Partijen en gegevens

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which a number of States cannot become parties to these Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature and considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States concerned without any discrimination or limitation.

The Mongolian People's Republic declares that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which a number of States cannot become parties to these Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature and considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by alle States concerned without any discrimination or limitation.

[The Government of Israel] has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Syria on acceding to the above Covenants. In the view of the Government of Israel, the two Covenants are not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Syria an attitude of complete reciprocity.

The People's Republic of Bulgaria deems it necessary to underline that the provisions of article 48, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and article 26, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, under which a number of States are deprived of the opportunity to become parties to the Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature. These provisions are inconsistent with the very nature of the Covenants, which are universal in character and should be open for accession by all States. In accordance with the principle of sovereign equality, no State has the right to bar other States from becoming parties to a covenant of this kind.

The entry of the Republic of Iraq as a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall in no way signify recognition of Israel nor shall it entail any obligation towards Israel under the said two Covenants.

The entry of the Republic of Iraq as a party to the above two Covenants shall not constitute entry by it as a party to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

[The Government of Israel] has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Iraq on signing […] the above Covenants. In the view of the Government of Israel, these two Covenants are not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Iraq an attitude of complete reciprocity.

Ratification by Iraq […] shall in no way signify recognition of Israel nor shall it be conducive to entry with her into such dealings as are regulated by the said [Covenant].

[The Government of Israel] has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Iraq on […] ratifying the above Covenants. In the view of the Government of Israel, these two Covenants are not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Iraq an attitude of complete reciprocity.

Sweden reserves the right not to apply the provisions of article 10, paragraph 3, with regard to the obligation to segregate juvenile offenders from adults, the provisions of article 14, paragraph 7 , and the provisions of article 20, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

Sweden recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in 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.

Subject to reservations to article 10, paragraph 2 (b) and paragraph 3 ‘with regard to the obligation to keep accused juvenile persons and juvenile offenders segregated from adults’ and to article 14, paragraphs 5 and 7 and to article 20, paragraph 1.

Withdrawal of the reservation to article 6, paragraph 4 made upon ratification.

[The Government of Norway declares that] the entry into force of an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act, which introduces the right to have a conviction reviewed by a higher court in all cases, the reservation made by the Kingdom of Norway with respect to article 14, paragraph 5 of the Covenant shall continue to apply only in the following exceptional circumstances:

Norway recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in 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.

The German Democratic Republic considers that article 48, paragraph 1, of the Covenant runs counter to the principle that all States which are guided in their policies by the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter have the right to become parties to conventions which affect the interests of all States.

The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic declares that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which a number of States cannot become parties to these Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature and considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States concerned without any discrimination or limitation.

The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic declares that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which a number of States cannot become parties to these Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature and considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States concerned without any discrimination or limitation.

Articles 19, 21 and 22 together with article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant shall be applied within the scope of article 16 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950.

Article 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant shall be applied so that it shall be in the discretion of the Court to decide whether an accused person being held in custody shall appear in person before the court of review.

Article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant shall be applied so that:

Article 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant shall be applied so that, in the event of a relaxation of existing criminal law, the law previously in force may remain applicable in certain exceptional instances to offences committed before the modification was made.

The Government of Germany indicates 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).

The Government of the Hungarian People's Republic declares that paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights according to which certain States may not become signatories to the said Covenants are of a discriminatory nature and are contrary to the basic principle of international law that all States are entitled to become signatories to general multilateral treaties. These discriminatory provisions are incompatible with the objectives and purposes of the Covenants.

The Presidential Council of the Hungarian People's Republic declares that the provisions of article 48, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and article 26, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are inconsistent with the universal character of the Covenants. It follows from the principle of sovereign equality of States that the Covenants should be open for participation by all States without any discrimination or limitation.

The Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania declares that the provisions of article 48, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are at variance with the principle that all States have the right to become parties to multilateral treaties governing matters of general interest.

[…]

On 16 March 2020 the President of Romania decreed state of emergency on the territory of Romania in order to ensure the containment of the spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus on the territory of Romania.

The Decree no. 195 by which the state of emergency was declared in accordance with the Romanian Constitution and the relevant law on the regime of the state of siege and of the state of emergency (Emergency Governmental Decision no. 1/1999 as subsequently amended) was published in the Official Gazette no. 212 of 16 March 2020 and is hereby attached. On 19 March the measure decreed by the President of Romania was endorsed by the Romanian Parliament, in accordance with article 93 of the Romanian Constitution.

The Decree includes the emergency measures of immediate and gradual application deemed necessary in order to limit the spread of the virus and ensure public health at national level.

Some of the measures taken or which will be taken in the context, on the basis of the Decree, may involve derogations from the obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966), to which Romania is a party, in particular articles 12, 17 and 21.

Therefore, the Permanent Mission of Romania to the United Nations kindly asks that this Note Verbale be considered as notification for the purposes of Article 4 (3) of the Covenant, in disregard of the previous Note Verbale no. 1716 of 17 March 2020.

The initial duration of the state of emergency is of 30 days. The Romanian authorities will subsequently inform of any changes that might occur in relation to the situation.

[…]

The Permanent Mission of Romania to the United Nations […] following its Note Verbale no. 1801 of 20 March 2020, has the honour to inform that the duration of the state of emergency has been extended on the entire territory of Romania for a 30-day period, as of 15 April 2020.

The measure was taken by the President of Romania through Decree no. 240 published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no. 311 of 14 April 2020 and was endorsed by the Parliament of Romania on 16 April 2020.

The decision to maintain the state of emergency was taken in order to ensure the continuity of the measures adopted so far and to introduce additional measures needed in the effort to manage the spread of SARS-CoV-2 on the territory of Romania, given that both the number of registered infections and the number of deaths caused by SARS-CoV-2 have registered ascending trends, as well as to provide for the necessary legal basis for possible new measures which could be required depending on the further progress of the situation.

The Decree maintains the guarantees as to the proportionality and the necessity of the measures, which are to be adopted should certain criteria enumerated in the Decree (art. 3 para. 5) be met.

The text of Decree no. 240/2020 is attached to this Note Verbale as published in the Official Journal and in the English courtesy translation. The Romanian authorities will continue to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations of any new measures that will be adopted in the context.

[…]

he Permanent Mission of Romania to the United Nations […] following Note Verbale no. 1801 of 20 March 2020 and Note Verbale no. 2547 of 21 April 2020, in view of the obligation stipulated in art. 4 para. 3 (2nd thesis) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has the honour to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations that the state of emergency on the territory of Romania shall cease as of 14 May 2020 (24:00 hrs).

The provisions of Decree no. 240/14 April 2020 on extending the duration of the state of emergency on the territory of Romania and of the military ordinances adopted on its bases which might have involved derogations from the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall cease their effect as of the same date.

[…]

The acceptance and the accession to this Covenant by the Libyan Arab Republic shall in no way signify a recognition of Israel or be conducive to entry by the Libyan Arab Republic into such dealings with Israel as are regulated by the Covenants.

[The Government of Israel] has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of the Libyan Arab Republic [upon accession to] the above Covenants. In the view of the Government of Israel, these two Covenants are not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of the Libyan Arab Republic an attitude of complete reciprocity. [Moreover, the declaration concerned] cannot in any way affect the obligations of the Libyan Arab Republic already existing under general international law.

The Government of Barbados states that it reserves the right not to apply in full, the guarantee of free legal assistance in accordance with paragraph 3(d) of Article 14 of the Covenant, since, while accepting the principles contained in the same paragraph, the problems of implementation are such that full application cannot be guaranteed at present.

The provision of [the article concerned] is in contradiction with the principle that all States have the right to become parties to multilateral treaties governing matters of general interest.

The Federal Republic of Germany in accordance with Article 41 of the said Covenant recognizes for a period of two years from the entry into force of that article the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from a State Party in sofar as that State Party has recognized in regard to itself the competence of the Committee and as corresponding obligations have been assumed under the Covenant by the Federal Republic of Germany and by the State Party concerned.

The Federal Republic of Germany, in accordance with article 41 of the said Covenant, recognizes for a further five years from the date of expiry of the declaration of 28 March 1981 the competence of the Human Rights Committee te receive and consider communications from a State Party insofar as that State Party has recognized in regard to itself the competence of the Committee and as corresponding obligations have been assumed under the Covenant by the Federal Republic of Germany and by the State Party concerned.

…the Federal Republic of Germany, in accordance with Article 41 of the said Covenant, recognizes for a further five years from the date of expiry of the declaration of 24 March 1986 the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from a State Party insofar as that State Party has recognized in regard to itself the competence of the Committee and as corresponding obligations have been assumed under the Covenant by the Federal Republic of Germany and by the State Party concerned. ’

The Government of Thailand declares that:

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers this declaration as a reservation. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the aforesaid declaration, since it follows from the text and history of the Covenant that the declaration is incompatible with the text, the object and purpose of article 6 of the Covenant, which according to article 4 lays down the minimum standard for the protection of the right to life. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Thailand.

Withdrawal of interpretative delcarations made upon accession with respect to articles 6 (5) and 9 (3) of the covenant.

The Government of Kingdom of Thailand declares that:

[...] with reference to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), has the honour to inform the latter that on 25 March 2020 the Royal Thai Government has declared an emergency situation, by virtue of Section 5 of the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations B.E. 2548 (2005) (the Emergency Decree), in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand, which took effect from 26 March 2020 to 30 April 2020, which was extended until 31 May 2020 and 30 June 2020 respectively, in response to the announcement by the World Health Organization that the outbreak of the Coronavirus 2019 or COVID-19 is a pandemic, which is therefore a situation that threatens public order and the safety of people which necessitates stringent and urgent measures to prevent the widespread transmission of the disease. In this regard, the Kingdom of Thailand considered it necessary to adopt temporary urgent measures in order to protect the public health, safety and peaceful living of the people, as well as suppress the spread of COVID-19. It wishes to inform that some of these temporary urgent measures may involve a derogation from some of its obligations under the ICCPR, particularly Article 12. The Kingdom of Thailand also wishes to emphasise that the measures adopted are strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, are not inconsistent with other obligations under international law, and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin. Attached hereto are unofficial translation of: (1) the Declaration of an Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand, issued on 25 March 2020; (2) the Regulation issued under Section 9 of the Emergency Decree (No. 2), issued on 2 April 2020; (3) the Regulation issued under Section 9 of the Emergency Decree (No. 3), issued on 10 April 2020; (4) the Notification on the Extension of Duration of the Declaration of an Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand (1st Extension), issued on 28 April 2020; (5) the Regulation issued under Section 9 of the Emergency Decree (No. 5), issued on 1 May 2020; and (6) the Notification on the Extension of Duration of the Declaration of an Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand (2nd Extension), issued on 26 May 2020. The Permanent Mission of Thailand wishes to further inform the Executive Office of the Secretary-General that the non-derogable rights as set forth in Articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 of the Covenant have not been affected by the above-mentioned temporary urgent measures. […]

[…] and has the honour to refer to the former’s Note No. 56101/292 dated 4 June B.E. 2563 (2020) informing the latter that, in accordance with Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), on 25 March B.E. 2563 (2020) the Royal Thai Government had declared an emergency situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand, which took effect from 26 March 2020 to 30 April 2020, and which had been extended until 30 May 2020 and 30 June 2020, respectively, in response to the announcement of the World Health Organization regarding the outbreak of the communicable disease Coronavirus 2019 or COVID-19 as a global pandemic and the subsequent development of the outbreak.

In this regard, the Permanent Mission of Thailand to the United Nations has further the honour to inform the latter that the afore-mentioned emergency situation was further extended until 30 September 2022, the details of which appear as Annex 1, and was subsequently repealed from 1 October 2022. An unofficial translation of the Declaration of a Repeal of the Declaration of an

Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand, issued on 29 September B.E. 2565

(2022) and took effect on 1 October B.E. 2565 (2022), appears as Annex 2.

[…]

The Extension of Emergency Decree During COVID-19 (2020-2022)

No. Date of Declaration Duration

Declaration

Re: Repeal of the Declaration of an Emergency Situation in All Areas of the Kingdom of Thailand, and Relevant Notifications, Regulations and Orders

Pursuant to the Declaration of an Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand, issued on 25 March B.E. 2563 (2020) and the extensions of the duration of the Declaration of an Emergency Situation in all areas of the Kingdom of Thailand in a total of 19 times until 30 September B.E. 2565 (2022), to apply measures in accordance with the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations B.E. 2548 (2005) to control, suppress, prevent and resolve the situation of the communicable disease Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic;

Whereas at present the situation of the outbreak of COVID-19 throughout the world has improved, the World Health Organization reported that the number of deaths from such disease has been significantly declined and remained at its lowest rates since March 2020, which aligns with the overall situation in Thailand. This resulted from intensive and continuous enforcement of public health measures since the beginning of the outbreak, collective actions of people to receive vaccination, public compliance with necessary public health measures to prevent and control the disease, including active and integrated operations of all the officials involved. The enforcement of measures, therefore, is to be relaxed to alleviate the impact both on people and entrepreneurs to move forward to normalcy both in terms of economic and social activities. As the situation invoked the issuance of the declaration of emergency situation has substantially improved, the Government agencies, i.e. Public Health, Administrative and Securities agencies are able to enforce measures in accordance with relevant laws to resolve problems as in normal circumstances.

By virtue of Section 5 Paragraph 3 of the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations B.E. 2548 (2005), the Prime Minister, upon recommendation of the Centre of the Administration of the Situation due to the Outbreak of the Communicable Disease Coronavirus (COVID-19), hereby declares as follows:

This Declaration shall take effect from 1 October B.E. 2565 (2022).

Issued on 29 September B.E. 2565 (2022)

(General Prawit Wongsuwan)

Deputy Prime Minister

Acting Prime Minister

The Government of Finland notifies 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).

The Government of Finland notifies the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservations made upon ratification with respect to articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (d), respectively.

First, the Government of the United Kingdom declares their understanding that, by virtue of Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations, in the event of any conflict between their obligations under Article 1 of the Covenant and their obligations under the Charter (in particular, under Articles 1, 2 and 73 thereof) their obligations under the Charter shall prevail.

Secondly, the Government of the United Kingdom declare that:

Lastly, the Government of the United Kingdom declare that the provisions of the Covenant shall not apply to Southern Rhodesia unless and until they inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they are in a position to ensure that the obligations imposed by the Covenant in respect of that territory can be fully implemented.

Firstly the Government of the United Kingdom maintain their declaration in respect of Article 1 made at the time of signature of the Covenant.

The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to apply to members of and persons serving with the armed forces of the Crown and to persons lawfully detained in penal establishments of whatever character such laws and procedures as they may from time to time deem to be necessary for the preservation of service and custodial discipline and their acceptance of the provisions of the Covenant is subject to such restrictions as may for these purposes from time to time be authorised by law.

Where at any time there is a lack of suitable prison facilities or where the mixing of adults and juveniles is deemed to be mutually beneficial, the Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply Article 10.2 (b) and 10.3, so far as those provisions require juveniles who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults, and not to apply Article 10.2 (a) in Gibraltar, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands in so far as it requires segregation of accused and convicted persons.

The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply Article 11 in Jersey.

The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to interpret the provisions of Article 12.1 relating to the territory of a State as applying separately to each of the territories comprising the United Kingdom and its dependencies.

The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to continue to apply such immigration legislation governing entry into, stay in and departure from the United Kingdom as they may deem necessary from time to time and, accordingly, their acceptance of Article 12.4 and of the other provisions of the Covenant is subject to the provisions of any such legislation as regards persons not at the time having the right under the law of the United Kingdom to enter and remain in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom also reserves a similar right in regard to each of its dependent territories.

The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply Article 13 in Hong Kong in so far as it confers a right of review of a decision to deport an alien and a right to be represented for this purpose before the competent authority.

The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply or not to apply in full the guarantee of free legal assistance in sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 3 of Article 14 in so far as the shortage of legal practitioners renders the application of this guarantee impossible in the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, the Gilbert Islands, the Pitcairn Islands Group, St. Helena and Dependencies and Tuvalu.

The Government of the United Kingdom interpret Article 20 consistently with the rights conferred by Articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant and having legislated in matters of practical co ncern in the interests of public order (ordre public) reserve the right not to introduce any further legislation. The United Kingdom also reserve similar right in regard to each of its dependent territories.

The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to postpone the application of paragraph 3 of Article 23 in regard to a small number of customary marriages in the Solomon Islands.

The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to enact such nationality legislation as they may deem necessary from time to time to reserve the acquisition and possession of citizenship under such legislation to those having sufficient connection with the United Kingdom or any of its dependent territories and accordingly their acceptance of Article 24.3 and of the other provisions of the Covenant is subject to the provisions of any such legislation.

The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply sub-paragraph (b) of Article 25 in so far as it may require the establishment of an elected Executive or Legislative Council in Hong Kong and sub-paragraph (c) of Article 25 in so far as it relates to jury service in the Isle of Man.

Lastly the Government of the United Kingdom declare that the provisions of the Covenant shall not apply to Southern Rhodesia unless and until they inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they are in a position to ensure that the obligations imposed by the Covenant in respect of that territory can be fully implemented.

The Government of the United Kingdom declare under article 41 of this Covenant that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such other State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to the United Kingdom made a declaration under article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself.

[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.

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.

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 resolutions 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.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 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.

[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.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notifies the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation to sub-paragraph c) of Article 25 made upon ratification.

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.

While the Government of the Republic of Guyana accept the principle of Legal Aid in all appropriate criminal proceedings, is working towards that end and at present apply it in certain defined cases, the problems of implementation of a comprehensive Legal Aid Scheme are such that full application cannot be guaranteed at this time.

While the Government of the Republic of Guyana accept the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment, it is not possible at this time to implement such a principle.

In accordance with the principle where by all States whose policies are guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations are entitled to become Parties to Covenants affecting the interests of the international community, the Government of the Republic of Guinea considers that the provisions of article 48, paragraph 1, of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights are contrary to the principle of the universality of international treaties and the democratization of international relations.

Article 60, paragraph 5, of the Constitution of the Republic of Venezuela establishes that: ‘No person shall be convicted in a 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 absentia, 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.

[The Government of the Republic of Austria] declares under article 41 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that Austria recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee 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 on Civil and Political Rights.

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

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

The provisions of article 14, paragraph 3(d), are deemed to be compatible with existing Italian provisions governing trial of the accused in his presence and determining the cases in which the accused may present his own defence and those in which legal assistance is required.

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

With reference to article 15, paragraph 1, last sentence: ‘If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby’, the Italian Republic deems this provision to apply exclusively to cases in progress.

Consequently, a person who has already been convicted by a final decision shall not benefit from any provision made by law, subsequent to that decision, for the imposition of a lighter penalty.

The provisions of article 19, paragraph 3, are interpreted as being compatible with the existing licensing system for national radio and television and with the restrictions laid down by law for local radio and television companies and for stations relaying foreign programmes.

The Italian Republic recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee, elected in accordance with 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.

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

Article 9, paragraph 5

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

Article 12, paragraph 4

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

Article 14, paragraph 5

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

Reservations:

Article 10

The Kingdom of the Netherlands subscribes to the principle set out in paragraph 1 of this Article, but it takes the view that ideas about the treatment of prisoners are so liable to change; that it does not wish to be bound by the obligations set out in paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 (second sentence) of this Article.

Article 12, paragraph 1

The Kingdom of the Netherlands regards the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles as separate territories of a State for the purpose of this provision.

Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 4

The Kingdom of the Netherlands regards the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles as separate countries for the purpose of these provisions.

Article 14, paragraph 3 (d)

The Kingdom of the Netherlands reserve the statutory option of removing a person charged with a criminal offence from the courtroom in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings.

Article 14, paragraph 5

The Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves the statutory power of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands to have sole jurisdiction to try certain categories of persons charged with serious offences committed in the discharge of a public office.

Article 14, paragraph 7

The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts this provision only insofar as no obligations arise from it further to those set out in Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Netherlands and Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Netherlands Antilles as they now apply. They read:

Article 19, paragraph 2

The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provision with the proviso that it shall not prevent the Kingdom from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

Article 20, paragraph 1

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the obligation set out in this provision in the case of the Netherlands.

Article 25 (c)

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

[The Kingdom of the Netherlands] clarify that although the reservations […] are partly of an interpretational nature, [it] has preferred reservations to interpretational declarations in all cases, since if the latter form were used doubt might arise concerning whether the text of the Covenant allows for the interpretation put upon it. By using the reservation form the Kingdom of the Netherlands wishes to ensure in all cases that the relevant obligations arising out of the Covenant will not apply to the Kingdom, or will apply only in the way indicated.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands declares under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in 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.

Article 10

Convicted prisoners serving an actual sentence of less than three months as a rule serve it in a House of Detention. As it is not feasible at present to have very short sentences served only in prisons, a reservation must be entered concerning the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 2 (a).

Since the provisions in question were drawn up, major changes have taken place in opinions on the treatment of prisoners; it is increasingly thought that there is a need for a selection criterion based on personality rather than on age. The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not wish to cut itself off from this development by binding itself to the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 2 (b) and paragraph 3 (second sentence).

Article 12, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4

The Kingdom of the Netherlands, a party to the Covenant, consists constitutionally of the countries of the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles.

Admission and residence are regulated differently in these two countries. The Kingdom of the Netherlands wishes to establish beyond doubt that Article 12 does not imply that legal residence in one of the countries confers a right of entry to the other.

Article 14, paragraph 3 (d)

Legislation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in general accords with the principles set out in this Article regarding the treatment of persons against whom criminal proceedings have been instituted.

On some points, however, the provisions of this legislation do not accord with the precise wording of part of this Article.

The provision of Article 14, paragraph 3 (d), that everyone must be tried in his presence is also a principle in the legislation of the Kingdom, but there are some exceptions. Under Article 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Netherlands the presiding judge of the court may order a witness to be heard in the absence of the person charged with a criminal offence, provided the person charged is informed immediately of what has taken place in his absence; under Article 303 a person charged with a criminal offence who disturbs the silence or order of the court and is warned by the presiding judge to no avail may be removed; under Article 304 questions concerning the mental faculties of the person charged may be dealt with in his absence; and under Article 500j questions concerning the personality or living conditions of the person charged may be dealt with in his absence.

The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Netherlands Antilles contains provisions to the same effect. The Kingdom of the Netherlands takes the view that these provisions facilitate the proper administration of justice and they should therefore be retained.

Article 14, paragraph 5

The principle of Article 14, paragraph 5, that everyone convicted of a criminal offence must have the right to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal is also found in the legislation of the Kingdom.

Serious offences committed in the discharge of a public office by a specific small group of persons with governmental responsibilities, however, under Article 178 of the Constitution are judged by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands as the tribunal having sole jurisdiction. The safeguarding of the individual's rights under the law, which is also the rationale behind Article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, is here sought in the doubling of the number of judges which the Court normally comprises (ten instead of five). The prosecution in such cases is undertaken by the Procurator General to the Supreme Court, who, unlike ordinary public prosecutors, is appointed for life and is thus independent of the Government.

Article 14, paragraph 7

It is not clear whether Article 14, paragraph 7, lays down only the national or also the international application of the ne bis in idem principle. Under Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Netherlands and Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Netherlands Antilles the national application of the principle is guaranteed but there is some limitation to its international application. The Kingdom of the Netherlands states that it does not wish the application of the ne bis in idem principle to extend any further than under Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Netherlands and Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Netherlands Antilles as they now apply.

Article 19, paragraph 2

Article 10, paragraph 1, of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states expressly that it (the Article) shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. A provision of this kind is lacking in Article 19 of the Covenant, and there may therefore be doubt concerning whether this Article permits such a licensing system. A reservation has therefore been entered to exclude uncertainty on this point.

Article 20, paragraph 1

It is extremely difficult to formulate a statutory prohibition of propaganda for war in such a way that excessive infringements of the freedom of expression are avoided. A criminal provision would have to be worded so that it related only to the use of armed violence in conflict with international law.

The question is then what sort of violence as such is meant, and this question does not appear to lend itself to adjudication by domestic courts. Moreover, trials on this matter would soon take on a political nature, which should be avoided in general. These considerations and the reservation apply only to the Netherlands.

Article 25 (c)

Article 5, paragraph 3(e), Article 6, paragraphs 3 and 4, and Articles 95 and 96 of the Antillean Public Servant's Substantive Law National Regulation contains rules concerning appointment and termination of employment that are less favourable to women than to men. Since these provisions cannot be dispensed with for the time being on economic and social grounds, a reservation has been entered on the matter in the case of the Netherlands Antilles.

Withdrawal of the reservation to article 25, sub-paragraph (c). The text of the reservation reads as follows:

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

In reference to the reservation made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands on ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 11 December 1978, which reads, as far as relevant:

‘[…]

Article 12, paragraph 1

The Kingdom of the Netherlands regards the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles as separate territories of a State for the purpose of this provision.

Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 4

The Kingdom of the Netherlands regards the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles as separate countries for the purpose of these provisions.

[…]’

The Kingdom of the Netherlands, consisting, as per 10 October 2010, of the European part of the Netherlands, the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba), Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, regards these parts as separate territories for the purpose of Article 12, paragraph 1, and as separate countries for the purpose of Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 4, of the Covenant.

The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply Article 10 (2)(b) or Article 10 (3) in circumstances where the shortage of suitable facilities makes the mixing of juveniles and adults unavoidable; and further reserves the right not to apply Article 10 (3) where the interests of other juveniles in an establishment require the removal of a particular juvenile offender or where mixing is considered to be of benefit to the persons concerned.

The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply Article 14 (6) to the extent that it is not satisfied by the existing system for ex gratia payments to persons who suffer as a result of a miscarriage of justice.

The Government of New Zealand having legislated in the areas of the advocacy of national and racial hatred and the exciting of hostility or illwill against any group of persons, and having regard to the right of freedom of speech, reserves the right not to introduce further legislation with regard to Article 20.

The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply Article 22 as it relates to trade unions to the extent that existing legislative measures, enacted to ensure effective trade union representation and encourage orderly industrial relations, may not be fully compatible with that Article.

The Government of New Zealand declares under Article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that it recognises the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from another State Party which has similarly declared under Article 41 its recognition of the Committee's competence in respect to itself except where the declaration by such a state party was made less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a complaint relating to New Zealand.

In the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands it follows from the text and the history of the Covenant that [reservation (i) by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago] is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore con-siders the reservation unacceptable and formally raises an objection to it.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the above-cited reservation. In the opinion of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany it follows from the text and the history of the Covenant that the said reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Trinidad and Tobago confirms that paragraph (vi) constituted an interpretative declaration which did not aim to exclude nor modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Covenant.

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and wishes to inform the Secretary General of the United Nations that on May 15, 2021 the President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (Chap. 1:01) being satisfied:

“that a public emergency has arisen as a result of the outbreak of an infectious disease [2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV]”,

by. Proclamation (L.N. No. 141 of 2021) declared the existence of a State of Emergency in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. In accordance with Section 10 of the Constitution, the Proclamation was on May 24, 2021 extended by resolution of the House of Representatives for a further period of ninety (90) days (L.N. No. 173 of 2021).

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to the United Nations as required by Article 4, paragraph 3 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights hereby notifies the Secretary General of the United Nations of the consequent necessity for the suspension of certain rights protected by the Covenant by the enactment of the Emergency Powers Regulations 2021 (L.N. No. 142 of 2021) which were subsequently revoked by the Emergency Powers (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (L.N. 176 of 2021) and later varied by the Emergency Powers (Variation of Curfew Times) Order, 2021 (L.N. No. 177 of 2021) and the Emergency Powers (Variation of Curfew Times) (No. 2) Order, 2021 (L.N. No. 178 of 2021).

Derogation from the rights protected by Article 9 of the Covenant, namely the right to liberty and security of person, and not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention; is authorized by the above-mentioned Emergency Powers Regulations as follows:

(i) Regulation 8. (1)

“Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, a police officer may arrest without warrant, any person who he reasonably suspects has acted or is acting or is about to act in a manner prejudicial to public health, public safety or to public order or to have committed or is committing or is about to commit an offence against these Regulations".

The right to liberty of movement of persons lawfully within the territory of a State protected by Article 12 of the Covenant has been derogated from by curfew restrictions on movement and travel imposed by virtue of Emergency Powers (No. 2) Regulations as follows:

(i) Regulation 4. (1)

“Subject to the exemptions set out in subregulation (5), no person shall be outside of their private dwelling, including in a motor vehicle, ship or vessel during the hours of –

without the authorization of the Commissioner of Police or such other person or authority as may be authorized by him for the purpose and any such permission may be granted subject to such conditions as may be specified therein.

The times above were varied by the Emergency Powers (Variation of Curfew Times) (No. 2) Order with effect from Sunday 6th June, 2021 as follows:

“3. The curfew times specified in the Regulations are varied as follows:

(b) in regulation 4:

(ii) Regulation 6. (1)

“The Commissioner of Police or a person authorized by him in that regard, may for the purposes of ensuring the protection of public health, public safety or to public order –

(b) prohibit any person from travelling except in accordance with permission given to him by such authority or person as may be specified; and

(c) require any person to quit any place or area or not to visit any place or area. Derogation from the rights protected by Article 21 of the Covenant, namely the right of peaceful assembly, is authorized by the above-mentioned Emergency Powers Regulations 3. (1)

(i) Regulation 3. (1)

“During the period of public emergency between the hours of 5:01 a.m. to 8:59 p.m. every day, a person shall not –

The times above were varied by the Emergency Powers (Variation of Curfew Times) (No. 2) Order with effect from Sunday 6th June, 2021 as follows:

“3. The curfew times specified in the Regulations are varied as follows:

(a) In regulation 3:

(ii) Regulation (5)

“During the period of a public emergency between the hours of 5:01 am to 8:59 pm every day, a religious or ecclesiastical organisation or any other religious organization shall not be open for the conduct of religious activities and services except that they may conduct funeral services and wedding services where the gathering of persons at any place used for that purpose does not exceed ten persons”.

(iii) Regulation (8)

“The following places shall at all times remain closed to the public:

[…]

The German Democratic Republic has ratified the two Covenants in accordance with the policy it has so far pursued with the view to safeguarding human rights. It is convinced that these Covenants promote the world-wide struggle for the enf orcement of human rights, which is an integral part of the struggle for the maintenance and strengthening of peace. On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it thus contributes to the peaceful international cooperation of states, to the promotion of human rights and to the joint struggle against their violation by aggressive policies, colonialism and apartheid, racism and other forms of assaults on the right of the peoples to self-determination.

The Constitution of the German Democratic Republic guarantees the political, economic, social and cultural rights to every citizen independent of race, sex and religion. Socialist democracy has created the conditions for every citizen not only to enjoy these rights but also take an active part in their inplementation and enforcement.

Such fundamental human rights as the right to peace, the right to work and social security, the equality of women, and the right to education have been fully implemented in the German Democratic Republic. The Government of the German Democratic Republic has always paid great attention to the material prerequisites for guaranteeing above all the social and economic rights. The welfare of the working people and its continuous improvement are the leit-motif of the entire policy of the Government of the German Democratic Republic.

The Government of the German Democratic Republic holds that the signing and ratification of the two human rights Covenants by further Member States of the United Nations would be an important step to implement the aims for respecting and promoting the human rights, the aims proclaimed in the United Nations Charter.

The Government of Senegal declares, under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the said Covenant to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Senegal, made a declaration under article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself.

[…] with reference to its note verbale No. 0334/REPSEN/NY/BM of 1 May 2020, has the honour to inform that, in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the Government of the Republic of Senegal, on 23 March 2020, by Decree No. 2020-830, declared a state of emergency throughout the country for a period of 12 days.

In accordance with Act No. 2020-13 of 2 April 2020, empowering the President of the Republic to adopt, by decree, measures under the Act in order to address the COVID-19 pandemic and authorizing extensions of the state of emergency, the state of emergency measure was extended by Decree No. 2020-925 of 3 April 2020, then by Decree No. 2020-1014 of 3 May 2020 and lastly by Decree No. 2020-1177 of 29 May 2020. Each extension was for 30 days.

The curfew, initially imposed from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m., was reduced first to the hours of 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. and subsequently to the hours of 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. In accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Senegal wishes to inform the Secretary-General that, during this period of the state of emergency (23 March 2020–30 June 2020), the Government of the Republic of Senegal exercised its right to derogate from its obligations under articles 12 and 21 of the Covenant, concerning the right to liberty of movement and the right of peaceful assembly, respectively.

The Permanent Mission also wishes to note that, pursuant to article 4, paragraph 2, of Act No. 2020-13, the Government of the Republic of Senegal decided to lift the state of emergency from 30 June 2020.

The aforementioned Act and decrees are attached to the present note verbale. The text of the decision on the lifting of the state of emergency will be provided at a later date.

[…]

Other provisions of the Covenant shall be inviolably observed.

The Government of Iceland notifies 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.

Withdrawal of reservation concerning article 13[lees: 10], paragraph 3.

Articles 2 and 50

Australia advises that, the people having united as one people in a Federal Commonwealth under the Crown, it has a federal constitutional system. It accepts that the provisions of the Covenant extend to all parts of Australia as a federal State without any limitations or exceptions. It enters a general reservation that article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, and article 50 shall be given effect consistently with and subject to the provisions in article 2, paragraph 2.

Under article 2, paragraph 2, steps to adopt measures necessary to give effect to the rights recognised in the Covenant are to be taken in accordance with each State Party's Constitutional processes which, in the case of Austria, are the processes of a federation in which legislative, executive and judicial powers to give effect to the rights recognised in the Covenant are distributed among the federal (Commonwealth) authorities and the authorities of the constituent States.

In particular, in relation to the Australian States the implementation of those provisions of the Covenant over whose subject matter the federal authorities exercise legislative, executive and judicial jurisdiction will be a matter for those authorities; and the implementation of those provisions of the Covenant over whose subject matter the authorities of the constituent States exercise legislative, executive and judicial jurisdiction will be a matter for those authorities; and where a provision has both federal and State aspects, its implementation will accordingly be a matter for the respective constitutionally appropriate authorities (for the purpose of implementation, the Northern Territory will be regarded as a constituent State).

To this end, the Australian Government has been in consultation with the responsible State and Territory Ministers with the object of developing co-operative arrangements to co-ordinate and facilitate the implementation of the Covenant.

Article 10

Australia accepts the principle stated in paragraph 1 of article 10 and the general principles of the other paragraphs of that article, but makes the reservation that these and other provisions of the Covenant are without prejudice to laws and lawful arrangements, of the type now in force in Australia, for the preservation of custodial discipline in penal establishments.

In relation to paragraph 2(a) the principle of segregation is accepted as an objective to be achieved progressively. In relation to paragraphs 2(b) and 3 (second sentence) the obligation to segregate is accepted only to the extent that such segregation is considered by the responsible authorities to be beneficial to the juveniles or adults concerned.

Article 14

Australia accepts paragraph 3(b) on the understanding that the reference to adequate facilities does not require provision to prisoners of all the facilities available to a prisoner's legal representative.

Australia accepts the requirement in paragraph 3(d) that everyone is entitled to be tried in his presence, but reserves the right to exclude an accused person where his conduct makes it impossible for the trial to proceed.

Australia interprets paragraph 3(d) of article 14 as consistent with the operation of schemes of legal assistance in which the person assisted is required to make a contribution towards the cost of the defence related to his capacity to pay and determined according to law, or in which assistance is granted in respect of other than indictable offences only after having regard to all relevant matters.

Australia makes the reservation that the provision of compensation for miscarriage of justice in the circumstances contemplated in paragraph 6 of article 14 may be by administrative procedures rather than pursuant to specific legal provision.

Article 17

Australia accepts the principles stated in article 17 without prejudice to the right to enact and administer laws which, insofar as they authorise action which impinges on a person's privacy, family, home or correspondence, are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 19

Australia interprets paragraph 2 of article 19 as being compatible with the regulation of radio and television broadcasting in the public interest with the object of providing the best possible broadcasting services to the Australian people.

Article 20

Australia interprets the rights provided for by articles 19, 21 and 22 as consistent with article 20; accordingly, the Commonwealth and the constituent States, having legislated with respect to the subject matter of the article in matters of practical concern in the interests of public order (ordre public), the right is reserved not to introduce any further legislative provision on these matters.

Article 25

The reference in paragraph (b) of article 25 to ‘universal and equal suffrage’, is accepted without prejudice to law which provide that factors such as regional interest may be taken into account in defining electoral divisions, or which establish franchises for municipal and other local government elections related to the sources of revenue and the functions of such government.

Convicted Persons

Australia declares that laws now in force in Australia relating to the rights of persons who have been convicted of serious criminal offences are generally consistent with the requirements of articles 14, 18 , 19, 25 and 26 and reserves the right not to seek amendment of such laws.

Discrimination and Distinction

The provisions of articles 2(1) and 24(1), 25 and 26 relating to discrimination and distinction between persons shall be without prejudice to laws designed to achieve for the members of some class or classes of persons equal enjoyment of the rights defined in the Covenant. Australia accepts article 26 on the basis that the object of the provision is to confirm the right of each person to equal treatment in the application of the law.

Article 10

In relation to paragraph 2(a) the principle of segregation is accepted as an objective to be achieved progressively. In relation to paragraphs 2(b) and 3 (second sentence) the obligation to segregate is accepted only to the extent that such segregation is considered by the responsible authorities to be beneficial to the juveniles or adults concerned.

Article 14

Australia makes the reservation that the provision of compensation for miscarriage of justice in the circumstances contemplated in paragraph 6 of article 14 may be by administrative procedures rather than pursuant to specific legal provision.

Article 20

Australia interprets the rights provided for by articles 19, 21 and 22 as consistent with article 20; accordingly, the Commonwealth and the constituent States, having legislated with respect to the subject matter of the article in matters of practical concern in the interests of public order (ordre public), the right is reserved not to introduce any further legislative provision on these matters.

Australia has a federal constitutional system in which legislative, executive and judicial powers are shared or distributed between the Commonwealth and the constituent States. The implementation of the treaty throughout Australia will be effected by the Commonwealth, State and Territory authorities having regard to their respective constitutional powers and arrangements concerning their exercise.

The Government of Australia notifies 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.

The Kingdom of Belgium declares that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Kingdom of Belgium declares, under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Belgium, made a declaration under article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself.

The Government of Luxembourg recognizes, in accordance with article 41, the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in 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.

The Government of Luxembourg declares that it is implementing article 14, paragraph 5, since that paragraph does not conflict with the relevant Luxembourg legal statutes, which provide that, following an acquittal or a conviction by a court of first instance, a higher tribunal may deliver a sentence, confirm the sentence passed or impose a harsher penalty for the same crime. However, the tribunal's decision does not give the person declared guilty on appeal the right to appeal that conviction to a higher appellate jurisdiction.

The Government of Luxembourg further declares that article 14, paragraph 5, shall not apply to persons who, under Luxembourg law, are remanded directly to a higher court.

The Government of Canada declares, under Article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in Article 28 of the said Covenant to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Canada, made a declaration under Article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself.

The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Secretary-General's communication of 9 April 2014, numbered C.N.181.2014.TREATIES-IV.4, relating to that treaty.

The Permanent Mission of Canada notes that this communication was made pursuant to the Secretary General's capacity as Depositary for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Permanent Mission of Canada notes the technical and administrative role of the Depositary, and that it is for States Parties to a treaty, not the Depositary, to make their own determination with respect to any legal issues raised by instruments circulated by a depositary.

In that context, the Permanent Mission of Canada notes that 'Palestine' does not meet the criteria of a state under international law and is not recognized by Canada as a state. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the Permanent Mission of Canada wishes to note its position that in the context of the purported Palestinian accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 'Palestine' is not able to accede to this convention, and that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not enter into force, or have an effect on Canada's treaty relations, with respect to the 'State of Palestine'.

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary, and has the honor to refer to depositary notification C.N.277.2014.TREATIES-IV.4, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, dated 16 December 1966.

The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of Canada and wishes to recall United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 according Palestine 'non-member observer State status in the United Nations'. In this regard, Palestine is a State recognized by the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of the international community.

As a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which will enter into force on 2 July 2014, the State of Palestine will exercise its rights and honor its obligations with respect to all States Parties. The State of Palestine trusts that its rights and obligations will be equally respected by its fellow States Parties.

… for financial reasons free legal assistance for accused persons is limited in our constitution to persons charged with capital offences only. The Government of the Gambia therefore wishes to enter a reservation in respect of Article 14(3) d of the Covenant in question.

The Federal Government welcomes the decision of the Republic of India to adhere to the United Nations Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany strongly objects, however, to the declaration made by the Republic of India in respect of article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The right of self-determination as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and as embodied in the Covenants applies to all peoples and not only to those under foreign domination. All peoples, therefore, have the inalienable right freely to determine their political status and freely to pursue their economic, social and cultural development. The Federal Government cannot consider as valid any interpretation of the right of self-determination which is contrary to the clear language of the provisions in question. It moreover considers that any limitation of their applicability to all nations is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenants.

The Government of the Republic takes objection to the reservation entered by the Government of the Republic of India to article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as this reservation attaches conditions not provided for by the Charter of the United Nations to the exercise of the right of self-determination. The present declaration will not be deemed to be an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the French Republic and the Republic of India.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of India in relation to article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, since the right of self-determination as embodied in the Covenants is conferred upon all peoples. This follows not only from the very language of article 1 common to the two Covenants but as well from the most authoritative statement of the law concerned, i.e. the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Any attempt to limit the scope of this right or to attach conditions not provided for in the relevant instruments would undermine the concept of self-determination itself and would thereby seriously weaken its universally acceptable character.

The Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan objects to the declaration made by the Republic of India in respect of article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The right of Self-determination as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and as embodied in the Covenants applies to all peoples under foreign occupation and alien domination.

The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan cannot consider as valid any interpretation of the right of self-determination which is contrary to the clear language of the provisions in question. Moreover, the said reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenants. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and India without India benefiting from its reservations.

The Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka declares under Article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee 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, from another State Party which has similarly declared under Article 41 its recognition of the Committee's competence in respect to itself.

The Federal Government refers to the declaration on article 27 made by the French Government in United Nations circular note C.N.335.1980.TREATIES-10 dated 2 December 1980 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.

Partial withdrawal of reservation to article 14(5) of the Covenant. The reservation shall henceforth read as follows:

‘The Government of the Republic interprets article 14, paragraph 5, as stating a general principle to which the law may make limited exceptions, for example, in the case of certain offences subject to the initial and final adjudication of a police court. However, an appeal against a final decision may be made to the Court of Cassation which rules on the legality of the decision concerned.’

Interpretive statements

Article 9, paragraph 5

Under the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and the relevant implementing legislation, every individual enjoys the guarantees relating to penal matters embodied therein, and consequently no person may be unlawfully arrested or detained. However, if by reason of false accusation or complaint any individual suffers an infringement of this basic right, he has, inter alia, under the provisions of the appropriate laws, an enforceable right to just compensation.

Article 18

Under the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, every person is free to profess his preferred religious belief and to practice its ceremonies, rites and religious acts, with the limitation, with regard to public religious acts, that they must be performed in places of worship and, with regard to education, that studies carried out in establishments designed for the professional education of ministers of religion are not officially recognized. The Government of Mexico believes that these limitations are included among those established in paragraph 3 of this article.

Reservations

Article 13

The Government of Mexico makes a reservation to this article, in view of the present text of article 33 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States.

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.

Partial withdrawal of the reservation to article 25 (b) made upon accession.

Withdrawal of the reservation to article 13 made upon accession.

Upon accession to the Covenants, the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam deems it necessary to declare that the provisions of article 48, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and article 26, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, under which a number of States are deprived of the opportunity to become parties to the Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature. The Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States without any discrimination or limitation.

The presiding body of the Revolutionary Council of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan declares that the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and provisions of paragraph 1 and 3 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, according to which some countries cannot join the aforesaid Covenants, contradicts the international character of the aforesaid treaties. Therefore, according to the equal rights to all States to sovereignty, both Covenants should be left open for the purpose of the participation of all States.

The Government of the People's Republic of the Congo declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, or by the provisions of article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is quite incompatible with articles 386 et seq. of the Congolese Code of Civil, Commercial, Administrative and Financial Procedure, derived from Act 51/83 of 21 April 1983. Under those provisions, in matters of private law, decisions or orders emanating from conciliation proceedings may be enforced through imprisonment for debt when other means of enforcement have failed, when the amount due exceeds 20,000 Ch francs and when the debtor, between 18 and 60 years of age, makes himself insolvent in bad faith.

[The Belgian Government] wishes to observe that the sphere of application of article 11 is particularly restricted. In fact, article 11 prohibits imprisonment only when there is no reason for resorting to it other than the fact that the debtor is unable to fulfil a contractual obligation. Imprisonment is not incompatible with article 11 when there are other reasons for imposing this penalty, for example when the debtor, by acting in bad faith or through fraudulent manoeuvres, has placed himself in the position of being unable to fulfil his obligations. This interpretation of article 11 can be confirmed by reference to the travaux préparatoires (see document A/2929 of 1 July 1955).

After studying the explanations provided by the Congo concerning its reservation, [the Belgian Government] has provisionally concluded that this reservation is unnecessary. It is its understanding that the Congolese legislation authorizes imprisonment for debt when other means of enforcement have failed when the amount due exceeds 20,000 CFA francs and when the debtor, between 18 and 60 years of age, makes himself insolvent in bad faith. The latter condition is sufficient to show that there is no contradiction between the Congolese legislation and the letter and the spirit of article 11 of the Covenant.

By virtue of article 4, paragraph 2, of the aforementioned Covenant, article 11 is excluded from the sphere of application of the rule which states that in the event of an exceptional public emergency, the States Parties to the Covenant may, in certain conditions, take measures derogating from their obligations under the Covenant. Article 11 is one of the articles containing a provision from which no derogation is permitted in any circumstances. Any reservation concerning that article would destroy its effects and would therefore be in contradiction with the letter and the spirit of the Covenant.

Consequently, and without prejudice to its firm belief that Congolese law is in complete conformity with the provisions of article 11 of the Covenant, [the Belgian Government] fears that the reservation made by the Congo may, by reason of its very principle, constitute a precedent which might have considerable effects at the international level.

[The Belgian Government] therefore hopes that this reservation will be withdrawn and, as a precautionary measure, wishes to raise an objection to that reservation.

[The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands] wishes to observe that the sphere of application of article 11 is particularly restricted. In fact, article 11 prohibits imprisonment only when there is no reason for resorting to it other than the fact that the debtor is unable to fulfil a contractual obligation. Imprisonment is not incompatible with article 11 when there are other reasons for imposing this penalty, for example when the debtor, by acting in bad faith or through fraudulent manoeuvres, has placed himself in the position of being unable to fulfil his obligations. This interpretation of article 11 can be confirmed by reference to the travaux préparatoires (see document A/2929 of 1 July 1955). After studying the explanations provided by the Congo concerning its reservation, [the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands] has provisionally concluded that this reservation is unnecessary. It is its understanding that the Congolese legislation authorizes imprisonment for debt when other means of enforcement have failed when the amount due exceeds 20,000 CFA francs and when the debtor, between 18 and 60 years of age, makes himself insolvent in bad faith. The latter condition is sufficient to show that there is no contradiction between the Congolese legislation and the letter and the spirit of article 11 of the Covenant.

By virtue of article 4, paragraph 2, of the aforementioned Covenant, article 11 is excluded from the sphere of application of the rule which states that in the event of an exceptional public emergency, the States Parties to the Covenant may, in certain conditions, take measures derogating from their obligations under the Covenant. Article 11 is one of the articles containing a provision from which no derogation is permitted in any circumstances. Any reservation concerning that article would destroy its effects and would therefore be in contradiction with the letter and the spirit of the Covenant.

Consequently, and without prejudice to its firm belief that Congolese law is in complete conformity with the provisions of article 11 of the Covenant, [the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands] fears that the reservation made by the Congo may, by reason of its very principle, constitute a precedent which might have considerable effects at the international level. [The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands] therefore hopes that this reservation will be withdrawn and, as a precautionary measure, wishes to raise an objection to that reservation.

… Peru recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee 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 on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with article 41 of the said Covenant.

In accordance with the provisions of article 41, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified by Ecuador on 9 January 1969 and in force since its publication in the Registro Oficial of 24 January 1969), the Government of Ecuador recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the aforementioned Covenant, as provided for in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of that article. This recognition of competence is effective for an indefinite period and is subject to the provisions of article 41, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Philippine Government, in accordance with article 41 of the said Covenant recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee set up in aforesaid 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.

The Government of Denmark recognizes, in accordance with Article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature in New York on December 19, 1966, for a new period of five years from 23 March 1978 the competence of the Committee referred to in Article 41 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.

On behalf of the Government of Denmark I hereby recognize, in accordance with Article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature in New York on December 19, 1966, the competence of the Committee referred to in Article 41 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.

The accession of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or serve as grounds for the establishment of relations of any sort with Israel.

The Kingdom of Belgium declares that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee under article 41 if the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Kingdom of Belgium declares, under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Belgium, made a declaration under article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself.

The Spanish Government declares, with reference to the provisions of article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it recognizes, for a period of three years starting on the date of the deposit of this Declaration, the competence of the Human Rights Committee 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.

The Spanish Government declares under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that it recognizes, for a period of five years as from the date of deposit of this declaration, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Covenant.

The Government of Spain declares that, under the provisions of article 41 of the [Covenant], it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee 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.

[The Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Algeria] recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in 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.

The Federal Republic of Germany states the following regarding the declarations made by Algeria upon deposit of its instrument of ratification to the International Covenant of 16 December 1966 on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant of 16 December 1966 on Civil and Political Rights:

It 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 restriction 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.

The Government of Portugal hereby presents its formal objection to the interpretative declarations made by the Government of Algeria upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Government of Portugal having examined the contents of the said declarations reached the conclusion that they can be regarded as reservations and therefore should be considered invalid as well as incompatible with the purposes and object of the Covenants.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenants between Portugal and Algeria.

In the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the interpretative declaration concerning article 13, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 16 December 1966) must be regarded as a reservation to the Covenant. From the text and history of the Covenant it follows that the reservation with respect to article 13, paragraphs 3 and 4 made by the Government of Algeria is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore considers the reservation unacceptable and formally raises an objection to it.

[This objection is] not an obstacle to the entry into force of [the Covenant] between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Algeria.

Article 6, Paragraph 5

Pending the introduction of further legislation to give full effect to the provisions of paragraph 5 of Article 6, should a case arise which is not covered by the provisions of existing law, the Government of Ireland will have regard to its obligations under the Covenant in the exercise of its power to advise commutation of the sentence of death.

Article 10, Paragraph 2

Ireland accepts the principles referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 10 and implements them as far as practically possible. It reserves the right to regard full implementation of these principles as objectives to be achieved.

Article 14

Ireland reserves the right to have minor offenses against military law dealt with summarily in accordance with current procedures which may not, in all respects, conform to the requirements of Article 14 of the Covenant.

Ireland makes the reservation that the provision of compensation for the miscarriage of justice in the circumstances contemplated in paragraph 6 of Article 14 may be by administrative procedures rather than pursuant to specific legal provisions.

Article 19, Paragraph 2

Ireland reserves the right to confer a monopoly on or require the licensing of broadcasting enterprises.

Article 20, Paragraph 1

Ireland accepts the principle in paragraph 1 of Article 20 and implements it as far as it is practicable. Having regard to the difficulties in formulating a specific offence capable of adjudication at national level in such a form as to reflect the general principles of law recognised by the community of nations as well as the right to freedom of expression, Ireland reserves the right to postpone consideration of the possibility of introducing some legislative addition t o, or variation of, existing law until such time as it may consider that such is necessary for the attainment of the objective of paragraph 1 of Article 20.

Article 23, Paragraph 4

Ireland accepts the obligations of paragraph 4 of Article 23 on the understanding that the provision does not imply any right to obtain a dissolution of marriage.

The Government of Ireland notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservations made to The Government of Ireland notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservations made to articles 14 (6) and 23 (4) made upon ratification.

Whereas the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was done at New York on 16 December, 1966,

And whereas the said Covenant was ratified, on behalf of Ireland, on 8 December, 1989, subject to a Declaration under Article 41 thereof and to the Declaration and Reservations annexed to the instrument of ratification dated 7 December, 1989;

And whereas a Reservation to Article 14 of the said Covenant was annexed to the instrument of ratification in the following terms:

Ireland reserves the right to have minor offences against military law dealt with summarily in accordance with current procedures, which may not, in all respects, conform to the requirements of article 14 of the Covenant.

And whereas legal provisions have now been introduced in Ireland providing for full compliance with Article 14 of the said Covenant;

And whereas the Government of Ireland judged it expedient that the said reservation be withdrawn;

Now therefore, I, Micheál Martin T.D., Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland, hereby notify the Secretary General of the United Nations that Ireland withdraws the said Reservation to Article 14 of the said Covenant.

Done at Dublin under our official seal on 1 September 2008.

Withdrawal of reservation to Article 19, paragraph 2.

The Government of the Republic of Korea [declares] that the provisions of paragraphs 5 and 7 of Article 14, Article 22 and paragraph 4 of Article 23 of the Covenant shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the provisions of the local laws including the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.

The Government of the Republic of Korea notifies the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation made in respect of article 23, paragraph 4 with effect from 15 March 1991.

[The Federal Republic of Germany] interprets the declaration to mean that the Republic of Korea does not intend to restrict its obligations under article 22 by referring to its domestic legal system.

The Government of the United Kingdom have noted the statement formulated by the Government of the Republic of Korea on accession, under the title ‘RESERVATIONS’. They are not however able to take a position on these purported reservations in the absence of a sufficient indication of their intended effect, in accordance with the terms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the practice of the Parties to the Covenant. Pending receipt of such an indication, the Government of the United Kingdom reserve their rights under the Covenant in their entirety.

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.

In the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands it follows from the text and the history of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that the reservations with respect to articles 14, paragraphs 5 and 7 and 22 of the Covenant made by the Government of the Republic of Korea are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore considers the reservation unacceptable and formally raises objection to it, this objection is not an obstacle to the entry into force of this Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Korea.

The Government of the Republic of Korea notifies the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation made in respect of article 14, paragraph 7 with effect from 21 January 1993.

Withdrawal of Reservation

The Government of the Republic of Korea [declares] that the provisions of article 22 of the Covenant shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the provisions of the local laws including the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.

Furthermore, the Government of Malta declares that under Article 41 of this Covenant it recognises the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such other State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Malta, made a declaration under Article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself.

By virtue of the powers vested in me by the Political Constitution of the Republic, I hereby declare that, as from the date of this instrument, the Government of Chile recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with article 41 thereof, with regard to all actions which may have been initiated since 11 March 1990.

[…] pursuant to article 4 of the [International] Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on 18 March of this year, the President of the Republic of Chile, using the powers conferred on him under article 41 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile, declared a country-wide state of emergency, owing to a public disaster. This is in response to the worldwide spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, the effects of which have also been felt on the territory of Chile and which pose a health hazard. A copy of the relevant decree is attached.

The state of emergency allows for the adoption of a number of measures restricting freedom of assembly and movement, such as the establishment of quarantines or curfews, and also allows for the imposition of requisitions or other measures restricting the right to property.

The state of emergency also allows the Armed Forces to cooperate in order to face the crisis, and enables the appointment of national defence chiefs, who will assume command of the forces of law and order and public security in the corresponding areas, enforce law and order, and repair or prevent any damage or threat to national security, observing the instructions given by the President of the Republic and the health measures ordered by the competent authorities of the Ministry of Health.

By an express provision (article 44 of the Constitution), the actions of the executive branch remain subject to the checks and balances of the other branches of Government because its functioning is in no way altered by these measures. Furthermore, the exercise of individual fundamental rights continues to be protected by the courts (article 45, paragraph one of the Constitution), and its respect and promotion remain the duty of State bodies.

Thus, in order to protect the life, health and safety of the population, and in the context of the declaration of a state of emergency, the competent authorities, in accordance with the instructions given by the President of the Republic, have restricted the exercise of two rights set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: liberty of movement (article 12) and freedom of assembly (article 21). The text of the administrative instruments through which these restrictions have been imposed is attached.

As you know, the Government of Chile is fully committed to democracy, the respect for and promotion of human rights and the rule of law, as the pillars of social coexistence. The restrictions on the rights outlined above are fully in line with current international human rights conventions, because they are limited to what is strictly necessary to protect the life, health and safety of the population.

Those restrictions will be lifted as soon as normality is restored, and even before the end of the state of emergency, if possible. Finally, it should be noted that the state of emergency will be in force for 90 days and came into effect at midnight on 19 March 2020; the President of the Republic may request its extension or a new declaration if the underlying circumstances persist. The National Congress may rescind the declaration 180 days from that date if the reasons behind the declaration no longer exist. However, the resident of the Republic may only declare a state of emergency for a period exceeding one year with the agreement of the National Congress.

[...]

[…]

… the President of the Republic, using the powers conferred on him under article 41 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile, has considered necessary to extend for a further 90 days the constitutional state of emergency, owing to a public disaster, declared in the Chilean territory through Supreme Decree No. 104, of 18 March 2020, of the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, and its amendments. The foregoing is due to the persistence of the circumstances that led to the declaration of the said state of emergency, given the spread and effects of the COVID-19 outbreak in the national territory, qualified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization.

Decree No. 400 of the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, extending for the second time the declaration of the constitutional state of emergency, owing to a public disaster, issued on 10 September and published in the Official Gazette on 12 September 2020, and implementing concrete measures in the aforementioned regulatory framework, is attached to this letter.

As reported in notes No. 19 and No. 28 of 25 March and 18 June 2020, respectively, the constitutional state of emergency in question allows for the adoption of a number of measures, including the restriction of meetings in public spaces, ensuring the distribution of basic goods and services, ordering the establishment of reserves of food and other goods necessary for the care and livelihood of the population, the issuance of measures for the protection of public utility services, and the limitation of transport or movement of persons, as well as the establishment of quarantines or curfews. The latter measure, affecting the right to freedom of movement, may be adopted in accordance with the powers conferred on the Chief of area under article 43 of the Constitution and article 5 of the Constitutional Organic Law No. 18.415 on the states of emergency.

This exceptional regime also allows the Armed Forces to cooperate in order to face the crisis.

Consequently, the appointments of members of the Armed Forces as defence chiefs in each region of the country have been renewed for the same period of time.

Constitutional states of emergency are regulated by the Political Constitution of the Republic and the corresponding Constitutional Organic Law (COL No. 18.415).

Fundamental and human rights remain safeguarded by express constitutional provisions (articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 19 paragraph 26, 20, 21 and 45 of the Constitution). The respect and promotion thereof remain the duty of State bodies and the actions of the executive branch remain subject to the checks and balances of the other branches of the State, whose functioning is in no way altered by these measures.

It should be noted that the above restrictions on the freedom of movement and right to assembly are fully in line with the international human rights conventions in force, since they are limited to what is strictly necessary to protect the health and safety of the population of Chile and help combat the pandemic. Consequently, those restrictions will be lifted as soon as this situation ends.

[…]

[…] the President of the Republic, using the powers conferred on him under article 41 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile, has considered necessary to extend for a further 90 days the constitutional state of emergency, owing to a public disaster, declared in the Chilean territory through Supreme Decree No. 104, of 18 March 2020, of the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, and its amendments. The foregoing is due to the persistence of the circumstances that led to the declaration of the said state of emergency, given the spread and effects of the COVID-19 outbreak in the national territory, qualified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization.

Decree No. 646 of the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, issued on 9 December 2020 and published in the Official Gazette on 12 December 2020, extending the state of emergency owing to a public disaster and implementing concrete steps pursuant to the aforementioned instruments, is attached.

As reported in note No. 19/20 of 25 March 2020, the constitutional state of emergency in question allows for the adoption of a number of measures, including the restriction of meetings in public spaces, ensuring the distribution of basic goods and services, ordering the establishment of reserves of food and other goods necessary for the care and livelihood of the population, the issuance of measures for the protection of public utility services, and the limitation of transport or movement of persons, as well as the establishment of quarantines or curfews. The latter measure, affecting the right to freedom of movement, may be adopted in accordance with the powers conferred on the Chief of area under article 43 of the Constitution and article 5 of the Constitutional Organic Law No. 18.415 on the states of emergency, which concern the right to freedom of movement.

The state of emergency also allows the Armed Forces to cooperate in order to face the crisis and calls for the appointment of defence chiefs. The defence chiefs are responsible for controlling the law enforcement and security forces in their respective areas and for maintaining law and order and identifying and preventing any harm or threat to national security. The powers allowing for the state of emergency and the corresponding specific measures will be adopted gradually, as the pandemic develops, and the population will be provided with timely information.

Constitutional states of emergency are regulated by the Political Constitution of the Republic and the corresponding Constitutional Organic Law (COL No. 18.415).

Fundamental and human rights remain safeguarded by express constitutional provisions (articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 19 paragraphs 26, 20, 21 and 45 of the Constitution). The respect and promotion thereof remain the duty of State bodies and the actions of the executive branch remain subject to the checks and balances of the other branches of the State, whose functioning is in no way altered by these measures.

As you know, the Government of Chile is fully committed to democracy, the rule of law and the defence of human rights, as the pillars of social coexistence. The above restrictions on the freedom of movement and right to assembly are fully in line with current international human rights conventions, because they are limited to what is strictly necessary to protect the health and safety of the population and help to combat the pandemic. Those restrictions will be lifted as soon as this situation ends.

[…]

The Republic of Poland that the Republic of Poland recognizes, in accordance with article 41, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the competence of the Human Rights Committee 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.

The Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe recognized with effect from today's date, the competence of the Human Rights Committee 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 [provided that such State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Zimbabwe, made a declaration under article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself]

Since its establishment, the State of Israel has been the victim of continuous threats and attacks on its very existence as well as on the life and property of its citizens.

These have taken the form of threats of war, of actual armed attacks, and campaigns of terrorism resulting in the murder of and injury to human beings.

In view of the above, the State of Emergency which was proclaimed in May 1948 has remained in force ever since. This situation constitutes a public emergency within the meaning of Article 4 (1) of the Covenant.

The Government of Israel has therefore found it necessary, in accordance with the said Article 4, to take measures to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, for the defence of the State and for the protection of life and property, including the exercise of powers of arrest and detention.

In so far as any of these measures are inconsistent with Article 9 of the Covenant, Israel thereby derogates from its obligations under that provision.

With reference to Article 23 of the Covenant, and any other provision thereof to which the present reservation may be relevant, matters of personal status are governed in Israel by the religious law of the parties concerned.

To the extent that such law is inconsistent with its obligations under the Covenant, Israel reserves the right to apply that law.

The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as depositary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and refers to the communication by the depositary, dated 9 April 2014, regarding the Palestinian request to accede to this Convention (Reference number C.N.181.2014.TREATIES-IV.4).

‘Palestine’ does not satisfy the criteria for statehood under international law and lacks the legal capacity to join the aforesaid convention both under general international law and the terms of bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

The Government of Israel does not recognize ‘Palestine’ as a State, and wishes to place on record, for the sake of clarity, its position that it does not consider 'Palestine' a party to the Convention and regards the Palestinian request for accession as being without legal validity and without effect upon Israel's treaty relations under the Convention.

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary, and has the honor to refer to depositary notification C.N.268.2014.TREATIES-IV.4, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Israel regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, dated 16 December 1966.

The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of Israel, the occupying Power, and wishes to recall United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 according Palestine 'non-member observer State status in the United Nations'. In this regard, Palestine is a State recognized by the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of the international community.

As a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which will enter into force on 2 July 2014, the State of Palestine will exercise its rights and honor its obligations with respect to all States Parties. The State of Palestine trusts that its rights and obligations will be equally respected by its fellow States Parties.

… taking into consideration the provisions of the Islamic Sharia and the fact they do not conflict with the text annexed to the instrument … we accept, support and ratify it…

The Argentine Government states that the application of the second part of article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights shall be subject to the principle laid down in article 18 of the Argentine National Constitution.

On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of the new coronavirus as pandemic, following the increase in the number of people affected around the world and the number of deaths recorded. Since then, the crisis caused by COVID-19 has led to the saturation of health systems, the disruption of the global economy and to a widespread social paralysis.

In that context, the Argentine Republic, like other countries, is experiencing an exceptional situation, which has led its authorities to take a number of emergency measures to mitigate the spread of the disease, taking into account, in their actions, the unquestionable protection of human rights of all inhabitants of the country, in accordance with the appeals and recommendations of the regional and universal human rights protection system.

Accordingly, on 12 March 2020, pursuant to necessity and emergency Decree No. 260/2020, the public health emergency, declared under Act No. 27.541 of 21 December 2019, has been extended for a period of one year. The recitals of the said Decree state “That, in recent days, the spread of cases of the new coronavirus COVID-19 has been observed in numerous countries on different continents, reaching our region and our country. That, in the current situation, it is necessary to adopt new appropriate, transparent, consensual measures based on scientific evidence, in addition to those already adopted since the beginning of this epidemiological situation, in order to mitigate its spread and health impact.”

Subsequently, on 19 March 2020, the National Executive Branch issued the necessity and emergency Decree No. 297/2020, which provided for a mandatory and preventive lockdown for all persons living or temporarily located in the country at the time of its issuance, in order to protect public health, which is an inalienable obligation of the State.

This decree provides that, during the mandatory and preventive lockdown, individuals must remain in their usual residences, refrain from going to their workplaces and from moving on roads, routes and public spaces, in order to prevent the spread and transmission of COVID-19 virus and the consequent impact on public health and other derived individual rights, such as the right to life and the right to physical integrity.

In addition, permanent checkpoints have been set up on roads, streets and public spaces, at access points and other strategic locations, in order to ensure compliance with the regulations adopted in the framework of the health emergency.

The recitals of the above-mentioned Decree refer to the exceptional nature of the situation: “That we are facing a potential health and social crisis without precedent, and it is therefore necessary to take appropriate, transparent, consensual measures that are based on available evidence, in order to mitigate its spread and impact on the health system. That, while there is no effective antiviral treatment nor vaccines that could prevent the virus, the mandatory lockdown and social distancing measures play a role of vital importance in addressing the epidemiological situation and mitigating the health impact of COVID-19. That, bearing in mind the experience of countries in Asia and Europe where the SARSCoV-2 virus has spread earlier, it can be concluded that the success of the measures depends on the following variables: timeliness, intensity (drastic or gradual) and effective compliance with those measures.” Likewise, Decree No. 297/2020 states “That article 14 of the national Constitution establishes that ‘all the inhabitants of the Nation are entitled to the following rights, in accordance with the laws that regulate their exercise, namely: to work and perform any lawful industry; to navigate and trade; to petition the authorities; to enter, remain in, travel through and leave the Argentine territory’. Although this is one of the fundamental pillars guaranteed in our legal order, it is subject to limitations for reasons of public order, security or public health. Indeed, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes in its article 12, paragraph 1, the ‘… right to liberty of movement…’, and article 12, paragraph 3, provides that the rights set forth therein ‘shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant’... That the measures established in the present Decree are essential, reasonable and proportionate to the threat and the health risk that we are facing.”

It should be noted that the measure provided for in Decree No. 297/2020 was initially established until 31 March 2020, but was then successively extended by Decree No. 325/2020 until 12 April 2020, Decree No. 355/2020 until 26 April 2020, Decree No. 408/2020 until 10 May 2020, and lastly by Decree No. 459/2020 which provided for its extension until 24 May 2020 included.

The described exceptional situation demonstrates the legitimacy of the aims to be preserved.

Indeed, the lockdown measures have been adopted in a reasonable manner, in accordance with medical information that demonstrated their importance for preventing the spread of the disease and the experience of other countries that had to address this serious situation earlier.

In this regard, it can be claimed that, after more than 50 days since the issuance of Decree No. 297/20, the mandatory and preventive lockdown ordered in Argentina has, to date, enabled the containment of the epidemic, a decrease in the speed of its spread being registered, preventing the saturation of the health system, as it happened in other parts of the world. With regard to the proportionality of the measure, it should be noted that, from the beginning, movement of workers performing essential tasks was permitted in various situations, as well as for the assistance to children and adolescents, to elder persons and others who require it. Likewise, new exceptions to the lockdown and to the prohibition on movement were established, under complementary regulations, for persons performing different activities and services, so as not to interrupt the provision of essential services and to also include various economic activities. Since the issuance of the last decree – Decree No. 459/2020 – the lockdown has entered a new phase in which various activities in different regions of the country have been authorized, considering the favourable epidemiological trends in most part of the national territory. The conditions of the mandatory and preventive lockdown were not modified in large agglomerations, where the largest proportion of cases in our country is currently concentrated – more than 85%.

Without prejudice to the relevance of the measures set forth, the National Ministry of Health informed that, on 13 May 2020, 316 new cases of COVID-19 were confirmed in our country, bringing the total number of positive cases to 6,879. This demonstrates that, despite the effectiveness of the lockdown, we are still fighting the spread of the disease, without being possible to determine the exact moment when these circumstances will cease. Furthermore, in addition to the mandatory and preventive lockdown, the Argentine Republic ordered a strict control of entry through the country’s borders, consistent with the restrictions established by other States.

Thus, necessity and emergency Decree No. 274/2020 of 16 March 2020 provided for the prohibition on entry into the national territory for non-resident foreign nationals, for a period of 15 days, through ports, airports, international border crossings, checkpoints and any other access points, in order to reduce the risks of infection. This period was successively extended by Decrees Nos. 331/2020, 365/2020, 409/2020 and 459/2020, until 24 May 2020 included.

Pursuant to necessity and emergency Decree No. 313/2020 of 26 March 2020, the National Executive Branch extended the scope of the prohibition on entry into the national territory to persons residing in the country and to Argentines residing abroad, through ports, airports, international border crossings, checkpoints and any other access points established under Decree No. 274/2020, while providing for various exceptions to this prohibition. The recitals of the former provide “That the COVID-19 pandemic continues to escalate, and its community transmission is currently taking place; therefore, bearing in mind the inflow of Argentine nationals and residents analysed above as well as the mode of transmission of the virus, it is considered necessary to introduce measures, in addition to those already adopted, that are reasonable, temporary and proportionate to the risk under consideration, to contribute to safeguarding the health of individuals and their families, both nationals and residents who wish to enter the country and those currently in the country, by minimizing the entry into the national territory of possible cases of potential contagion through its various points of access, for the shortest possible period of time, in order to adapt sufficient safety measures for their re-entry.”

Likewise, the text of the same Decree No. 313/2020 states that the measure constitutes a decision of a transitory nature, which responds not only to the imperative need to protect those located in the national territory from the spread of coronavirus COVID-19, but also to establish at points of access to the country the conditions necessary, in terms of infrastructure and health care, to receive those who are still abroad and who have to travel to their homes or confine themselves in the place where they arrive. Subsequently, pursuant to necessity and emergency Decree No. 331/2020 of 1 April 2020, the competent State authorities were instructed to establish the relevant timelines and coordinate the actions necessary to enable the gradual entry into the national territory of persons resident in the country and of the Argentines resident abroad that could not have entered while Decree No. 313/2020 was in effect, paying particular attention to persons belonging to at-risk groups.

Under the said Decree, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship was instructed to extend the validity of the Programme for the assistance of Argentines abroad in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, established pursuant to resolution MRECIC 62/2020 of 28 March 2020, in order to respond to the urgent needs for accommodation, food, health care and all other basic needs of the Argentines abroad, in all those cases where they are in a situation of vulnerability that does not allow them to resolve the issue by their own means. In that context, the respective funds were transferred to different consulates to respond to the above-mentioned needs, the State authorities making every effort to ensure the return of all persons who wish to re-enter the country in accordance with the aforementioned regulations.

At the same time, it should be noted that there are no restrictions at the land borders on Argentines or residents entering in private vehicles. On the other hand, the State regulates the number of Argentines and residents who may return on a daily basis to our country by air and by land using public transport, the entry of Argentines and residents following therefore an administered procedure.

Indeed, according to the information registered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship, as of 20 April 2020, approximately 90 % of Argentines who wanted to re-enter the country during the pandemic had been able to do so.

In this regard, 168,140 persons had returned to our country by air, land or river between 16 March and 17 April 2020, whereas an estimated total of 21,493 persons had expressed their intention to return to the country by 20 April 2020, therefore 90 % of all the Argentines or residents with intentions of returning to the country have already done so.

Thus, from the information reported, it is clear that the exceptional measures adopted by the national authorities to safeguard the rights to life and to health of the population of our country, limiting individual rights only to the extent strictly necessary, are proportionate, reasonable and relevant in the context of the enormous difficulties and challenges imposed by the current global situation.

Lastly, it should be noted that the Senate of the Nation, in its first special remote session held in our country on 13 May 2020, approved all the necessity and emergency decrees issued by the National Executive Branch since the mandatory and preventive lockdown had been declared because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On 10 September 2021, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Argentina a communication dated 9 September 2021 informing about the issuance of Decree No. 167/2021 of 11 March 2021 2 which, inter alia, extends the health state of emergency until 31 December 2021.

Reservations

Understandings

Declarations

Declaration under Article 41

The Government of Sweden has examined the content of the reservations and understandings made by the United States of America. In this context the Government recalls that under international treaty law, the name assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. Thus, the Government considers that some of the understandings made by the United States in substance constitute reservations to the Covenant.

A reservation by which a State modifies or excludes the application of the most fundamental provisions of the Covenant, or limits its responsibilities under that treaty by invoking general principles of national law, may cast doubts upon the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purposes of the Covenant. The reservations made by the United States of America include both reservations to essential and non-derogable provisions, and general references to national legislation. Reservations of this nature contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. All States Parties share a common interest in the respect for the object and purpose of the treaty to which they have chosen to become parties.

Sweden therefore objects to the reservations made by the United States to

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Sweden and the United States of America.

The Government of Finland has taken note of the reservations, understandings and declarations made by the United States of America upon ratification of the Covenant. It is recalled that under international treaty law, the name assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. Understanding (1) pertaining to Articles 2, 4 and 26 of the Covenant is therefore considered to constitute in substance a reservation to the Covenant, directed at some of its most essential provisions, namely those concerning the prohibition of discrimination. In the view of the Government of Finland, a reservation of this kind is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant, as specified in Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

As regards reservation (2) concerning Article 6 of the Covenant, it is recalled that according to Article 4 (2), no restrictions of Articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are allowed for. In the view of the Government of Finland, the right to life is of fundamental importance in the Covenant and the said reservation therefore is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

As regards reservation (3), it is in the view of the Government of Finland subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.

For the above reasons the Government of Finland objects to reservations made by the United States to Articles 2, 4 and 26 (cf. Understanding (1)), to Article 6 (cf. Reservation (2)) and to Article 7 (cf. Reservation (3)). However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Finland and the United States of America.

With regard to the reservations to articles 6 and 7 made by the United States of America:

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation with respect to capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age, since it follows from the text and history of the Covenant that the said reservation is incompatible with the text, the object and purpose of Article 6 of the Covenant, which according to Article 4 lays down the minimum standard for the protection of the right of life.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation with respect to Article 7 of the Covenant, since it follows from the text and the interpretation of this Article that the said reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

In the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands this reservation has the same effect as a general derogation from this Article, while according to Article 4 of the Covenant, no derogations, not even in times of public emergency, are permitted.

It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the understanding and declarations of the United States do not exclude or modify the legal effect of provisions of the Covenant in their application to the United States, and do not in any way limit the competence of the Human Rights Committee to interpret these provisions in their applications to the United States.

Subject to the provison of Article 21 paragraph 3 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, these objections do not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the United States' reservation referring to article 6, paragraph 5 of the Covenant, which prohibits capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age. The reservation referring to this provision is incompatible with the text as well as the object and purpose of article 6, which, as made clear by paragraph 2 of article 4, lays down the minimum standard for the protection of the right to life.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany interprets the United States' ‘reservation’ with regard to article 7 of the Covenant as a reference to article 2 of the Covenant, thus not in any way affecting the obligations of the United States of America as a state party to the Covenant.

Having examined the contents of the reservations made by the United States of America, Denmark would like to recall Article 4, para 2 of the Covenant according to which no derogation from a number of fundamental Articles, inter alia6 and 7, may be made by a State Party even in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.

In the opinion of Denmark, reservation (2) of the United States of America with respect to capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age as well as reservation (3) with respect to Article 7 constitute general derogations from Articles 6 and 7, while according to Article 4, para 2 of the Covenant such derogations are not permitted.

Therefore, and taking into account that Articles 6 and 7 are protecting two of the most basic rights contained in the Covenant, the Government of Denmark regards the said reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and consequently Denmark objects to the reservations.

These objections do not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Denmark and the United States.

At the time of the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966, the United States of America expressed a reservation relating to article 6, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age.

France considers that this United States reservation is not valid, inasmuch as it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

Such objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between France and the United States.

With regard to reservations to articles 6 and 7 made by the United States of America:

The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Norway and the United States of America.

The Government of Belgium wishes to raise an objection to the reservation made by the United States of America regarding article 6, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, which prohibits the imposition of the sentence of death for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age.

The Government of Belgium considers the reservation to be incompatible with the provisions and intent of article 6 of the Covenant which, as is made clear by article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, esta blishes minimum measures to protect the right to life.

The expression of this objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Belgium and the United States of America.

The Government of Italy, […], objects to the reservation to art. 6 paragraph 5 which the United States included in its instrument of ratification.

In the opinion of Italy reservations to the provisions contained in art. 6 are not permitted, as specified in art. 4 para 2, of the Covenant.

Therefore this reservation is null and void since it is incompatible with the object and the purpose of art. 6 of the Covenant.

Furthermore in the interpretation of the Government of Italy, the reservation to art. 7 of the Covenant does not affect obligations assumed by States that are parties to the Covenant on the basis of article 2 of the same Covenant.

These objections do not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Italy and the United States.

The Government of Portugal hereby presents its formal objection to the reservations made by the Government of the United States of America upon ratification of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of Portugal considers that the reservation made by the United States of America referring to article 6, paragraph 5 of the Covenant which prohibits capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age is incompatible with article 6 which, as made clear by paragaph 2 of article 4, lays down the minimum standard for the protection of the right to life.

The Government of Portugal also considers that the reservation with regard to article 7 in which a State limits its responsibilities under the Covenant by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Covenant and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law.

The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations made by the United States of America. These objections shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry in force of the Covenant between Portugal and the United States of America.

[…] after careful consideration of the reservations made by the United States of America, Spain wishes to point out that pursuant to article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, a State party may not derogate from several basic articles, among them articles 6 and 7, including in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.

The Government of Spain takes the view that reservation (2) of the United States having regard to capital punishment for crimes committed by individuals under 18 years of age, in addition to reservation (3) having regard to article 7, constitute general derogations from articles 6 and 7, whereas, according to article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, such derogations are not to be permitted.

Therefore, and bearing in mind that articles 6 and 7 protect two of the most fundamental rights embodied in the Covenant, the Government of Spain considers that these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and, consequently, objects to them.

This position does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America.

The Government of the Gambia hereby declares that the Gambia recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the present Covenant.

Pursuant to article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Congolese Government recognizes, with effect from today's date, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the above-mentioned Covenant.

The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in accordance with Article 41 of the said Covenant, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party to the effect that a State Party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

the Covenants are confirmed and proclaimed binding and valid, and they shall have effect and be implemented and observed without exception, bearing in mind that:

Article 1.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified, respectively, by Act No. 29/78 of 12 June, and by Act No. 45/78 of 11 July, shall be applicable in the territory of Macau.

Article 2.

Article 3.

Article 25(b) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall not apply to Macau with respect to the composition of elected bodies and the method of choosing and electing their officials, as defined in the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, the Organic Statute of Macau and provisions of the Joint Declaration on the Question of Macau.

Article 4.

Article 12 (4) and article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall not apply to Macau with respect to the entry and exit of individuals and the expulsion of foreigners from the territory. These matters shall continue to be regulated by the Organic Statute of Macau and other applicable legislation, and also by the Joint Declaration on the Question of Macau.

Article 5.

The Government of Australia declares that it recognizes, for and on behalf of Australia, the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the aforesaid Convention.

In accordance with article 41(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Republic of Bulgaria declares that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Covenant.

… the Government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana hereby declares that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the aforementioned Covenant.

The Hungarian People's Republic declares, under Article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under 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.

The Government of Ireland hereby declares that in accordance with Article 41 they recognise the competence of the said Human Rights Committee established under Article 28 of the said Covenant.

Korea recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee under Article 41 of the same Covenant.

Furthermore, the Government of Malta declares that under Article 41 of this Covenant it recognises the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, provided that such other State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Malta, made a declaration under Article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself.

In accordance with article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Ukraine declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Human Rights to receive and consider communications from any State to the effect that another State is not fulfilling its obligations under the present Covenant.

[The] Republic of Slovenia, in accordance with Article 41 of the said Covenant, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that, pursuant to article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party, in respect of situations and events occurring after the adoption of the present declaration, provided that the State Party in question has, not less than 12 months prior to the submission by it of such a communication, recognized in regard to itself the competence of the Committee, established in article 41, in so far as obligations have been assumed under the Covenant by the USSR and by the State concerned.

The Czech and Slovak Federal Republic declares, in accordance with Article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it 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.

That the United States declares that it accepts the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications under Article 41 in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

That the United States declares that the right referred to in Article 47 may be exercised only in accordance with international law.

The Government of the United States of America does not believe the 'State of Palestine' qualifies as a sovereign State and does not recognize it as such. Accession to the Convention is limited to sovereign States. Therefore, the Government of the United States of America believes that the 'State of Palestine' is not qualified to accede to the Convention and affirms that it will not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship with the 'State of Palestine' under the Convention.

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary, and has the honor to refer to depositary notification C.N.260.2014.TREATIES-IV.4, dated 15 May 2014, conveying a communication of the United States of America regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, dated 16 December 1966.

The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of the United States of America and wishes to recall United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 according Palestine 'non-member observer State status in the United Nations'. In this regard, Palestine is a State recognized by the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of the international community.

As a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which will enter into force on 2 July 2014, the State of Palestine will exercise its rights and honor its obligations with respect to all States Parties. The State of Palestine trusts that its rights and obligations will be equally respected by its fellow States Parties.

The Republic of Belarus declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on Human Rights in accordance with article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.