4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights New York, 16 December 1966

NOTES

1. The former Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the Convenant on 8 August 1967 and 2 June 1971, respectively. It will be recalled that the former Yugoslavia had deposited the following notifications under article 4(3) of the Covenant (Derogations), on the dates indicated hereinafter:

17 April 1989 (Dated 14 April 1989)

Derogation from articles 12 and 21 of the Covenant in the Autonomous Province of Kosovo as from 28 March 1989. The measure became necessary because of disorders which led to the loss of human lives and which had threatened the established social system. This situation which represented a general danger was a threat to the rights, freedoms and security of all the citizens of the Province regardless of nationality.

30 May 1989 (Dated 29 May 1989)

Termination of the derogation from the provisions of article 12 of the Covenant in the Autonomous Province of Kosovo as from 21 May 1989. The right of public assembly [article 21] continues to be temporarily suspended but only as concerns demonstrations. This is aimed at protecting public order, peace and the rights of citizens, regardless of nationality.

20 March 1990 (Dated 19 March 1990)

As of 21 February 1990 and owing to the escalation of disorders which had led to the loss of human lives, the movement of persons in Kosovo was prohibited from 9 PM to 4 AM, thereby derogating from article 12; and that public assembly was prohibited for the purpose of demonstration, thereby derogating from article 21. The Government of Yugoslavia further indicated that the measure derogating from article 12 had been terminated as of 10 March 1990.

26 April 1990 (Dated 24 April 1990)

Termination of the state of emergency with effect from 18 April 1990.

See also note 1 under "Bosnia and Herzegovina", "Croatia", "former Yugoslavia", "Slovenia", "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "Yugoslavia" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

2. The signature was effected by Democratic Kampuchea. In this regard the Secretary-General received, on 5 November 1980, the following communication from the Government of Mongolia:

"The Government of the Mongolian People's Republic considers that only the People's Revolutionary Council of Kampuchea as the sole authentic and lawful representative of the Kampuchean people has the right to assume international obligations on behalf of the Kampuchean people. Therefore the Government of the Mongolian People's Republic considers that the signature of the Human Rights Covenants by the representative of the so-called Democratic Kampuchea, a régime that ceased to exist as a result of the people's revolution in Kampuchea, is null and void.

"The signing of the Human Rights Covenants by an individual, whose régime during its short period of reign in Kampuchea had exterminated about 3 million people and had thus grossly violated the elementary norms of human rights, each and every provision of the Human Rights Covenants is a regrettable precedence, which discredits the noble aims and lofty principles of the United Nations Charter, the very spirit of the above-mentioned Covenants, gravely impairs the prestige of the United Nations."

Thereafter, similar communications were received from the Government of the following States on the dates indicated and their texts were circulated as depositary notifications or, at the request of the States concerned, as official documents of the General Assembly (A/33/781 and A/35/784):

Participant:		Date of receipt :
German Democratic Republic *		11 Dec 1980
Poland		12 Dec 1980
Ukraine		16 Dec 1980
Hungary		19 Jan 1981
Bulgaria		29 Jan 1981
Belarus		18 Feb 1981
Russian Federation		18 Feb 1981
Czechoslovakia * *		10 Mar 1981
* See note 9 in this chapter.
* * See note 6 in this chapter.

3. Although Democratic Kampuchea had signed both [the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] on 17 October 1980 see note 2 in this chapter) the Government of Cambodia deposited an instrument of accession to the said Covenants.

4. Signed on behalf of the Republic of China on 5 October 1967. See note 1 under "China" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

With reference to the above-mentioned signature, communications have been addressed to the Secretary-General by the Permanent Representatives of Permanent Missions to the United Nations of Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Mongolia, Romania, the Ukrainian SSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Yugoslavia, stating that their Governments did not recognize the said signature as valid since the only Government authorized to represent China and to assume obligations on its behalf was the Government of the People's Republic of China.

In letters addressed to the Secretary-General in regard to the above-mentioned communications, the Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations stated that the Republic of China, a sovereign State and Member of the United Nations, had attended the twenty-first regular session of the General Assembly of the United Nations and contributed to the formulation of, and signed the Covenants and the Optional Protocol concerned, and that "any statements or reservations relating to the above-mentioned Covenants and Optional Protocol that are incompatible with or derogatory to the legitimate position of the Government of the Republic of China shall in no way affect the rights and obligations of the Republic of China under these Covenants and Optional Protocol".

5. On 3 December 1999, the Government of China notified the Secretary-General that:

1. The application of the Covenant, and its article 1 in particular, to the Macao Special Administrative Region shall not affect the status of Macao as defined in the Joint Declaration and in the Basic Law.

2. The provisions of the Covenant which are applicable to the Macao Special Administrative Region shall be implemented in Macao through legislation of the Macao Special Administrative Region.

The residents of Macao shall not be restricted in the rights and freedoms that they are entitled to, unless otherwise provided for by law. In case of restrictions, they shall not contravene the provisions of the Covenant that are applicable to the Macao Special Administrative Region.

Within the above ambit, the Government of the People's Republic of China will assume the responsibility for the international rights and obligations that place on a Party to the Covenant.

Subsequently, the Secretary-General received communications concerning the status of Macao from China and Portugal (see note 3 under "China" and note 1 under "Portugal" regarding Macao in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Macao, China notified the Secretary-General that the Covenant with the statement made by China will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region.

6. Czechoslovakia had signed and ratified the Convention on 7 October 1968 and 23 December 1975, respectively, with reservations and declarations. For the texts of the reservations and declarations made upon signature and ratification, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 999, pp. 283 and 289.

Subsequently, on 12 March 1991, the Government of Czechoslovakia had declared the following:

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

Further, on 7 June 1991, the Government of Czechoslovakia had made the following objection:

"The Government of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic considers the reservations entered by the Government of the Republic of Korea to the provisions of paragraphs 5 and 7 of article 14 and article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. In the opinion of the Czechoslovak Government these reservations are in contradiction to the generally recognized principle of international law according to which a state cannot invoke the provisions of its own internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

"Therefore, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic does not recognize these reservations as valid. Nevertheless the present declaration will not be deemed to be an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Republic of Korea."

See also note 1 under "Czech Republic" and note 1 under "Slovakia" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

7. On 25 August 1997, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea a notification of withdrawal from the Covenant, dated 23 August 1997.

As the Covenant does not contain a withdrawal provision, the Secretariat of the United Nations forwarded on 23 September 1997 an aide-mémoire to the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea explaining the legal position arising from the above notification.

As elaborated in this aide-mémoire, the Secretary-General is of the opinion that a withdrawal from the Covenant would not appear possible unless all States Parties to the Covenant agree with such a withdrawal.

The above notification of withdrawal and the aide-mémoire were duly circulated to all States Parties under cover of C.N.467.1997.TREATIES-10 of 12 November 1997.

8. The German Democratic Republic had signed and ratified the Covenant with reservations and declarations, on 23 March 1973 and 8 November 1973, respectively. For the text of the reservations and declarations, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 999, p. 294. See also note 2 under "Germany" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

9. See note 1 under "Germany" regarding Berlin (West) in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

10. In a communication received on 20 December 1983, the Government of the Netherlands notified the Secretary-General that it was with drawing its reservation with regard to article 25 (c). The text of the reservation read as follows:

"The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept this provision in the case of the Netherlands Antilles."

See also note 1 under "Netherlands" regarding Aruba/Netherlands Antilles in the""Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

11. See note 1 under "New Zealand" regarding Tokelau in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

12. On 3 October 1983, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Argentina the following declaration in respect of the territorial application of the Covenant to the Falkland Islands:

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

The Argentine Republic rejects and considers null and void the [said declaration] of territorial extension.

With reference to the above-mentioned objection the Secretary-General received on 28 February 1985 from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the following declaration:

"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to their right, by notification to the Depositary under the relevant provisions of the above-mentioned Convention, to extend the application of the Convention in question to the Falkland Islands or to the Falkland Islands Dependencies, as the case may be.

For this reason alone, the Government of the United Kingdom are unable to regard the Argentine [communication] under reference as having any legal effect."

With reference to the above-mentioned declaration by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Argentina the following declaration made upon ratification:

The Argentine Republic rejects the extension, notified to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 20 May 1976 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the application of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 16 December 1966, to the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and reaffirms its sovereign rights to those archipelagos, which form an integral part of its national territory.

The General Assembly of the United Nations had adopted resol- utions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6 and 40/21 in which it recognizes the existence of a sovereignty dispute regarding the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and urges the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pursue negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute, through the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall inform the General Assembly of the progress made."

With reference to the above-mentioned declaration by the Govern- ment of Argentina, the Secretary-General received on 13 January 1988 from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the following communication:

"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irelan d rejects the statements made by the Argentine Republic, regarding the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, when ratifying [the said Covenants and acceding to the said Protocol].

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has no doubt as to British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and its consequent right to extend treaties to those territories."

Subsequently, on 5 October 2000, the Secretary-General recieved the from the Government of Argentina the following communication:

[The Argentine Republic] wishes to refer to the report submitted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Human Rights Committee concerning its overseas territories (CCPR/C/UKOT/99/5).

In that connection, the Argentine Republic wishes to recall that by its note of 3 October 1983 it rejected the extension of the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the Malvinas Islands, which was effected by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 20 May 1976.

The Government of Argentina rejects the designation of the Malvinas Islands as Overseas Dependent Territories of the United Kingdom or any other similar designation.

Consequently, the Argentine Republic does not recognize the section concerning the Malvinas Islands contained in the report which the United Kingdom has submitted to the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/UKOT/99/5) or any other document or instrument having a similar tenor that may derive from this alleged territorial extension.

The United Nations General Assembly has adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, in which it recognizes that a dispute exists concerning sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands and urges the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to continue negotiations with a view to resolving the dispute peacefully and definitively as soon as possible, assisted by the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who is to report to the General Assembly on the progress made.

The Argentine Republic reaffirms its rights of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime spaces, which are an integral part of its national territory.

Further, on 20 December 2000, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the following communcation:

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

13. With regard to the application of the Covenant to Hong Kong, the Secretary-General received communications concerning the status of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom and China (see note 2 under "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and note 2 under "China" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, China notified the Secretary-General that the Covenant will also apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

14. See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

15. The formality was effected by Democratic Yemen. See also note 1 under "Yemen" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

16. With respect to the interpretative declarations made by Algeria the Secretary-General received, on 25 October 1990, from the Government of Germany the following declaration:

[The Federal Republic of Germany] interprets the declaration under paragraph 2 to mean that the latter is not intended to eliminate the obligation of Algeria to ensure that the rights guaranteed in article 8, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may be restricted only for the reasons mentioned in the said articles and that such restrictions shall be prescribed by law.

It interprets the declaration under paragraph 4 to mean that Algeria, by referring to its domestic legal system, does not intend to restrict its obligation to ensure through appropriate steps equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

17. By a communication received on 6 November 1984, the Government of Australia notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservations and declarations made upon ratification with regard to articles 2 and 50, 17, 19, 25 and to partially withdraw its reservations to articles 10 and 14. For the text of the reservations and declarations, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1197, p. 411.

18. The reservation was lodged with the Secretary-General on 4 December 2006 by Bahrain, following its accession to the Covenant on 20 September 2006.

In keeping with the depositary practice followed in similar cases, the Secretary-General proposed to receive the reservation in question for deposit in the absence of any objection on the part of any of the Contracting States, either to the deposit itself or to the procedure envisaged, within a period of 12 months from the date of the relevant depositary notification. In the absence of any such objection, the above reservation would be accepted in deposit upon the expiration of the above-stipulated 12 month period, that is on 28 December 2007.

In view of the below objections, the Secretary-General did not accept the reservation made by Bahrain in deposit. The Secretary-General received the following objections on the dates indicated hereinafter:

Netherlands (27 July 2007):

"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since the reservations were made after the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations were too late and therefore inconsistent with article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Furthermore, the reservation with respect to articles 3, 18 and 23 of the Covenant is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the Islamic Shariah. This makes it unclear to what extent the Kingdom of Bahrain considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to all of the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain since they were made after accession, and specifically objects to the content of the reservation on articles 3, 18 and 23 made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Bahrain."

Latvia (13 August 2007):

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

Portugal (29 August 2007):

"The Government of the Portuguese Republic has carefully examined the reservations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Government of the Portuguese Republic notes that the reservations were made after the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant and is of the view that the practice of late reservations should be discouraged.

According to the first part of the reservation, the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain interprets the provisions of articles 3, 18 and 23 as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah. These provisions deal namely with the questions of equality between men and women, freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the protection of family and marriage.

Portugal considers that these articles are fundamental provisions of the Covenant and the first reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Kingdom of Bahrain considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant, raises concerns as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the object and purpose of the Covenant and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international law.

It is in the common interest of all States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under these treaties.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic, therefore, objects to the above mentioned reservation made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the ICCPR.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Bahrain."

Czech Republic (12 September 2007):

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

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

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

The Government of the Czech Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Czech Republic and the Kingdom of Bahrain, without the Kingdom of Bahrain benefiting from its reservation."

Estonia (12 September 2007):

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

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

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

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

Canada (18 September 2007):

"The Government of Canada has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain upon acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with which the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain 'interprets the Provisions of Article 3, 18 and 23 as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah'.

The Government of Canada notes that these declarations constitute in reality reservations and that they should have been lodged at the time of accession by Bahrain to the Covenant.

The Government of Canada considers that by making the interpretation of articles 3, 18 and 23 of the Covenant subject to the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah, the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain is formulating reservations with a general, indeterminate scope, such that they make it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant, which they purport to introduce and they do not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention.

The Government of Canada notes that the reservations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain, addressing some of the most essential provisions of the Covenant, and aiming to exclude the obligations under those provisions, are in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Covenant. In addition, article 18 of the Covenant is among the provisions from which no derogation is allowed, according to article 4 of the Covenant.

The Government of Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Canada and the Kingdom of Bahrain."

Australia (18 September 2007):

"The Government of Australia has examined the reservation made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As the reservations were made after the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant, the Government of Australia considers that the reservations were late and therefore inconsistent with article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The Government of Australia considers that the reservation with respect to articles 3, 18 and 23 of the Covenant is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Australia recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Australia considers that the Kingdom of Bahrain is, through this reservation, purporting to make the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights subject to Islamic Shariah law. As a result, it is unclear to what extent the Kingdom of Bahrain considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Australia recalls the general principle of treaty interpretation, codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

Further, as regards the reservation with respect to article 18, the Government of Australia recalls that according to article 4 (2) of the Covenant, no derogation of article 18 is permitted.

The Government of Australia objects to all of the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain as they were made after accession, and specifically objects to the content of the reservation on article 3, 18 and 23 made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

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

Ireland (27 September 2007):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Italy (1 November 2007):

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

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

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

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

19. On 30 September 1992, the Government of Belarus notified the Secretary-General its decision to withdraw the reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification.. For the text of the declaration regarding article 48 (1) so withdrawn, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 999, p. 282.

20. In a notification received on 14 September 1998, the Government of Belgium informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation with regard to articles 2, 3 and 25 made upon ratification. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1312, p. 328.

21. With regard to the reservation made by Botswana upon signature and confirmed upon ratification, the Secretary-General received, from the following States, communications on the dates indicated hereinafter:

Austria (17 October 2001):

"Austria has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana upon signature of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and confirmed upon ratification, regarding Articles 7 and 12 para. 3 of the Covenant.

The fact that Botswana is making the said articles subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing national legislation, in the absence of further clarification raises doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to the object and purpose of the Covenant. According to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. In Austria's view the reservation in question is therefore inadmissible to the extent that its application could negatively affect the compliance by Botswana with its obligations under Articles 7 and 12 para. 3 of the Covenant.

For these reasons, Austria objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant in its entirety between Botswana and Austria, without Botswana benefiting from its reservation."

Italy (20 December 2001):

"The Government of the Italian Republic has examined the reservations made by the Republic of Botswana upn signature of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and confirmed upon ratification, regarding articles 7 and 12, paragraph 3 of the Covenant.

The Government of the Italian Republic notes that the aforesaid articles of the Covenant are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of exsiting legislation in Botswana. The Government of the Italian Republic is of the view that, in the absence of further clarification, these reservations referring to international legislation raise doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to fulfill its obligation under the Covenant.

The Government of the Italian Republic considers these reservations to be incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Covenant according to article 19 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. These reservations do not fall within the rule of article 20, paragraph 5, and can be objected at any time.

Therefore, the Italian Government objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Republic of Botswana to the Covenant.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Italy and Botswana".

22. In communications received on 29 March 1985 and 26 July 1990, the Government of Finland notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservations made upon ratification with respect to articles 13 and 14 (1) (the notification indicates that the withdrawal was effected because the relevant provisions of the Finnish legislation have been amended as to correspond fully to articles 13 and 14 (1) of the Covenant), and with respect to articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (d), respectively. For the text of the reservations, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 999, p. 291.

23. In a communication received on 22 March 1988, the Government of France notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw, with effect from that date, its reservation with regard to article 19 made upon accession to the said Covenant. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1202, p. 395.

24. In this connection, the Secretary-General received, on 23 April 1982 from the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, the following declaration with regard to that declaration made by France concerning article 27 of the said Covenant:

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

25. On 18 October 1993, the Government of Iceland notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw as of 18 October 1993, the reservation to paragraph 3(a) of article 8, made upon ratification. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1144, p. 386.

26. On 12 April 1994 and 24 August 1998, respectively, the Government of Ireland notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the declaration with respect to article 6 (5), on the one hand, and the reservations made to articles 14 (6) and 23 (4), on the other, made upon ratification. For the text of the declaration and reservations, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1551, p. 352.

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

Article 9, paragraph 5

The Italian Republic, considering that the expression "unlawful arrest or detention" contained in article 9, paragraph 5, could give rise to differences of interpretation, declares that it interprets the aforementioned expression as referring exclusively to cases of arrest or detention contrary to the provisions of article 9, paragraph 1.

Article 12, paragraph 4

Article 12, paragraph 4, shall be without prejudice to the application of transitional provision XIII of the Italian Constitution, respecting prohibition of the entry into and sojourn in the national territory of certain members of the House of Savoy.

Article 14, paragraph 5

Article 14, paragraph 5, shall be without prejudice to the application of existing Italian provisions which, in accordance with the Constitution of the Italian Republic, govern the conduct, at one level only, of proceedings instituted before the Constitutional Court in respect of charges brought against the President of the Republic and its Ministers.

28. On 28 April 2000, the Government of Liechtenstein informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation to article 20 paragraph 2 of the Covenant made upon accession. The text of the reservation read as follows:

"The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right not to adopt further measures to ban propaganda for war, which is prohibited by article 20, paragraph 1 of the Covenant. The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to adopt a criminal provision which will take into account the requirements of article 20, paragraph 2, on the occasion of its possible accession to the Convention of 21 December 1965 on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination."

29. With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession, the Secretary-General received, from the following States, communications on the dates indicated hereinafter:

Italy (1 November 2007):

"The Government of Italy has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives with respect to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of Italy considers that, by providing that the application of Article 18 is without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives, the reservation does not clearly define the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligation under that Article. This reservation raises serious doubts about the real extent of the commitment undertaken by the Republic of Maldives and is capable of contravening the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Italy therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Republic of Maldives.

This objection, however, shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Government of Italy and the Republic of Maldives."

30. On 15 March 2002, the Government of Mexico notified the Secretary-General of a partial withdrawal of its reservation to article 25 (b) made upon accession. The reservation made upon accession read as follows:

Article 25, subparagraph (b):

The Government of Mexico also makes a reservation to this provision, since article 130 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States provides that ministers of religion shall have neither an active nor a passive vote, nor the right to form associations for political purposes.

31. In a notification received by the Secretary-General on 12 December 1979, the Government of Norway withdrew the reservation formulated simultaneously in respect of article 6 (4).

32. On 15 March 1991, 19 January 1993 and 2 April 2007, respectively, the Government of the Republic of Korea notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservations made in respect of article 23 (4) (with effect from 15 March 1991), of article 14 (7) (with effect from 21 January 1993) and of article 14 (5) (with effect from 2 April 2007) made upon accession.

33. On 16 October 1995, the Government of Switzerland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation to article 20, paragraph 2 made upon accession, which reads as follows:

Switzerland reserves the right to adopt a criminal provision which will take into account the requirements of article 20, paragraph 2, on the occasion of its forthcoming accession to the 1966 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Further, on 12 January 2004, the Government of Switzerland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation to article 14, paragraph 3, sub-paragraphs (d) and (f) made upon accession, which reads as follows:

The guarantee of free legal assistance assigned by the court and of the free assistance of an interpreter does not definitively exempt the beneficiary from defraying the resulting costs.

Further, on 1 May 2007, the Government of Switzerland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservations to article 10, paragraph 2 (b) and article 14, paragraph 1 and 5 made upon accession, which reads as follows:

(a) Reservation concerning article 10, paragraph 2 (b):

The separation of accused juvenile persons from adults is not unconditionally guaranteed.

(b) Reservations concerning article 14, paragraph 1:

The principle of a public hearing is not applicable to proceedings which involve a dispute relating to civil rights and obligations or to the merits of the prosecution's case in a criminal matter; these, in accordance with cantonal laws, are held before an administrative authority. The principle that any judgement rendered shall be made public is adhered to without prejudice to the cantonal laws on civil and criminal procedure, which provide that a judgement shall not be rendered at a public hearing, but shall be transmitted to the parties in writing.

The guarantee of a fair trial has as its sole purpose, where disputes relating to civil rights and obligations are concerned, to ensure final judicial review of the acts or decisions of public authorities which have a bearing on such rights or obligations. The Term "final judicial review" means a judicial examination which is limited to the application of the law, such as a review by a Court of Cassation.

The right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose one's residence is applicable, subject to the federal laws on aliens, which provide that residence and establishment permits shall be valid only for the canton which issues them.

(c) Reservation concerning article 14, paragraph 5:

The reservation applies to the federal laws on the organization of criminal justice, which provide for an exception to the right of anyone convicted of a crime to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal, where the person concerned is tried in the first instance by the highest tribunal.

34. In a communication received by the Secretary-General on 31 January 1979, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago confirmed that paragraph (vi) constituted an interpretative declaration which did not aim to exclude nor modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Covenant.

35. In a communication received on 2 February 1993, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation to sub-paragraph c) of article 25 made upon ratification. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1007, p. 394.

36. See "ENTRY INTO FORCE:" at the beginning of this chapter.

37. A previous declaration received on 6 April 1978 expired on 23 March 1983.

38. In a communication received on that same date, the Government of Germany indicated that it wishes to call attention to the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Germany upon ratification of the Covenant with regard to articles 19, 21 and 22 in conjunction with articles 2 (1), 14 (3), 14 (5) and 15 (1). See also note 8 .

39. Previous declarations, received 22 April 1976, 28 March 1981, 24 March 1986, 10 May 1991 and 22 January 1997 expired on 28 March 1981, 28 March 1986, 28 March 1991, 10 May 1996 and 22 January 2002.

40. A note verbal, dated 28 January 1998, transmitting the text of the declaration made by the Government of Spain recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee under article 41 of the Covenant was deposited on 30 January 1998. Subsequently, in order to correct an error contained in that decalration, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Spain a note verbal dated 9 March 1998, transmitting a corrected and signed text of the declaration which was deposited on 11 March 1998.

Previous declarations were received on 25 January 1985 and 21 December 1988, and expired on 25 January 1988 and 21 December 1993, respectively.

41. A previous declaration received on 18 June 1992 expired on 18 June 1997.

Back list of ratifications