Gracias por política de privacidad y cookies.

WhatConvention.org

International legal search engine

861 convenciones multilaterales sobre el derecho del medio ambiente, los derechos humanos, el derecho humanitario y el derecho del mar

Protocolo Facultativo del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, 1996

Entrada en vigor: martes, 23 de marzo de 1976

: 16 dic. 1966

: New York

: Secrétaire Général des Nations Unies

Firmado por 36 países, ratificado por 119 países

Ver la convención Evolución de las ratificaciones

Países signatarios

País	Fecha de firma	Fecha de ratificación *	Reserva / Declaración
Albania	-	4 oct. 2007	-
Alemania	-	25 ago. 1993	Reserva 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".
Andorra	5 ago. 2002	22 sept. 2006	-
Angola	-	10 ene. 1992	-
Argelia	-	12 sept. 1989	-
Argentina	-	8 ago. 1986	-
Armenia	-	23 jun. 1993	-
Australia	-	25 sept. 1991	-
Austria	10 dic. 1973	10 dic. 1987	Reserva "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."
Azerbaiyán	-	27 nov. 2001	-
Barbados	-	5 ene. 1973	-
Belarús	-	30 sept. 1992	-
Bélgica	-	17 may. 1994	-
Benin	-	12 mar. 1992	-
Bolivia	-	12 ago. 1982	-
Bosnia y Herzegovina	1 mar. 1995	1 mar. 1995	-
Brasil	-	25 sept. 2009	-
Bulgaria	-	26 mar. 1992	-
Burkina Faso	-	4 ene. 1999	-
Cabo Verde	-	19 may. 2000	-
Camboya	27 sept. 2004	-	-
Camerún	-	27 jun. 1984	-
Canadá	-	19 may. 1976	-
Chad	-	9 jun. 1995	-
Chile	-	27 may. 1992	Reserva 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.
Chipre	19 dic. 1966	15 abr. 1992	-
Colombia	21 dic. 1966	29 oct. 1969	-
Congo	-	5 oct. 1983	-
Costa de Marfil	-	5 mar. 1997	-
Costa Rica	19 dic. 1966	29 nov. 1968	-
Croacia	-	12 oct. 1995	Reserva 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."
Dinamarca	20 mar. 1968	6 ene. 1972	Reserva "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	-	5 nov. 2002	-
Ecuador	4 abr. 1968	6 mar. 1969	-
El Salvador	21 sept. 1967	6 jun. 1995	Reserva 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.
Eslovaquia	-	28 may. 1993	-
Eslovenia	-	16 jul. 1993	Reserva 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."
España	-	25 ene. 1985	Reserva 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.
Estonia	-	21 oct. 1991	-
Federación de Rusia	-	1 oct. 1991	Reserva 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.
Filipinas	19 dic. 1966	22 ago. 1989	-
Finlandia	11 dic. 1967	19 ago. 1975	-
Francia	-	17 feb. 1984	Reserva 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	-	9 jun. 1988	-
Georgia	-	3 may. 1994	-
Ghana	7 sept. 2000	7 sept. 2000	-
Grecia	-	5 may. 1997	-
Guatemala	-	28 nov. 2000	Reserva 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	19 mar. 1975	17 jun. 1993	-
Guinea Bissau	12 sept. 2000	24 sept. 2013	-
Guinea Ecuatorial	-	25 sept. 1987	-
Guyana	-	5 ene. 1999	Reserva 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	19 dic. 1966	7 jun. 2005	-
Hungría	-	7 sept. 1988	-
Irlanda	-	8 dic. 1989	Reserva 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.
Islandia	-	22 ago. 1979	Reserva 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
Italia	30 abr. 1976	15 sept. 1978	Reserva 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.
Jamaica	19 dic. 1966	3 oct. 1975	-
Kazajstán	25 sept. 2007	30 jun. 2009	Reserva 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.
Lesotho	-	6 sept. 2000	-
Letonia	-	22 jun. 1994	-
Liberia	22 sept. 2004	-	-
Libia	-	16 may. 1989	-
Liechtenstein	-	10 dic. 1998	-
Lituania	-	20 nov. 1991	-
Luxemburgo	-	18 ago. 1983	Reserva 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."
Macedonia del Norte	12 dic. 1994	12 dic. 1994	-
Madagascar	17 sept. 1969	21 jun. 1971	-
Malawi	-	11 jun. 1996	-
Maldivas	-	19 sept. 2006	-
Malí	-	24 oct. 2001	-
Malta	-	13 sept. 1990	Reserva 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."
Marruecos	-	22 abr. 2022	Reserva
Mauricio	-	12 dic. 1973	-
México	-	15 mar. 2002	-
Mongolia	-	16 abr. 1991	-
Montenegro	-	23 oct. 2006	-
Namibia	-	28 nov. 1994	-
Nauru	12 nov. 2001	-	-
Nepal	-	14 may. 1991	-
Nicaragua	-	12 mar. 1980	-
Níger	-	7 mar. 1986	-
Noruega	20 mar. 1968	13 sept. 1972	Reserva 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."
Nueva Zelandia	-	26 may. 1989	-
Países Bajos	25 jun. 1969	11 dic. 1978	Reserva 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".
Panamá	27 jul. 1976	8 mar. 1977	-
Paraguay	-	10 ene. 1995	-
Perú	11 ago. 1977	3 oct. 1980	-
Polonia	-	7 nov. 1991	Reserva 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	1 ago. 1978	3 may. 1983	-
República Centroafricana	-	8 may. 1981	-
República Checa	-	22 feb. 1993	-
República de Corea	-	10 abr. 1990	-
República Democratica del Congo	-	1 nov. 1976	-
República Dominicana	-	4 ene. 1978	-
República Kirguisa	-	7 oct. 1994	-
Repuública de Moldova	16 sept. 2005	23 ene. 2008	Reserva 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.
Rumania	-	20 jul. 1993	Reserva 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.
San Marino	-	18 oct. 1985	-
San Vicente y las Granadinas	-	9 nov. 1981	-
Santo Tomé y Príncipe	6 sept. 2000	23 mar. 2017	-
Senegal	6 jul. 1970	13 feb. 1978	-
Serbia	12 mar. 2001	6 sept. 2001	-
Seychelles	-	5 may. 1992	-
Sierra Leona	-	23 ago. 1996	-
Somalia	-	24 ene. 1990	-
Sri Lanka	-	3 oct. 1997	Reserva 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."
Sudáfrica	-	28 ago. 2002	-
Suecia	29 sept. 1967	6 dic. 1971	Reserva 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.
Suriname	-	28 dic. 1976	-
Tayikistán	-	4 ene. 1999	-
Togo	-	30 mar. 1988	-
Trinidad y Tabago	-	14 nov. 1980	-
Túnez	-	29 jun. 2011	-
Turkmenistán	-	1 may. 1997	-
Turquía	3 feb. 2004	24 nov. 2006	Reserva 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.
Ucrania	-	25 jul. 1991	-
Uganda	-	14 nov. 1995	Reserva 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."
Uruguay	21 feb. 1967	1 abr. 1970	-
Uzbekistán	-	28 sept. 1995	-
Venezuela	15 nov. 1976	10 may. 1978	Reserva [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	-	10 abr. 1984	-

Total : 122

Ajustar su búsqueda Nueva búsqueda