WhatConvention.org
International legal search engine
861 multilateral conventions on Environmental Law, Human Rights, Humanitarian Law and Law of the Sea
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
Entry into force: Tuesday, March 23, 1976
Adoption date: Dec 16, 1966
Adoption place: New York
Depositary: Secrétaire Général des Nations Unies
Signed by 36 countries, ratified by 119 countries
Signatory countries
| Country | Signature date | Ratification date * | Reservation / Declaration | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Albania
|
- |
Oct 4, 2007 |
- |
|
 Algeria
|
- |
Sep 12, 1989 |
- |
|
 Andorra
|
Aug 5, 2002 |
Sep 22, 2006 |
- |
|
 Angola
|
- |
Jan 10, 1992 |
- |
|
 Argentina
|
- |
Aug 8, 1986 |
- |
|
 Armenia
|
- |
Jun 23, 1993 |
- |
|
 Australia
|
- |
Sep 25, 1991 |
- |
|
 Austria
|
Dec 10, 1973 |
Dec 10, 1987 |
"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."
|
|
 Azerbaijan
|
- |
Nov 27, 2001 |
- |
|
 Barbados
|
- |
Jan 5, 1973 |
- |
|
 Belarus
|
- |
Sep 30, 1992 |
- |
|
 Belgium
|
- |
May 17, 1994 |
- |
|
 Benin
|
- |
Mar 12, 1992 |
- |
|
 Bolivia
|
- |
Aug 12, 1982 |
- |
|
 Bosnia and Herzegovina
|
Mar 1, 1995 |
Mar 1, 1995 |
- |
|
 Brazil
|
- |
Sep 25, 2009 |
- |
|
 Bulgaria
|
- |
Mar 26, 1992 |
- |
|
 Burkina Faso
|
- |
Jan 4, 1999 |
- |
|
 Cabo Verde
|
- |
May 19, 2000 |
- |
|
 Cambodia
|
Sep 27, 2004 |
- |
- |
|
 Cameroon
|
- |
Jun 27, 1984 |
- |
|
 Canada
|
- |
May 19, 1976 |
- |
|
 Central African Republic
|
- |
May 8, 1981 |
- |
|
 Chad
|
- |
Jun 9, 1995 |
- |
|
 Chile
|
- |
May 27, 1992 |
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. |
|
 Colombia
|
Dec 21, 1966 |
Oct 29, 1969 |
- |
|
 Congo
|
- |
Oct 5, 1983 |
- |
|
 Costa Rica
|
Dec 19, 1966 |
Nov 29, 1968 |
- |
|
 Croatia
|
- |
Oct 12, 1995 |
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." |
|
 Cyprus
|
Dec 19, 1966 |
Apr 15, 1992 |
- |
|
 Czech Republic
|
- |
Feb 22, 1993 |
- |
|
 Democratic Republic of the Congo
|
- |
Nov 1, 1976 |
- |
|
 Denmark
|
Mar 20, 1968 |
Jan 6, 1972 |
"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."
Objections: 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.". |
|
 Djibouti
|
- |
Nov 5, 2002 |
- |
|
 Dominican Republic
|
- |
Jan 4, 1978 |
- |
|
 Ecuador
|
Apr 4, 1968 |
Mar 6, 1969 |
- |
|
 El Salvador
|
Sep 21, 1967 |
Jun 6, 1995 |
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. |
|
 Equatorial Guinea
|
- |
Sep 25, 1987 |
- |
|
 Estonia
|
- |
Oct 21, 1991 |
- |
|
 Finland
|
Dec 11, 1967 |
Aug 19, 1975 |
- |
|
 France
|
- |
Feb 17, 1984 |
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. Objections: 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. |
|
 Gambia
|
- |
Jun 9, 1988 |
- |
|
 Georgia
|
- |
May 3, 1994 |
- |
|
 Germany
|
- |
Aug 25, 1993 |
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." Objections: 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". |
|
 Ghana
|
Sep 7, 2000 |
Sep 7, 2000 |
- |
|
 Greece
|
- |
May 5, 1997 |
- |
|
 Guatemala
|
- |
Nov 28, 2000 |
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. |
|
 Guinea
|
Mar 19, 1975 |
Jun 17, 1993 |
- |
|
 Guinea-Bissau
|
Sep 12, 2000 |
Sep 24, 2013 |
- |
|
 Guyana
|
- |
Jan 5, 1999 |
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." |
|
 Honduras
|
Dec 19, 1966 |
Jun 7, 2005 |
- |
|
 Hungary
|
- |
Sep 7, 1988 |
- |
|
 Iceland
|
- |
Aug 22, 1979 |
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.
Iceland |
|
 Ireland
|
- |
Dec 8, 1989 |
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
|
Apr 30, 1976 |
Sep 15, 1978 |
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.
|
|
 Ivory Coast
|
- |
Mar 5, 1997 |
- |
|
 Jamaica
|
Dec 19, 1966 |
Oct 3, 1975 |
- |
|
 Kazakhstan
|
Sep 25, 2007 |
Jun 30, 2009 |
DECLARATION
The Republic of Kazakhstan, in accordance with article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Kazakhstan concerning actions and omissions by the State authorities or acts or decisions adopted by them following the entry into force of this Optional Protocol in the Republic of Kazakhstan. |
|
 Kyrgyzstan
|
- |
Oct 7, 1994 |
- |
|
 Latvia
|
- |
Jun 22, 1994 |
- |
|
 Lesotho
|
- |
Sep 6, 2000 |
- |
|
 Liberia
|
Sep 22, 2004 |
- |
- |
|
 Libya
|
- |
May 16, 1989 |
- |
|
 Liechtenstein
|
- |
Dec 10, 1998 |
- |
|
 Lithuania
|
- |
Nov 20, 1991 |
- |
|
 Luxembourg
|
- |
Aug 18, 1983 |
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." |
|
 Madagascar
|
Sep 17, 1969 |
Jun 21, 1971 |
- |
|
 Malawi
|
- |
Jun 11, 1996 |
- |
|
 Maldives
|
- |
Sep 19, 2006 |
- |
|
 Mali
|
- |
Oct 24, 2001 |
- |
|
 Malta
|
- |
Sep 13, 1990 |
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." |
|
 Mauritius
|
- |
Dec 12, 1973 |
- |
|
 Mexico
|
- |
Mar 15, 2002 |
- |
|
 Mongolia
|
- |
Apr 16, 1991 |
- |
|
 Montenegro
|
- |
Oct 23, 2006 |
- |
|
 Morocco
|
- |
Apr 22, 2022 |
|
|
 Namibia
|
- |
Nov 28, 1994 |
- |
|
 Nauru
|
Nov 12, 2001 |
- |
- |
|
 Nepal
|
- |
May 14, 1991 |
- |
|
 Netherlands
|
Jun 25, 1969 |
Dec 11, 1978 |
Objections:
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". |
|
 New Zealand
|
- |
May 26, 1989 |
- |
|
 Nicaragua
|
- |
Mar 12, 1980 |
- |
|
 Niger
|
- |
Mar 7, 1986 |
- |
|
 North Macedonia
|
Dec 12, 1994 |
Dec 12, 1994 |
- |
|
 Norway
|
Mar 20, 1968 |
Sep 13, 1972 |
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." Objections: 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." |
|
 Panama
|
Jul 27, 1976 |
Mar 8, 1977 |
- |
|
 Paraguay
|
- |
Jan 10, 1995 |
- |
|
 Peru
|
Aug 11, 1977 |
Oct 3, 1980 |
- |
|
 Philippines
|
Dec 19, 1966 |
Aug 22, 1989 |
- |
|
 Poland
|
- |
Nov 7, 1991 |
Reservation:
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. |
|
 Portugal
|
Aug 1, 1978 |
May 3, 1983 |
- |
|
 Republic of Korea
|
- |
Apr 10, 1990 |
- |
|
 Republic of Moldova
|
Sep 16, 2005 |
Jan 23, 2008 |
Declarations:
Until the full re-establishment of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova, the provisions of the [Protocol] will be applied only on the territory controlled effectively by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova. The Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to examine communications from individuals referring to violations of any of the rights set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights committed until the date of the enter into force of the present Protocol for the Republic of Moldova. Reservation: According to the Article 5 paragraph (2) letter a) of the Protocol: the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider communications from an individual if the matter is being or has already been examined by another international specialized body. |
|
 Romania
|
- |
Jul 20, 1993 |
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
|
- |
Oct 1, 1991 |
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. |
|
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
|
- |
Nov 9, 1981 |
- |
|
 San Marino
|
- |
Oct 18, 1985 |
- |
|
 Sao Tome and Principe
|
Sep 6, 2000 |
Mar 23, 2017 |
- |
|
 Senegal
|
Jul 6, 1970 |
Feb 13, 1978 |
- |
|
 Serbia
|
Mar 12, 2001 |
Sep 6, 2001 |
- |
|
 Seychelles
|
- |
May 5, 1992 |
- |
|
 Sierra Leone
|
- |
Aug 23, 1996 |
- |
|
 Slovakia
|
- |
May 28, 1993 |
- |
|
 Slovenia
|
- |
Jul 16, 1993 |
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." |
|
 Somalia
|
- |
Jan 24, 1990 |
- |
|
 South Africa
|
- |
Aug 28, 2002 |
- |
|
 Spain
|
- |
Jan 25, 1985 |
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.
Objections: 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. |
|
 Sri Lanka
|
- |
Oct 3, 1997 |
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." |
|
 Suriname
|
- |
Dec 28, 1976 |
- |
|
 Sweden
|
Sep 29, 1967 |
Dec 6, 1971 |
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.
|
|
 Tajikistan
|
- |
Jan 4, 1999 |
- |
|
 Togo
|
- |
Mar 30, 1988 |
- |
|
 Trinidad and Tobago
|
- |
Nov 14, 1980 |
- |
|
 Tunisia
|
- |
Jun 29, 2011 |
- |
|
 Turkey
|
Feb 3, 2004 |
Nov 24, 2006 |
Statements
"The Republic of Turkey declares that the three declarations and the reservation made by the Republic to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall also apply to the present Optional Protocol. " "The Republic of Turkey interprets article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Turkey who claim to be the victims of a violation by the Republic of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant." Reservations : "The Republic of Turkey formulates a reservation concerning article 5 paragraph 2 (a) of the Protocol to the effect that the competence of the Committee: a) shall not apply to communications from individuals if the same matter has already been considered or is being considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. b) shall be limited to communications concerning alleged violations which result either from acts, omissions, developments or events that may occur within the national boundaries of the territory of the Republic of Turkey after the date on which the protocol enters into force for the Republic of Turkey, or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events that may occur within the national boundaries of the territory of the Republic of Turkey after the date on which the Protocol enters into force for the Republic of Turkey. c) shall not apply to communications by means of which a violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is reprimanded, if and insofar as the reprimanded violation refers to rights other than those guaranteed under the aforementioned Covenant." Statements : "The Republic of Turkey declares that the three declarations and the reservation made by the Republic to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall also apply to the present Optional Protocol." "The Republic of Turkey interprets article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Turkey who claim to be the victims of a violation by the Republic of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant." The three declarations and the reservation made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights read as follows: The Republic of Turkey declares that; it will implement its obligations under the Covenant in accordance to the obligations under the Charter of the United Nations (especially Article 1 and 2 thereof). The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of this Covenant only to the States with which it has diplomatic relations. The Republic of Turkey declares that this Convention is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. The Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes. |
|
 Turkmenistan
|
- |
May 1, 1997 |
- |
|
 Uganda
|
- |
Nov 14, 1995 |
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." |
|
 Ukraine
|
- |
Jul 25, 1991 |
- |
|
 Uruguay
|
Feb 21, 1967 |
Apr 1, 1970 |
- |
|
 Uzbekistan
|
- |
Sep 28, 1995 |
- |
|
 Venezuela
|
Nov 15, 1976 |
May 10, 1978 |
[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.]
Article 60, paragraph 5, of the Constitution of the Republic of Venezuela establishes that: "No person shall be convicted in criminal trial unless he has first been personally notified of the charges and heard in the manner prescribed by law. Persons accused of an offence against the res publica may be tried in ab- sentia , with the guarantees and in the manner prescribed by law". Venezuela is making this reservation because article 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant makes no provision for persons accused of an offence against the res publica to be tried in absentia . |
|
 Zambia
|
- |
Apr 10, 1984 |
- |
|