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

Declarations and Reservations

(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon ratification, accession or succession. For objections thereto and declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee under article 41, see hereinafter.)

Suriname

18 March 1991

Termination, as from 1 September 1989, of the state of emergency declared on 1 December 1986 in the territory of the Districts of Marowijne, Commewijne, Para, Brokopondo and in part of the territory of the district of Sipaliwini (between the Marowijne river and 56 o WLO. The articles of the Covenant being derogated from were articles 12, 21 and 22 of the Covenant.

Trinidad and Tobago

6 November 1990

(Dated 15 August 1990)

Proclamation of state of emergency in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago as from 28 July 1990 for a period of ninety days and derogation from articles 9, 12, 21 and 14 (3).

18 August 1995

(Dated 11 August 1995)

By a Proclamation issued on 3 August 1995, a state of emergency has been declared in the City of Port of Spain as of 3 August 1995 owing to the fact that, as indicated by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, action has been taken or is immediately threatened by persons or bodies of persons of such a nature and on so extensive a scale as to be likely to endanger the public safety or to deprive the community of supplies or services essential to life. The provisions of the Covenant from which the Government of Trinidiad and Tobago has derogated are articles 9, 12, 14 (3) and 21.

The said state of emergency was lifted on 7 August 1995 by a resolution of the House of Representatives.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

17 May 1976

"The Government of the United Kingdom notify other States Parties to the present Covenant, in accordance with article 4, of their intention to take and continue measures derogating from their obligations under the Covenant.

"There have been in the United Kingdom in recent years campaigns of organised terrorism related to Northern Irish affairs which have manifested themselves in activities which have included murder, attempted murder, maiming, intimidation and violent civil disturbances and in bombing and fire-raising which have resulted in death, injury and widespread destruction of property. This situation constitutes a public emergency within the meaning of article 4 (1) of the Covenant. The emergency commenced prior to the ratification by United Kingdom of the Covenant and Legislation has, from time to time, been promulgated with regard to it.

"The Government of the United Kingdom have found it necessary (and in some cases continue to find it necessary) to take powers, to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, for the protection of life, for the protection of property and the prevention of outbreaks of public disorder, and including the exercise of powers of arrest and detention and exclusion. In so far as any of these measures is inconsistent with the provisions of articles 9, 10 (2), 10 (3), 12 (1), 14, 17, 19 (2), 21 or 22 of the Covenant, the United Kingdom hereby derogates from its obligations under those provisions."

22 August 1984

Termination forthwith of derogations from articles 9, 10 (2), 10 (3), 12 (1), 14, 17, 19 (2), 21 and 22 of the Covenant.

23 December 1988

[The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland] have found it necessary to take or continue measures derogating in certain respects from their obligations under article 9 of the Covenant. (For the reasons of that decision, see paragraph 2 of a previous notification of 17 May 1976, which continue to apply) .

Persons reasonably suspected of involvement in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, or of offences under the legislation and who have been detained for 48 hours may be, on the authority of the Secretary of State, further detained without charge for periods of up to five days.

Notwithstanding the judgement of 29 November 1988 by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brogan and Others the Government has found it necessary to continue to exercise the powers described above but to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation to enable necessary enquiries and investigations properly to be completed in order to decide whether criminal proceedings should be instituted. [This notice is given] in so far as these measures may be inconsistent with article 9 (3) of the Covenant.

31 March 1989

(Dated 23 March 1989)

Replacement as from 22 March 1989, of the measures indicated in the previous notification of 23 December 1988 by section 14 of and paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which make comparable provisions.

18 December 1989

(Dated 12 December 1989)

"The Government of the United Kingdom have [previously] found it necessary to take and continue [various measures], derogating in certain respects from obligations under Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

On 14 November 1989 the Home Secretary announced that the Government had concluded that a satisfactory procedure for the review of detention of terrorist suspects involving the judiciary had not been identified and that the derogation notified under Article 4 of the Covenant would therefore remain in place for as long as circumstances require."

21 February 2001

(Dated 20 February 2001)

Notification to the effect that the derogation from article 9 (3) of the Covenant is terminated with effect from Monday, 26 February 2001.

The notification further states that the termination of the derogation only applies to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that it is not yet possible to terminate the derogation in respect of the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

18 December 2001

"Notification of the United Kingdom's derogation from article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: I have the honour to present my compliments, Excellency, and to convey the following information in order to ensure compliance with the obligations of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom under Article 4  (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 1966.

Public emergency in the United Kingdom

The terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania on 11th September 2001 resulted in several thousand deaths, including many British victims and others from 70 different countries. In its resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001), the United Nations Security Council recognised the attacks as a threat to international peace and security.

The threat from international terrorism is a continuing one. In its resolution 1373 (2001), the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, required all States to take measures to prevent the commission of terrorist attacks, including by denying safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist attacks.

There exists a terrorist threat to the United Kingdom from persons suspected of involvement in international terrorism. In particular, there are foreign nationals present in the United Kingdom who are suspected of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of international terrorism, of being members of organisations or groups which are so concerned or of having links with members of such organisations or groups, and who are a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom.

As a result, a public emergency, within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Covenant, exists in the United Kingdom.

The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

As a result of the public emergency, provision is made in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, inter alia, for an extended power to arrest and detain a foreign national which will apply where it is intended to remove or deport the person from the United Kingdom but where removal or deportation is not for the time being possible, with the consequence that the detention would be unlawful under existing domestic law powers. The extended power to arrest and detain will apply where the Secretary of State issues a certificate indicating his belief that the person's presence in the United Kingdom is a risk to national security and that he suspects the person of being an international terrorist. That certificate will be subject to an appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ('SIA'), established under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, which will have power to cancel it if it considers that the certificate should not have been issued. There will be an appeal on a point of law from a ruling by SIAC. In addition, the certificate will be reviewed by SIAC at regular intervals. SIAC will also be able to grant bail, where appropriate, subject to conditions. It will be open to a detainee to end his detention at any time by agreeing to leave the United Kingdom.

The extended power of arrest and detention in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is a measure which is strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. It is a temporary provision which comes into force for an initial period of 15 months and then expires unless renewed by Parliament. Thereafter, it is subject to annual renewal by Parliament. If, at any time, in the Government's assessment, the public emergency no longer exists or the extended power is no longer strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, then the Secretary of State will, by Order, repeal the provision.

Domestic law powers of detention (other than under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001)

The Government has powers under the Immigration Act 1971 ('the 1971 Act') to remove or deport persons on the ground that their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good on national security grounds. Persons can also be arrested and detained under Schedules 2 and 3 to the 1971 Act pending their removal or deportation. The courts in the United Kingdom have ruled that this power of detention can only be exercised during the period necessary, in all the circumstances of the particular case, to effect removal and that, if it becomes clear that removal is not going to be possible within a reasonable time, detention will be unlawful (Rv Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Singh [1984] All ER 983).

Article 9 of the Covenant

In some cases, where the intention remains to remove or deport a person on national security grounds, continued detention may not be consistent with Article 9 of the Covenant. This may be the case, for example, if the person has established that removal to their own country might result in treatment contrary to Article 7 of the Covenant. In such circumstances, irrespective of the gravity of the threat to national security posed by the person concerned, it is well established that the international obligations of the United Kingdom prevent removal or deportation to a place where there is a real risk that the person will suffer treatment contrary to that article. If no alternative destination is immediately available then removal or deportation may not, for the time being, be possible even though the ultimate intention remains to remove or deport the person once satisfactory arrangements can be made. In addition, it may not be possible to prosecute the person for a criminal offence given the strict rules on the admissibility of evidence in the criminal justice system of the United Kingdom and the high standard of proof required.

Derogation under Article 4 of the Covenant

The Government has considered whether the exercise of the extended power to detain contained in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 may be inconsistent with the obligations under Article 9 of the Covenant. To the extent that the exercise of the extended power may be inconsistent with the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 9, the Government has decided to avail itself of the right of derogation conferred by Article 4(1) of the Covenant and will continue to do so until further notice.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration."

Uruguay

30 July 1979

[The Government of Uruguay] has the honour to request that the requirement laid down in article 4 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should be deemed to have been formally fulfilled with regard to the existence and maintenance in Uruguay of a public emergency as referred to in article 4 (1).

This emergency situation, the nature and consequences of which match the description given in article 4, namely that they threaten the life of the nation, is a matter of universal knowledge, and the present communication might thus appear superfluous in so far as the provision of substantive information is concerned.

This issue has been the subject of countless official statements at both the regional and the international level.

Nonetheless, [the Government of Uruguay] wishes both to comply formally with the above-mentioned requirement and to reiterate that the emergency measures which it has taken, and which comply strictly with the requirements of article 4 (2), are designed precisely to achieve genuine, effective and lasting protection of human rights, the observance and promotion of which are the essence of our existence as an independent and sovereign nation.

Notwithstanding what has been stated above, the information referred to in article 4 (3) concerning the nature and duration of the emergency measures will be provided in more detailed form when the report referred to in article 40 of the Covenant is submitted, so that the scope and evolution of these measures can be fully understood.

Venezuela

12 April 1989

(Dated 17 March 1989)

Establishment of emergency measures and derogation from articles 9, 12, 17, 19 and 21 throughout Venezuela. The notification stipulates that derogation was effected due to a series of serious breaches of the peace having taken place throughout Caracas and in other cities in the country and outbursts of violence, acts of vandalism and violations of the security of Venezuelan individuals and households, leading to loss of life and the destruction of much property, thus causing a further deterioration in the economic situation of the country.

(Dated 31 March 1989)

Re-establishment as from 22 March 1989 of the constitutional safeguards which had been suspended as stated in the previous notification of 17 March 1989.

5 February 1992

(Dated 4 February 1992)

Temporary suspension of certain constitutional guarantees throughout Venezuela with a view to facilitating the full restoration of public order throughout the national territory.

The Government of Venezuela specified that "the measures were made necessary after criminal attempt was made to assassinate the President of the Republic with the aim of upsetting the rule of law and undermining the constitutional order of the Re public thereby constituting an attempt against the achievements of the Venezuelan people over more than three decades of fully democratic government".

The constitutional guarantees suspended in Venezuela relate to the rights provided for in articles 9, 12, 17, 19 and 21. The right to strike was also temporarily suspended.

24 February 1992

(Dated 21 February 1992)

Restoration, as from 17 February 1991, of the guarantees provided for under articles 12 and 19 of the Covenant and also of the right to strike.

6 May 1992

(Dated 30 April 1992)

Restoration, as from 21 February 1991, of the guarantees provided for in articles 9, 17 and 21 of the Covenant, thereby fully ending the state of emergency declared on 4 February 1992.

2 December 1992

(Dated 30 November 1992)

On 27 November 1992, certain constitutional guarantees relating to the rights provided for in articles 9, 17, 19 and 21 of the Covenant have been suspended in Venezuela.

This measure was made necessary after a group of civil subversives in connivance with a small military squad took over Palo Negro air base in the city of Maracay, Aragua State, and Francisco de Miranda Base in the city of Caracas, which services as Headquarters of the Air Force Command, thereby threatening the democratic system.

On 28 November 1992, restoration, as from that date, of the rights provided for in article 21 of the Covenant, so as to allow public electioneering in contemplation of the elections to be held on 6 December 1992.

5 March 1993

Restoration, pursuant to Decree No. 2764 of 16 January 1993, of rights regarding personal liberty corresponding to articles 9 (1) and 11 of the Covenant throughout the national territory. Rights regarding liberty and security of person as well as the inviolability of the home and the right to demonstrate had been restored as from 22 December 1992.

Restoration, pursuant to Decree No. 2672 of 1 December 1992 of certain rights which had been suspended by Decree No.  2668 of 27 November 1992.

Suspension, pursuant to Decree 2765 of 16 January 1993, of certain rights in the State of Sucre as a result of a breach of the peace in that State. These rights, corresponding to articles 12 (1) and 21, were restored by Decree No. 2780 on 25 January 1993.

7 July 1994

(Dated 29 June 1994)

By Decree No. 241 of 27 June 1994, suspension of certain constitutional guarantees in view of the fact that the economic and financial situation of the country has created circumstances liable to endanger public order.

Derogation from the provisions of articles 9, 12 and 17 of the Covenant.

1 September 1995

(Dated 18 July 1995)

By Decree No. 739 of 6 July 1995, restoration of the constitutional guarantees, suspended by Decree No. 241 of 27 June 1994 [see notification received on 7 July 1994] , throughout the national territory, except in the autonomous municipalities of Rosario de Perijá and Catatumbo, State of Zulia; García de Hevia, Pedro María Ureña, Bolivar, Panamericano and Fernández Feo, State of Táchira; Páez, Pedro Camejo and Rómulo Gallegos, State of Apure; and Atures, Atuana, Manapiare, Atabapo, Alto Orinoco and Guainía, State of Amazonas. The Government considers that the situation in these border municipalities, where the theatre of conflict and the theatre of operations No. 1 were decreed, requires that, in the interest of protecting its borders, the above guarantees remain suspended.

22 March 1999

(Dated 3 March 1999)

Resoration of the guarantees provided for in articles 9, 12 and 17 of the Covenant, suspended by Decree No. 739 of 6 July 1995 . [See notification received on 1 September 1995.]

Yugoslavia (former) 1

Territorial Application

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. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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".

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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."

26. 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.

27. 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).

28. On 15 March 1991 and 19 January 1993, 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) and of article 14 (7) (with effect from 21 January 1993) made upon accession.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

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

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

34. 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 .

35. 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.

36. 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.

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