convention.
The Committee is a core mechanism of the Convention.
The reservation made by the Sultanate of Oman thus relates to a core function of the
Committee – indeed, one that is operational and practical in nature– in preventing
and combatting impunity for the crime of enforced disappearance. Moreover, States
Parties that are to be visited by the Committee retain the option of asking the Committee
to postpone or cancel the visit. There are therefore no grounds for rejecting, by
means of the reservation, a cooperation mechanism intended to fulfil the purposes
of the Convention.
The Government of the French Republic recalls that, according to customary international
law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, a
reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be
permitted.
The Government of the French Republic therefore objects to the reservation made by
the Sultanate of Oman. The present objection does not, however, prevent the entry
into force of the Convention between the French Republic and the Sultanate of Oman.
Bezwaar Finland, 24-03-2023
The Government of the Republic of Finland has carefully examined the reservation made
by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman to Article 33 of the International Convention
for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (hereinafter “the Convention”).
The Government of the Republic of Finland notes that the competence of the Committee
on enforced Disappearances under Article 33 of the Convention is not conditional upon
general recognition by the State Party. The Government of the Republic of Finland
considers that Committee visits provided for in Article 33 of the Convention form
an essential part of the implementation of the Convention. A general exclusion of
the Committee’s competence in case of suspicion of serious violation of the provisions
of the Convention unduly restricts the Committee’s competence and casts doubts on
the commitment of the Sultanate of Oman to the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Republic of Finland thus considers that the above-mentioned
reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and is accordingly
not permitted under Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Finland objects to the reservation made
by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman to Article 33 of the Convention. This objection
shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of
Finland and the Sultanate of Oman. The Convention will thus become operative between
the two states without the Sultanate of Oman benefitting from the aforementioned reservation.
Oostenrijk
07-06-2012
Pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, the Republic of Austria recognizes the competence
of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims
of a violation of provisions of this Convention by Austria.
Pursuant to Article 32 of the Convention, the Republic of Austria recognizes the competence
of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications
in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations
under the Convention.
Peru
22-07-2016
In accordance with article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, the Republic of Peru declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction, claiming to be victims of a violation of the provisions of the Convention by the Republic of Peru.
Portugal
27-01-2014
The Portuguese Republic declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee
on Enforced Disappearances in accordance and for the purposes of Article 31, paragraph
1 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance, adopted in New York, on the Twentieth of December of two thousand and
six.
The Portuguese Republic declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee
on Enforced Disappearance[s] in accordance and for the purposes of Article 32 of the
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance,
adopted in New York, on the Twentieth of December of two thousand and six.
Servië
18-05-2011
Article 31(1):
The Republic of Serbia recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider
communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming
to be victims of a violation by the Republic of Serbia of provisions of this Convention.
Article 32:
The Republic of Serbia recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider
communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling
its obligations under this Convention.
Slovenië
15-12-2021
In accordance with Article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of
All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, Republic of Slovenia declares that it recognizes
the competence of the Committee under the said Article to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction, claiming to be victims
of violations by Republic of Slovenia of provisions of this Convention.
In accordance with Article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of
All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, Republic of Slovenia declares that it recognizes
the competence of the Committee under the said Article to receive and consider communications
in which a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations
under this Convention.
Slowakije
15-12-2014
In accordance with Article 31 of the Convention, the Slovak Republic declares that
it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive
and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to the jurisdiction
of the Slovak Republic claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of this
Convention by the Slovak Republic.
In accordance with Article 32 of the Convention, the Slovak Republic declares that
it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive
and consider communications in which a State Party claims that the Slovak Republic
is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
Spanje
05-01-2011
In accordance with article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of
All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Kingdom of Spain declares that it recognizes
the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on
behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction, claiming to be victims of violations
by Spain of provisions of this Convention.
In accordance with article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of
All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Kingdom of Spain declares that it recognizes
the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in which a
State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under
this Convention.
Sri Lanka
25-05-2016
… the Government [of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka] wishes to declare as per Article 32 of the Convention that ‘it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
Sudan
10-08-2021
… the Government of the Republic of the Sudan, in accordance with article (42) paragraph (2) doesn’t consider itself bound by the provisions of the article (42) paragraph (1) of this Convention.
Tsjechië
08-02-2017
… pursuant to Article 31 (1) of the International Convention for the Protection of
All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Czech Republic declares that it recognizes
the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider
communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming
to be victims of a violation by the Czech Republic of provisions of this Convention.
… pursuant to Article 32 of the of the International Convention for the Protection
of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Czech Republic declares that it recognizes
the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider
communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling
its obligations under this Convention.
Uruguay
04-03-2009
In accordance with article 31, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay
recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and
consider communications submitted by or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction
claiming to be victims of a violation by that State of the provisions of that Convention.
(...) in accordance with article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection
of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay recognizes
the competence of the Committee [on Enforced Disappearances] to receive and consider
communications in which a State party claims that the Uruguayan State is not fulfilling
its obligations under that Convention.
Venezuela
21-10-2008
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in accordance with article 42, paragraph 2, of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, hereby formulates a specific reservation concerning the provisions of paragraph 1 of that article. Therefore, it does not consider itself to be obliged to resort to arbitration as a dispute settlement mechanism, nor does it recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
Zuid-Korea
04-01-2023
In accordance with Article 31 of the Convention, the Republic of Korea declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of this Convention by the Republic of Korea.
04-01-2023
In accordance with Article 32 of the Convention, the Republic of Korea declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
Zwitserland
02-12-2016
In accordance with article 31 of the Convention, Switzerland recognizes the competence
of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications
from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims
of a violation of provisions of this Convention by Switzerland.
In accordance with article 32 of the Convention, Switzerland recognizes the competence
of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications
in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations
under the Convention.