DECLARACIONES Y RESERVAS AL PROTOCOLO
FACULTATIVO DEL PACTO
INTERNACIONAL DE DERECHOS CIVILES Y POLÍTICOS |
Colección de Tratados de
Naciones Unidas
(a 5 de Febrero de de 2002)
DECLARACIONES Y RESERVAS al
(Unless otherwise
indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon ratification,
accession or succession.)
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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.
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 ... 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
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
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.
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
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
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 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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 Tobago3,
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."
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Territorial Application
|
Participant |
Date of receipt of the
notification |
Territories |
Netherlands |
11 Dec 1978 |
Netherlands Antilles |
NOTES
1. On 23 October 1997, the Government of
Jamaica notified the Secretary-General of its denunciation of the Protocol.
2. The Government of Guyana had initially
acceded to the Optional Protocol on 10 May 1993. On 5 January 1999, the
Government of Guyana notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to
denounce the said Optional Protocol with effect from 5 April 1999. On that
same date, the Government of Guyana re-acceded to the Optional Protocol with
a reservation.
Subsequently, the Secretary-General received the
following communications from the following States on the dates indicated
hereinafter:
Finland (17 March 2000):
"The Government of Finland is of the view that denying
the rights recognised in the Optional Protocol from individuals under the
most severe sentence is in contradiction with the object and purpose of the
said Protocol.
Furthermore, the Government of Finland wishes to
express its serious concern as to the procedure followed by Guyana, of
denouncing the Optional Protocol (to which it did not have any reservations)
followed by an immediate re-accession with a reservation. The Government of
Finland is of the view that such a procedure is highly undesirable as
circumventing the rule of the law of treaties that prohibits the formulation
of reservations after accession.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the
reservation made by the Government of Guyana to the said Protocol.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force
of the Optional Protocol between Guyana and Finland. The Optional Protocol
will thus become operative between the two states without Guyana benefitting
from the reservation".
Sweden (27 April 2000):
"The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation
to article 1 made by the Government of Guyana at the time of its
re-accession to the Optional Protocol. The Government of Sweden notes that
the Government of Guyana accepts 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, and that it stresses that its
reservation in no way detracts from its obligations and engagements under
the Covenant.
Nevertheless, the Government of Sweden has serious
doubts as to the propriety of the procedure followed by the Government of
Guyana. While article 12, paragraph 1 of the Protocol provides that any
State Party may denounce the Protocol "at any time", the denunciation may in
no case be used by a State Party for the sole purpose of formulating
reservations to that instrument after having re-acceeded to it. Such a
practice would constitute a misuse of the procedure and would be manifestly
contrary to the principle of good faith. It further contravenes the rule of
pacta sunt servanda. As such, it undermines the basis of international
treaty law and the protection of human rights. The Government of Sweden
therefore wishes to declare its grave concern over this method of
proceeding.
Furthermore, the reservation seeks to limit the
international obligations of Guyana towards individuals under sentence of
death. The Government of Sweden is of the view that the right to life is
fundamental and that the death penalty cannot be accepted. It is therefore
of utmost importance that states that persist in this practice refrain from
further weakening the position of that group of individuals."
Poland (8 August 2000):
The Government of the Republic of Poland believes that
this reservation seeks to deny the benefits of the Optional Protocol towards
a group of individuals under the sentence of death. This reservation is
contrary to the object and purpose of the Protocol which is to strengthen
the position of individuals in respect of the human rights protected by the
Covenant. Furthermore the Government of the Republic of Poland considers the
procedure followed by the Government of the Republic of Guyana in the
denunciation of the Optional Protocol, and its subsequent re-accession with
reservation as not consistent with the law of treaties and clearly
undermining the Protocol. The Government of the Republic of Poland therefore
objects to the above mentioned reservation made by the Government of the
Republic of Guyana. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of
the Optional Protocol between the Republic of Poland and the Republic of
Guyana.
3. The Government of Trinidad and Tobago
acceded to the Optional Protocol on 14 November 1980. On 26 May 1998 the
Government of Trinidad and Tobago informed the Secretary-General of its
decision to denounce the Optional Protocol with effect from 26 August 1998.
On 26 August 1998, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago re-acceded to the
Optional Protocol with a reservation. On 27 March 2000, the Government of
Trinidad and Tobago notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to
denounce the Optional Protocol for the second time with effect from 27 June
2000.
The Secretary-General received communications from the
following States on the dates indicated hereinafter:
Netherlands (6 August 1999):
"1. [...]
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 commitment of Trinidad and Tobago to the object and purpose
of the Optional Protocol.
3. The Government of the Kingdom 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 Trinidad and Tobago, 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 Trinidad and Tobago 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 Trinidad and Tobago to the Protocol of 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
Trinidad and Tobago."
Germany (13 August 1999):
"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
Trinidad and Tobago 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
Trinidad and Tobago."
Sweden (17 August 1999):
"The Government of Sweden notes that the Government of
Trinidad and Tobago accepts 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, and it stresses that its
reservation in no way detracts from its obligations and engagements under
the Covenant.
Nevertheless the Government of Sweden has serious
doubts as to the propriety of the procedure followed by the Government of
Trinidad and Tobago in that denunciation of the Optional Protocol succeeded
by re-accession with a reservation undermines the basis of international
treaty law as well as the international protection of human rights. The
Government of Sweden therefore wishes to declare its grave concern over this
method of proceeding.
Furthermore the reservation seeks to limit the
international obligations of Trinidad and Tobago towards individuals under
sentence to death. The Government of Sweden is of the view that the right to
life is fundamental and that the death penalty cannot be accepted.
It is therefore of utmost importance that states that
persist in this practice refrain from further weakening the position of that
group of individuals."
Ireland (23 August 1999):
"1. [..]
2. The Government of Ireland is of the view that this
reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Trinidad and Tobago to the
object and purpose of the Optional Protocol, which is to strengthen the
position of the individual in respect of the rights protected by the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reservation on the
contrary seeks to limit the international obligations of Trinidad and Tobago
towards individuals under sentence of death.
3. The Government of Ireland also has doubts as to the
propriety of the procedure followed by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago
in that denunciation of the Optional Protocol, succeeded by re-accession
with a reservation, compromises the ratification process and undermines the
International protection of human rights.
4. The Government of Ireland 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.
5. The objection shall not preclude the entry into
force of the Optional Protocol between Ireland and Trinidad and Tobago."
Spain (25 August 1999):
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain believes that
this reservation casts doubt on the commitment of Trinidad and Tobago to the
object and purpose of the Optional Protocol, which is clearly to strengthen
the individual's position with respect to the rights enshrined in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. On the contrary, the
aim of the reservation is to limit the international obligations of Trinidad
and Tobago towards individuals under sentence of death.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain also has
reservations about whether the Government of Trinidad and Tobago has
followed the proper procedure; the 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.
Accordingly, the Government of Spain objects to this
reservation made by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to the Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force
of the Optional Protocol as between the Kingdom of Spain and Trinidad and
Tobago.
France (9 September 1999):
[...]While article 12, paragraph 1, of the Protocol
provides that any State Party may denounce the Protocol "at any time" and
that the denunciation shall take effect "three months after the date of
receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General", the denunciation of
the Protocol may in no case be used by a State Party for the sole purpose of
formulating reservations to that instrument after having signed, ratified or
acceded to it. Such a practice would undermine international commitments by
constituting a form of misuse of procedure, would be manifestly contrary to
the principle of good faith prevailing in international law and would
contravene 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 prompt a negative reaction, irrespective of the doubts which may
arise as to the compatibility of this reservation with the goal and purpose
of the treaty.
Consequently, the Government of the French Republic
expresses its disapproval of the reservation formulated by Trinidad and
Tobago.
Italy (17 September 1999):
"The Government of the Italian Republic 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 which is to
strengthen the position of the individual in respect of the rights under the
Covenant.
The reservation on the contrary seeks to limit the
international obligations of Trinidad and Tobago towards individuals under
sentence of death. The Government of the Italian Republic also has doubts as
to the propriety of the procedure followed by the Government of Trinidad and
Tobago in that denunciation of the Optional Protocol, succeded by a
re-accession with a reservation compromises the ratification process and
undermines the international protection of human rights. The Government of
the Italian Republic therefore objects to the afore-mentioned reservation
made by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to the Optional Protocol to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection
shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between
Italy and Trinidad and Tobago." The Government of Trinidad and Tobago
initially acceded to the Optional Protocol on 14 November 1980. On 26 May
1998, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago informed the Secretary-General
of its decision to denounce the Optional Protocol with effect from 26 August
1998. On that same date, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago re-acceded to
the Optional Protocol. The new accession took effect on 26 August 1998.
The reservation on the contrary seeks to limit the
international obligations of Trinidad and Tobago towards individuals under
sentence of death. The Government of the Italian Republic also has doubts as
to the propriety of the procedure followed by the Government of Trinidad and
Tobago in that denunciation of the Optional Protocol, succeded by a
re-accession with a reservation compromises the ratification process and
undermines the international protection of human rights. The Government of
the Italian Republic therefore objects to the afore-mentioned reservation
made by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to the Optional Protocol to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection
shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between
Italy and Trinidad and Tobago." The Government of Trinidad and Tobago
initially acceded to the Optional Protocol on 14 November 1980. On 26 May
1998, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago informed the Secretary-General
of its decision to denounce the Optional Protocol with effect from 26 August
1998. On that same date, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago re-acceded to
the Optional Protocol. The new accession took effect on 26 August 1998.
4. See note 5 in chapter IV.3.
5. Czechoslovakia acceded to the Optional
Protocol on 12 March 1991. See also note 12 in chapter I.2.
6. The former Yugoslavia had signed the
Optional Protocol on 14 March 1990. See also notes 1 regarding "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.
|