Доступ

Для того чтобы поставить документ на контроль, вам нужно авторизоваться.Если у вас нет логина и пароля, зарегистрируйтесь

СПРАВКА О ФАКУЛЬТАТИВНОМ ПРОТОКОЛЕ ОТ 16.12.66

Факультативный протокол к Международному пакту о гражданских и политических правах

 

Факультативный протокол принят и открыт для подписания, ратификации и присоединения резолюцией 2200 А (XXI) Генеральной Ассамблеи ООН от 19 декабря 1966 г.

 

В соответствии со статьей 9 Факультативный протокол вступил в силу 23 марта 1976 г.

 

О присоединении СССР к Факультативному протоколу к Международному пакту о гражданских и политических правах см. постановление Комитета конституционного надзора СССР от 4 апреля 1991 г. № 21

 

Предложение о подписании настоящего протокола внесено на рассмотрение Президента Республики Казахстан в соответствии с постановлением Правительства РК от 13.09.07 г. № 802

 

Проект Закона о ратификации внесен на рассмотрение Мажилиса Парламента РК постановлением Правительства РК от 18 марта 2008 года № 257

 

Ратифицирован Законом РК от 11 февраля 2009 года № 130-IV с заявлением

 

Текст Факультативного протокола опубликован в Собрании международных документов «Права человека и судопроизводство», OSCE, Poland

 

Республика Беларусь:

Ратифицирован постановлением Верховного Совета Республики Беларусь от 10 января 1992 г., № 1393-XII.

Денонсирован Законом Республики Беларусь от 27 октября 2022 г., № 217-З.

 

Кыргызская Республика:

Присоединилась Постановлением Жогорку Кенеша Кыргызской Республики от 12 января 1994 г., № 1406-XII.

 

Республика Азербайджан:

Ратифицирован Законом Азербайджанской Республики от 29 июня 2001 г., № 162-IIQ

 

United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 315-317. Текст доступен в сети Интернет на: <http://www.un.org/russian/documen/convents/pactpro1.htm> [дата обращения к источнику: 16.07.2007]

 

http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-5&chapter=4&lang=en#EndDec

 

STATUS AS AT : 04-09-2009 06:02:29 EDT

CHAPTER IV

HUMAN RIGHTS

 

5 . Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

New York, 16 December 1966

Entry into force

:

23 March 1976, in accordance with article 9

Registration

:

23 March 1976, No. 14668

Status

:

Signatories : 35. Parties : 112. 1, 2, 3

Text

:

United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 999, p. 171.

 

 

Note

:

The Protocol was opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966.

 

 

 

Participant 4, 5

Signature, Succession to signature(d)

Ratification, Accession(a), Succession(d)

Albania

 

 4 Oct 2007 a

Algeria

 

12 Sep 1989 a

Andorra

 5 Aug 2002

22 Sep 2006

Angola

 

10 Jan 1992 a

Argentina

 

 8 Aug 1986 a

Armenia

 

23 Jun 1993 a

Australia

 

25 Sep 1991 a

Austria

10 Dec 1973

10 Dec 1987

Azerbaijan

 

27 Nov 2001 a

Barbados

 

 5 Jan 1973 a

Belarus

 

30 Sep 1992 a

Belgium

 

17 May 1994 a

Benin

 

12 Mar 1992 a

Bolivia

 

12 Aug 1982 a

Bosnia and Herzegovina

 1 Mar 1995

 1 Mar 1995

Bulgaria

 

26 Mar 1992 a

Burkina Faso

 

 4 Jan 1999 a

Cambodia

27 Sep 2004

 

Cameroon

 

27 Jun 1984 a

Canada

 

19 May 1976 a

Cape Verde

 

19 May 2000 a

Central African Republic

 

 8 May 1981 a

Chad

 

 9 Jun 1995 a

Chile

 

27 May 1992 a

Colombia

21 Dec 1966

29 Oct 1969

Congo

 

 5 Oct 1983 a

Costa Rica

19 Dec 1966

29 Nov 1968

Côte d'Ivoire

 

 5 Mar 1997 a

Croatia

 

12 Oct 1995 a

Cyprus

19 Dec 1966

15 Apr 1992

Czech Republic 6

 

22 Feb 1993 d

Democratic Republic of the Congo

 

 1 Nov 1976 a

Denmark

20 Mar 1968

 6 Jan 1972

Djibouti

 

 5 Nov 2002 a

Dominican Republic

 

 4 Jan 1978 a

Ecuador

 4 Apr 1968

 6 Mar 1969

El Salvador

21 Sep 1967

 6 Jun 1995

Equatorial Guinea

 

25 Sep 1987 a

Estonia

 

21 Oct 1991 a

Finland

11 Dec 1967

19 Aug 1975

France

 

17 Feb 1984 a

Gambia

 

 9 Jun 1988 a

Georgia

 

 3 May 1994 a

Germany

 

25 Aug 1993 a

Ghana

 7 Sep 2000

 7 Sep 2000

Greece

 

 5 May 1997 a

Guatemala

 

28 Nov 2000 a

Guinea

19 Mar 1975

17 Jun 1993

Guinea-Bissau

12 Sep 2000

 

Guyana 2

 

 5 Jan 1999 a

Honduras

19 Dec 1966

 7 Jun 2005

Hungary

 

 7 Sep 1988 a

Iceland

 

22 Aug 1979 a

Ireland

 

 8 Dec 1989 a

Italy

30 Apr 1976

15 Sep 1978

Jamaica 3

[19 Dec 1966 ]

[  3 Oct 1975 ]

Kazakhstan

25 Sep 2007

30 Jun 2009

Kyrgyzstan

 

 7 Oct 1994 a

Latvia

 

22 Jun 1994 a

Lesotho

 

 6 Sep 2000 a

Liberia

22 Sep 2004

 

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

 

16 May 1989 a

Liechtenstein

 

10 Dec 1998 a

Lithuania

 

20 Nov 1991 a

Luxembourg

 

18 Aug 1983 a

Madagascar

17 Sep 1969

21 Jun 1971

Malawi

 

11 Jun 1996 a

Maldives

 

19 Sep 2006 a

Mali

 

24 Oct 2001 a

Malta

 

13 Sep 1990 a

Mauritius

 

12 Dec 1973 a

Mexico

 

15 Mar 2002 a

Mongolia

 

16 Apr 1991 a

Montenegro 7

 

23 Oct 2006 d

Namibia

 

28 Nov 1994 a

Nauru

12 Nov 2001

 

Nepal

 

14 May 1991 a

Netherlands 8

25 Jun 1969

11 Dec 1978

New Zealand 9

 

26 May 1989 a

Nicaragua

 

12 Mar 1980 a

Niger

 

 7 Mar 1986 a

Norway

20 Mar 1968

13 Sep 1972

Panama

27 Jul 1976

 8 Mar 1977

Paraguay

 

10 Jan 1995 a

Peru

11 Aug 1977

 3 Oct 1980

Philippines

19 Dec 1966

22 Aug 1989

Poland

 

 7 Nov 1991 a

Portugal

 1 Aug 1978

 3 May 1983

Republic of Korea

 

10 Apr 1990 a

Republic of Moldova

16 Sep 2005

23 Jan 2008

Romania

 

20 Jul 1993 a

Russian Federation

 

 1 Oct 1991 a

San Marino

 

18 Oct 1985 a

Sao Tome and Principe

 6 Sep 2000

 

Senegal

 6 Jul 1970

13 Feb 1978

Serbia

12 Mar 2001 d

 6 Sep 2001

Seychelles

 

 5 May 1992 a

Sierra Leone

 

23 Aug 1996 a

Slovakia 6

 

28 May 1993 d

Slovenia

 

16 Jul 1993 a

Somalia

 

24 Jan 1990 a

South Africa

 

28 Aug 2002 a

Spain

 

25 Jan 1985 a

Sri Lanka

 

 3 Oct 1997 a

St. Vincent and the Grenadines

 

 9 Nov 1981 a

Suriname

 

28 Dec 1976 a

Sweden

29 Sep 1967

 6 Dec 1971

Tajikistan

 

 4 Jan 1999 a

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

12 Dec 1994 d

12 Dec 1994

Togo

 

30 Mar 1988 a

Trinidad and Tobago 1

 

[14 Nov 1980 a]

Turkey

 3 Feb 2004

24 Nov 2006

Turkmenistan

 

 1 May 1997 a

Uganda

 

14 Nov 1995 a

Ukraine

 

25 Jul 1991 a

Uruguay

21 Feb 1967

 1 Apr 1970

Uzbekistan

 

28 Sep 1995 a

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

15 Nov 1976

10 May 1978

Zambia

 

10 Apr 1984 a

 

 

 

 

Close Declaration

Declarations and Reservations

(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon
ratification, accession or succession.)

Austria

Austria

       "On the understanding that, further to the provisions of article 5 (2) of the Protocol, the Committee provided for in Article 28 of the Covenant shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has been ascertained that the same matter has not been examined by the European Commission on Human Rights established by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms."

Chile

Chile

Declaration:

       In recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals, it is the understanding of the Government of Chile that this competence applies in respect of acts occurring after the entry into force for that State of the Optional Protocol or, in any event, to acts which began after 11 March 1990.

Croatia

Croatia

Declaration:

       "The Republic of Croatia interprets article 1 of this Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Croatia who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of any rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the Republic of Croatia."
       "With regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (a) of the Protocol, the Republic of Croatia specifies that the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter is being examined or has already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement."

Denmark

Denmark

       "With reference to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), the Government of Denmark makes a reservation with respect to the Competence of the Committee to consider a communication from an individual if the matter has already been considered under other procedures of international investigation."

El Salvador

El Salvador

Reservation:

       ... That its provisions mean that the competence of the Human Rights Committee is recognized solely to receive and consider communications from individuals solely and exclusively in those situations, events, cases, omissions and legal occurrences or acts the execution of which began after the date of deposit of the instrument of ratification, that is, those which took place three months after the date of the deposit, pursuant to article 9, paragraph 2, of the Protocol; the Committee being also without competence to examine communications and/or complaints which have been submitted to other procedures of international investigation or settlement.

France

France

Declaration:

       France interprets article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the French Republic who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions, developments or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the Republic, or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events after that date.  With regard to article 7, France's accession to the Optional Protocol should not be interpreted as implying any change in its position concerning the resolution referred to in that article.

Reservation:

       France makes a reservation to article 5, paragraph 2(a), specifying that the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter is being examined or has already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Germany

Germany

Reservation:

       "The Federal Republic of Germany formulates a reservation concerning article 5 paragraph 2 (a) to the effect that the competence of the Committee shall not apply to communications
       a) which have already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, or
       b) by means of which a violation of rights is reprimanded having its origin in events occurring prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the Federal Republic of Germany
       c) by means of which a violation of article 26 of the [said Covenant] is reprimanded, if and insofar as the reprimanded violation refers to rights other than those guaranteed under the aforementioned Covenant."

Guatemala

Guatemala

Declaration:

       The Republic of Guatemala recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic who claim to be victims of a violation by Guatemala of any of the rights set forth in the International Covenant relating to acts, omissions, situations or events occurring after the date on which the Optional Protocol entered into force for the Republic of Guatemala or to decisions resulting from acts, omissions, situations or events after that date.

Guyana 2

Guyana2

Reservation:

       "[...] Guyana re-accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with a Reservation to article 6 thereof with the result that the Human Rights Committee shall not be competent to receive and consider communications from any persons who is under sentence of death for the offences of murder and treason in respect of any matter relating to his prosecution, detention, trial, conviction, sentence or execution of the death sentence and any matter connected therewith.
       Accepting the principle that States cannot generally use the Optional Protocol as a vehicle to enter reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights itself, the Government of Guyana stresses that its Reservation to the Optional Protocol in no way detracts from its obligations and engagements under the Covenant, including its undertaking to respect and ensure to all individuals within the territory of Guyana and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the Covenant (in so far as not already reserved against) as set out in article 2 thereof, as well as its undertaking to report to the Human Rights Committee under the monitoring mechanism established by article 40 thereof."

Iceland

Iceland

       Iceland  ... accedes to the said Protocol subject to a reservation, with reference to article 5, paragraph 2, with respect to the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider a communication from an individual if the matter is being examined or has been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. Other provisions of the Covenant shall be inviolably observed.

Ireland

Ireland

Article 5, paragraph 2
       Ireland does not accept the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider a communication from an individual if the matter has already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Italy

Italy

       The Italian Republic ratifies the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it being understood that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Protocol mean that the Committee provided for in article 28 of the Covenant shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being and has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan

Declaration:

       The Republic of Kazakhstan, in accordance with article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Kazakhstan concerning actions and omissions by the State authorities or acts or decisions
       adopted by them following the entry into force of this Optional Protocol in the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Declaration:

       "The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the understanding that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Protocol mean that the Committee established by article 28 of the Covenant shall not consider any communications from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined or has not already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement."

Malta

Malta

Declarations:

       " 1. Malta accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the understanding that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Protocol mean that the Committee established by article 28 of the Covenant, shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined or has not already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
       "2. The Government of Malta interprets Article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of Malta who claim to be victims of a violation by Malta of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions, developments or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol enters into force for Malta, or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events after that date."

Norway

Norway

       Subject to the following reservation to article 5, paragraph 2: "... The Committee shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter has already been examined under other procedures of international investigation or settlement."

Poland

Poland

       Poland accedes to the Protocol while making a reservation that would exclude the procedure set out in article 5 (2) (a), in cases where the matter has already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Republic of Moldova

Republic of Moldova

Declarations:

       Until the full re-establishment of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova, the provisions of the [Protocol] will be applied only on the territory controlled effectively by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova.
       The Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to examine communications from individuals referring to violations of any of the rights set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights committed until the date of the enter into force of the present Protocol for the Republic of Moldova.

Reservation:

       According to the Article 5 paragraph (2) letter a) of the Protocol: the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider communications from an individual if the matter is being or has already been examined by another international specialized body.

Romania

Romania

Declaration:  

       Romania considers that, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2(a) of the Protocol, the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider communications from an individual if the matter is being or has already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Russian Federation

Russian Federation

Declaration:

       The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, pursuant to article 1 of the Optional Protocol, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in respect of situations or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the USSR.  The Soviet Union also proceeds from the understanding that the Committee shall not consider any communications unless it has been ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and that the individual in question has exhausted all available domestic remedies.

Slovenia

Slovenia

Declaration:

       "The Republic of Slovenia interprets article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Slovenia who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts or omissions, developments or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the Republic of Slovenia, or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events after that date."

Reservation:

       "With regard to article 5, paragraph 2(a) of the Optional Protocol, the Republic of Slovenia specifies that the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter is being examined or has already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement."

Spain

Spain

       The Spanish Government accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the understanding that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of that Protocol mean that the Human Rights Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter has not been or is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka

       Declaration:
       "The Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka pursuant to article (1) of the Optional Protocol recognises the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, who claim to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions, developments or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events after that date. The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka also proceeds on the understanding that the Committee shall not consider any communication from individuals unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined or has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement."






Sweden

Sweden

       On the understanding that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Protocol signify that the Human Rights Committee provided for in article 28 of the said Covenant shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined or has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Trinidad and Tobago 1

Trinidad and Tobago1

Reservation:

       "[...] Trinidad and Tobago re-accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with a Reservation to article 1 thereof to the effect that the Human Rights Committee shall not be competent to receive and consider communications relating to any prisoner who is under sentence of death in respect of any matter relating to his prosecution, his detention, his trial, his conviction, his sentence or the carrying out of the death sentence on him and any matter connected therewith.
       Accepting the principle that States cannot use the Optional Protocol as a vehicle to enter reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights itself, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago stresses that its Reservation to the Optional Protocol in no way detracts from its obligations and engagements under the Covenant, including its undertaking to respect and ensure to all individuals within the territory of Trinidad and Tobago and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the Covenant (in so far as not already reserved against) as set out in article 2 thereof, as well as its undertaking to report to the Human Rights Committee under the monitoring mechanism established by article 40 thereof."

Turkey

Turkey

Statements
       "The Republic of Turkey declares that the three declarations and the reservation made by the Republic to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall also apply to the present Optional Protocol. "
       "The Republic of Turkey interprets article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Turkey who claim to be the victims of a violation by the Republic of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant."

Reservations :

       "The Republic of Turkey formulates a reservation concerning article 5 paragraph 2 (a) of the Protocol to the effect that the competence of the Committee:

       a)  shall not apply to communications from individuals if the same matter has already been  considered  or  is  being  considered  under another  procedure  of international investigation or settlement.
       b)  shall be limited to communications concerning alleged violations which result either from  acts,  omissions,  developments  or events that  may  occur within  the  national boundaries of the territory of the Republic of Turkey after the date on which the protocol enters into force for the Republic of Turkey, or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events that may occur within the national boundaries of the territory of the Republic of Turkey after the date on which the Protocol enters into force for the Republic of Turkey.
       c)  shall not apply to communications by means of which a violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is reprimanded, if and insofar as the reprimanded violation refers  to rights  other than  those guaranteed under the aforementioned Covenant."

Statements :

       "The Republic of Turkey declares that the three declarations and the reservation made by the Republic to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall also apply to the present Optional Protocol."
       "The Republic of Turkey interprets article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of  the Republic of Turkey who claim to be the victims of a violation by the Republic of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant."

       The three declarations and the reservation made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights read as follows:

       The Republic of Turkey declares that; it will implement its obligations under the Covenant in accordance to the obligations under the Charter of the United Nations (especially Article 1 and 2 thereof).
       The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of this Covenant only to the States with which it has diplomatic relations.   The Republic of Turkey declares that this Convention is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied.
       The Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes.

Uganda

Uganda

Reservation:  

Article 5
       "The Republic of Uganda does not accept the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider a communication under the provisions of article 5 paragraph 2 from an individual if the matter in question has already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement."

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

       [Same reservation as the one made by Venezuela in respect of article 14(3)(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: see chapter IV.4.]

Objections

(Unless otherwise indicated the objections were made
upon ratification, accession or succession.)

Denmark

Denmark

6 August 1999

 

With regard to the reservation made by Trinidad and Tobago upon accession:

       "The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark finds that the reservation made by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago at the time of its re-accession to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights raises doubts as to the commitment of Trinidad and Tobago to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol.
       The reservation seeks to limit the obligations of the reserving State towards individuals under sentence of death.  The purpose of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is to strengthen the position of the individual under the Covenant.  Denying the benefits of the Optional Protocol to a group of individuals under the most severe sentence is not in conformity with the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol.
       The procedure followed by Trinidad and Tobago, of denouncing the Optional Protocol followed by a re-accession with a reservation circumvents the rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the formulation of reservations after ratification.  The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
       The objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.".

France

France

28 January 2000

 

With regard to the reservation made by Guyana upon accession:

       ... While article 12, paragraph 1, of the Protocol provides that any State Party may denounce the Protocol ‘at any time’, with the denunciation taking effect ‘three months after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General’, denunciation of the Protocol may not in any case be used by a State Party for the purpose of formulating reservations to the Covenant well after the party has signed, ratified or acceded thereto.  Such a practice would call into question international commitments by a sort of abuse of process; it would be a clear violation of the principle of good faith that prevails in international law and would be incompatible with the rule of  pacta sunt servanda.  The means used (denunciation and accession on the same day to the same instrument but with a reservation) cannot but elicit a negative reaction.
       Consequently, the Government of the French Republic expresses its objection to the reservation made by Guyana.

Germany

Germany

26 August 1999

 

With regard to the reservation made by Guyana upon accession:

       “The purpose of the Protocol is to strengthen the position of the individual under the Covenant.  While the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany welcomes the decision of the Government of Guyana to reaccede to the Optional Protocol it holds the view that the benefits of the Optional Protocol should not be denied to individuals who are under the most severe sentence, the sentence of death.  Furthermore, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the view that denunciation of an international human rights instrument followed by immediate reaccession under a far reaching reservation may set a bad precedent.
       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the reservation.  This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Federal Republic of Germany and Guyana".

Netherlands

Netherlands

22 October 1999

 

With regard to the reservation made by Guyana upon accession:

       “ ...
       2.  The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that this reservation, which seeks to limit the obligations of the reserving State towards individuals under sentence of death, raises doubts as to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol.
       3. The Government of the Netherlands considers that the purpose of the Optional Protocol [to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] is to strengthen the position of the individual under the Covenant.  Denying the benefits of the Optional Protocol in relation to the Covenant to a group of individuals under the most severe sentence is fundamentally in conflict with the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol.
       4.  Also the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the procedure followed by Guyana, of denouncing the Optional Protocol followed by a re-accession with reservations, as contrary to the rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the formulation of reservations after ratification.  The procedure followed by Guyana circumvents such well-established rules.
       5. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Government of Guyana to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
       6.  This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Guyana".

Norway

Norway

6 August 1999

 

With regard to the reservation made by Trinidad and Tobago upon accession:

       "The Government of Norway considers that the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol is to contribute to securing the compliance with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by strengthening the position of the individual under the Covenant.  Due to the universality of all Human Rights, the right to petition, which is enshrined in article 1 of the Optional Protocol, must apply to all individuals that are subject to the State Party's jurisdiction.  Further, denying the benefits of the Optional Protocol in relation to the Covenant to a vulnerable group of individuals will contribute to further weakening of that group's position which the Government of Norway considers to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol.
       Further, the Government of Norway is concerned with regard to the procedure followed by Trinidad and Tobago.  The Government of Norway considers the denunciation of the Optional Protocol followed by a re-accession upon which a reservation is entered, as a circumvention of established rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the submission of reservations after ratification.
       For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservation made by Trinidad and Tobago.
       This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Kingdom of Norway and Trinidad and Tobago."

Spain

Spain

1 Decmeber 1999

 

With regard to the reservation made by Guyana upon accession:

       The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this reservation raises doubts about the commitment of the Republic of Guyana to the purpose and goal of the Optional Protocol, which is to strengthen the position of the individual with regard to the rights protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  The reservation, on the other hand, seeks to limit the international obligations of Guyana towards individuals who are under sentence of death.
       The Government of Spain also has doubts about the correctness of the procedure followed by the Government of Guyana, inasmuch as denunciation of the Optional Protocol followed by re-accession to it with a reservation prejudices the ratification process and undermines the international protection of human rights.
       Consequently, the Government of Spain objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Guyana to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
       This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Guyana.

 

Укажите название закладки

Создать новую папку