Partijen en gegevens

The declaration made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany when depositing the instrument of ratification, to the effect that the said Convention shall extend to Berlin (West), is incompatible with the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971. That Agreement, as is generally known, does not grant the Federal Republic of Germany the right to extend to West Berlin international agreements which affect matters of security and status. The above-mentioned Convention belongs precisely to that category of agreement.

The 1979 Convention contains provisions on the establishment of criminal jurisdiction over hostage-taking offences committed in the territories of States parties or on board a ship or aircraft registered in those States, as well as provisions relating to extradition of and court proceedings against offenders. Thus, the Convention concerns sovereign rights and obligations which cannot be exercised by a State in a territory which does not come under its jurisdiction.

In view of the foregoing, the Sovjet-Union considers the declaration made by the Federal Republic of Germany on extending the application of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages to Berlin (West) to be illegal and to have no legal effect.

In a communication to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which is an integral part (Annex IV A), of the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971, the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States confirmed that, provided that matters of security and status are nota affected and provided that the extension is specified in each case, international arrangements and agreements entered into by the Federal Republic of Germany may be extended to the Western Sectors of berlin in accordance with established procedures. For its part, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in a communication to the Governments of the Three Powers, which is similarly an integral part (Annex IV B) of the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971, affirmed that it would raise no objection to such extension.

The established procedures referred to above, which were endorsed in the Quadripartite Agreement, are designed inter alia to afford the authorities of the Three Powers the opportunity to ensure that international agreements and arrangements entered into by the Federal Republic of Germany which are to be extended to the Western Sectors of Berlin are extended in such a way that matters of security and status are not affected.

When authorizing the extension of the abovementioned Convention to the Western Sectors of Berlin, the authorities of the Three Powers took such steps as were necessary to ensure that matters of security and status were not affected. Accordingly, the validity of the Berlin declaration made by the Federal Republic of Germany in accordance with established procedures is unaffected and the application of the Convention to the Western Sectors of Berlin continues in full force and effect, subject to Allied Rights, responsibilities and legislation.

Reservation on article 16, paragraph 1

The People's Republic of Bulgaria does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1, of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and declares that submission of any dispute concerning interpretation and application of the Convention between parties to the Convention to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice requires the consent of all parties to the dispute in each individual case.

Declaration on article 9, paragraph 1

The People's Republic of Bulgaria condemns all acts of international terrorism, whose victims are not only governmental and public officials but also many innocent people, including mothers, children, old-aged, and which exerts an increasingly, destabilizing impact on international relations, complicates considerably the political solution of crisis situations, irrespective of the reasons invoked to explain terrorist acts. The People's Republic of Bulgaria considers that article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention should be applied in a manner consistent with the states aims of the Convention, which include the development of international co-operation in adopting effective measures for the prevention, prosecution and punishment of all acts of hostage-taking as manifestations of international terrorism, including extradition of alleged offenders.

The Government of the Republic [of Chile], having approved this Convention, states that such approval is given on the understanding that the aforesaid Convention prohibits the taking of hostages in any circumstances, even those referred to in article 12.

The Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica declares that its accession to the Convention is made on the understanding that the aforesaid Convention prohibits the taking of hostages in any circumstances, even those referred to in Article 12.

The German Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 16, Paragraph 1, of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and declares that in every single case the consent of all parties in the dispute is necessary to submit to arbitration or refer to the International Court of Justice any dispute between the States Parties to the Convention concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.

The German Democratic Republic decisively condemns any act of international terrorism. Therefore, the German Democratic Republic holds the opinion that Article 9, Paragraph 1, of the Convention shall be applied in such a way as to be in correspondence with the declared aims of the Convention which embrace the taking of effective measures for the prevention, prosecution and punishment of all acts of international terrorism, including the taking of hostages.

The Hungarian People's Republic does not consider itself bound by the dispute settlement procedures provided for in Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention, since in its opinion, the jurisdiction of any arbitral tribunal or of the International Court of Justice can be founded only on the voluntary prior acceptance of such jurisdiction by all the Parties concerned.

The Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia herewith states that the provisions of Article 9 of the Convention should be interpreted and applied in practice in the way which would not bring into question the goals of the Convention, i.e. undertaking of efficient measures for the prevention of all acts of the taking of hostages as a phenomenon of international terrorism, as well as the prosecution, punishment and extradition of persons considered to have perpetrated this criminal offence.

‛ The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan declares that their accession to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages can in no way be construed as constituting recognition of, or entering into treaty relations with the ‘state of Israel’. ’

The Government of the Republic of Kenya does not consider herself bound by the provisions of paragraph (1) of the article 16 of the Convention.

In cases where the judicial authorities of either the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba cannot exercise jurisdiction pursuant to one of the principles mentioned in Article 5, para 1, the Kingdom accepts the aforesaid obligation subject to the condition that it has received and rejected a request for extradition from another State Party to the Convention.

In the view of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Article 15 of the Convention, and in particular the second sentence of that Article, in no way affects the applicability of Article 33 of the Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees.

While the Government of the Republic of Malawi accepts the principles in Article 16, this acceptance should nonetheless be read in conjunction with the declaration [of the President and Minister for External Affairs of Malawi] of 12 December 1966 upon recognition as compulsory, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court. ’

In relation to article 16, the United Mexican States adhere to the scope and limitations established by the Government of Mexico on 7 November 1945, at the time when it ratified the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

‛ The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply the provisions of the Convention to Tokelau pending the enactment of the necessary implementing legislation in Tokelau law. ’

The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by article 16, paragraph 1, of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and declares that, in order for any dispute between parties to the Convention concerning the interpretation or application thereof to be referred to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, the consent of all parties to the dispute must be secured in each individual case

The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic condemns international terrorism, which takes the lives of innocent people, constitutes a threat to their freedom and personal inviolability and destabilizes the international situation, whatever the motives used to explain terrorist actions.

Accordingly, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic considers that article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention should be applied in a manner consistent with the stated aims of the Convention, which include the development of international co-operation in adopting effective measures for the prevention, prosecution and punishment of all acts of hostage-taking as manifestations of international terrorism through, inter alia, the extradition of alleged offenders.

Acceding to the Convention we declare, in accordance with the Article 16, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by the provision of its Article 16, paragraph 1, and states that, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States — for any dispute to be submitted to a conciliation procedure or to the International Court of Justice the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each separate case.

The Swiss Federal Council interprets article 4 of the Convention to mean that Switzerland undertakes to fulfil the obligations contained therein in the conditions specified by its domestic legislation.

In accordance with the provision of article 16, paragraph 2, of the Intenational Convention against the Taking of Hostages, the Republic of Venezuela declares that is not bound by the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

In acceding to the Convention the Government of the Republic of Turkey, under article 16 (2) of the Convention declares that it doesn't consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph (1) of the said article.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not consider itself obligated with the provision of paragraph (1), of Article (16), of the Convention concerning arbitration. ’

‛ The accession of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to this Convention does not constitute a recognition of Israel and does not lead to entering into any transactions or the establishment of any relations based on this Convention. ’

The People's Republic of China makes its reservation to article 16, paragraph 1 and does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of India declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 16 which establishes compulsory arbitration or adjudication by the International Court of Justice concerning disputes between two or more States Parties relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention at the request of one of them. ’

It is understood that the accession to this Convention does not mean in any way a recognition of Israel by the Government of the State of Kuwait.

Furthermore, no treaty relations will arise between the State of Kuwait and Israel.

The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by article 16, paragraph 1, of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and declares that, in order for any dispute between parties to the Convention concerning the interpretation or application thereof to be referred to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, the consent of all parties to the dispute must be secured in each individual case

The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic condemns international terrorism, which takes the lives of innocent people, constitutes a threat to their freedom and personal inviolability and destabilizes the international situation, whatever the motives used to explain terrorist actions.

Accordingly, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic considers that article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention should be applied in a manner consistent with the stated aims of the Convention, which include the development of international co-operation in adopting effective measures for the prevention, prosecution and punishment of all acts of hostage-taking as manifestations of international terrorism through, inter alia, the extradition of alleged offenders.

In February 2014 the Russian Federation launched armed aggression against Ukraine and occupied a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, and today exercises effective control over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine.

These actions are in gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations and constitute a threat to international peace and security. The Russian Federation, as the Aggressor State and Occupying Power, bears full responsibility for its actions and their consequences under international law.

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/68/262 of 27 March 2014 confirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. The United Nations also called upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.

In this regard, Ukraine states that from 20 February 2014 and for the period of temporary occupation by the Russian Federation of a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol – as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation committed against Ukraine and until the complete restoration of the constitutional law and order and effective control by Ukraine over such occupied territory, as well as over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine as a result of the aggression of the Russian Federation, the application and implementation by Ukraine of the obligations under the above [Convention], as applied to the aforementioned occupied and uncontrolled territory of Ukraine, is limited and is not guaranteed.

Documents or requests made or issued by the occupying authorities of the Russian Federation, its officials at any level in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and by the illegal authorities in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine, are null and void and have no legal effect regardless of whether they are presented directly or indirectly through the authorities of the Russian Federation.

The provisions of the [Convention] regarding the possibility of direct communication or interaction do not apply to the territorial organs of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, as well as in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine. The procedure of the relevant communication is determined by the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not consider itself bound by article 16, paragraph 1, of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and declares that, in order for any dispute between parties to the Convention concerning the interpretation or application thereof to be referred to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, the consent of all parties to the dispute must be secured in each individual case

Withdrawal of reservation to Article 16 (1):

… does not consider itself bound by article 16, paragraph 1, of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and declares that, in order for any dispute between parties to the Convention concerning the interpretation or application thereof to be referred to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, the consent of all parties to the dispute must be secured in each individual case.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics condemns international terrorism, which takes the lives of innocent people, constitutes a threat to their freedom and personal inviolability and destabilizes the international situation, whatever the motives used to explain terrorist actions.

Accordingly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics considers that article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention should be applied in a manner consistent with the stated aims of the Convention, which include the development of international co-operation in adopting effective measures for the prevention, prosecution and punishment of all acts of hostage-taking as manifestations of international terrorism through, inter alia, the extradition of alleged offenders.

The Republic of Cuba declares, pursuant to article 16, paragraph 2, that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the said article, concerning the settlement of disputes arising between States Parties, inasmuch as it considers that such disputes must be settled through amicable negotiation. In consequence, it reiterates that it does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

In accordance with paragraph 2, Article 16 of the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, the Lao People's Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1, article 16 of the present Convention. ’

Pursuant to article 16, paragraph 2 of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, the Republic of Moldova declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention. ’

The Republic of Mozambique does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16 paragraph 1 of the Convention.

In this connection, the Republic of Mozambique states that, in each individual case, the consent of all Parties to such a dispute is necessary for the submission of the dispute to arbitration or to [the] International Court of Justice.

‛ The Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia does not consider itself bound by the aforementioned provision of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, and states that disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention would be submitted to arbitration or to the Court only with the prior consent of all the parties concerned. ’

‛ The Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that to refer a dispute relating to interpretation and application of the present Convention to arbitration or International Court of Justice, the agreement of all parties concerned in the dispute is necessary. ’

The Republic of Mozambique, in accordance with its Constitution and domestic laws, can not extradite Mozambique citizens.

Therefore, Mozambique citizens will be tried and sentenced in national courts.

The Government of the Union of Myanmar does not consider itself bound by the article 16 (1) of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages adopted on 17 December 1979.

In accordance with article 16 (2) of the Convention, Colombia does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16 (1).

The [Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia] herewith states that the provisions of Article 9 of the Convention should be interpreted and applied in practice in the way which would not bring into question the goals of the Convention, i.e. undertaking of efficient measures for the prevention of all acts of the taking of hostages as a phenomenon of international terrorism, as well as the prosecution, punishment and extradition of persons considered to have perpetrated this criminal offence.

Reservation:

‘Pursuant to Article 16, paragraph 2 of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention regarding the reference of any dispute concerning the interpretation, or application of this Convention, which is not settled by negotiation to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.’

Interpretative declaration:

The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran declares its categorical condemnation of each and every act of terrorism, including taking innocent civilians as hostages, which violates human rights and fundamental freedom of human kind, undermines the stability and security of human communities, and hinders countries from development and progress. The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that elimination of terrorism requires a comprehensive campaign by the international community to identify and eradicate political, economic, social and international root causes of the scourge.

The Islamic Republic of Iran further believes that fighting terrorism should not affect the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of selfdetermination, as enshrined in a variety of international documents, including the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and Article 1 paragraph 4 of the Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts.

The interpretative declaration made by Iran would limit the scope of application of the Convention to exclude acts that otherwise constitute the offence of ‘taking of hostages’ under article 2, if they meet the test of ‘legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination’. The interpretative declaration does not limit the obligations of Iran under the Convention with regard to article 1.

Italy wishes to make clear that it opposes any and all interpretations of the Convention that would limit its scope of application, and does not consider the declaration made by Iran to have any effect on the Convention. Italy thus regards the Convention as entering into force between Italy and Iran without the interpretative declaration made by Iran.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservation regarding Article 16, paragraph 1 and the declarations made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the International Convention against the Taking (of) Hostages.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the aim of the said International Convention is to prevent and suppress hostage taking by whomever it is committed, and the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation, as the said rights are recognized by Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 could not be deemed to be penalized under the International Convention against the (Taking of) Hostages.

However, the Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that this explanatory declaration is in fact unilateral act that is deemed to limit the scope of the said International Convention and therefore should be regarded as reservation. Thus, this reservation named as an explanatory declaration contradicts the objectives and purposes of the International Convention against the (Taking of Hostages) to prevent hostage taking wherever and by whomever those might be committed.

Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that this reservation named as an interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran contradicts the object and purpose of the International Convention and in particular the obligation all States Parties to penalize the offences set forth within the said International Convention by appropriate penalty.

Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls Part VI, Article 28 of the Convention setting out that reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention are not permitted.

Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to the aforesaid reservation named as an interpretative declaration regarding non-application of the said International Convention to the legitimate struggle by the peoples under colonial domination or foreign occupation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the International Convention against the Taking (of) Hostages.

However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thus, the Convention will become operative without the Islamic Republic of Iran benefiting from its reservation.

France has examined the reservation and the two interpretative declarations made by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon its accession on 20 November 2006 to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, done at New York on 17 September 1979.

France considers that the declaration in which the Islamic Republic of Iran states its belief that ‘fighting terrorism should not affect the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination’ has no effect on the provisions of the Convention. Notwithstanding, France wishes to recall that it considers that the act of hostage-taking is prohibited in all circumstances.

The Interpretative Declaration sets forth Iran's belief that ‘fighting terrorism should not affect the legitimate struggle of people under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination… ‘ The United States views this generalized statement as having no effect on the Convention or on application of the Convention between the United States and Iran. Nothing in the Convention provides for or permits any justification, whether political, philosophical,ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or otherwise for the commission of acts that States parties to the Convention are required to criminalize.

… The Government of the Portuguese Republic has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages.

Portugal considers that this interpretative declaration cannot limit the scope of the application of the Convention; otherwise it would be a reservation contrary to its object and purpose, if purporting to exclude from the acts prohibited by the Convention acts committed in the struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation.

Therefore, Portugal does not consider the declaration made by Iran to have any legal effect on the Convention.

The Government of Canada has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon acceding to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. The Government of Canada notes that the interpretative declaration has potential to limit the scope of application of the Convention to exclude acts that otherwise constitute the offence of ‘taking of hostages’ under article 2, if they meet the test of ‘legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination’. The Government of Canada notes that this interpretative declaration does not limit the obligations of the Islamic Republic of Iran under the Convention with regard to article 1. The Government of Canada opposes any and all interpretations of the Convention that would limit its scope of application and does not consider the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to have any effect on the convention.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages.

Germany considers that this interpretative declaration cannot limit the scope of the application of the Convention; otherwise it would be a reservation contrary to its object and purpose, if purporting to exclude from the acts prohibited by the Convention acts committed in the struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation.

Therefore, the Federal Republic of Germany does not consider the declaration made by Iran to have any legal effect on the Convention.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (has) examined the declaration relating to the International Convention Against of Hostages made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the time of its accession to the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom understand(s) that the declaration made by Iran does not purport to exclude or modify the terms of the Convention. The United Kingdom Government condemns in the terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation whenever and by whom so ever committed and for whatever purposes.

The Government of Japan has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the time of its accession to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Convention’) which reads as follows:

‘The Islamic Republic of Iran further believes that fighting terrorism should not affect the legitimate sruggle[lees: struggle] of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in a variety of international documents, including the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and Article 1 paragraph 4 of the Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts.'

The Government of Japan does not consider that the aforementioned interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the Convention in their application to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Government of Japan thus regards the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran as having no effect on the application of the Convention between the two countries.

The Government of Japan wishes to take this opportunity to declare its unequivocal condemnation of all acts of terrorism, including taking of hostages, as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motives, and to emphasize the importance to ensure that any person committing an act of terrorism does not escape prosecution and punishment.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that this interpretative declaration cannot limit the scope of the Convention; otherwise it would be a reservation contrary to its object and purpose, if purporting to exclude from the acts prohibited by the Convention acts committed in the struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation.

Therefore, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not consider the declaration made by Iran to have any legal effect on the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran in respect of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this interpretative declaration cannot limit the scope of the Convention, since, under the Convention itself, acts of hostage-taking, as manifestations of international terrorism, can never be justified, regardless of their cause.

If the objective of the declaration is to exclude acts committed in the struggle of peoples against colonial domination or foreign occupation from the category of acts prohibited by the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain is of the view that the declaration would be a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain believes that the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran has no legal effect on the Convention.

The Government of Austria has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages.

The Government of Austria considers the interpretative declaration made by Iran a mere political statement that has no legal effect.

[T]he Socialist Republic of Viet Nam does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 16 of this Convention.

The Government of the French Republic has examined the declaration formulated by Viet Nam upon accession to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. In this declaration, Viet Nam states, inter alia, that ‘the provisions of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages are non-self-executing in Viet Nam,’ and that ‘the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam shall duly implement the provisions of the Convention through multilateral and bilateral mechanisms, specific provisions in its domestic laws and regulations and on the basis of the principle of reciprocity’.

The French Government notes that the declaration formulated by Viet Nam has the legal effect of restricting the scope of certain stipulations of the Convention and must therefore be considered as a reservation.

The French Government notes that Viet Nam intends, by means of this declaration, to prevent the direct application of the provisions of the Convention. As a contracting party to the Convention, Viet Nam is required to take the necessary measures to incorporate the obligations contained in the Convention into its domestic legal order. In this connection, the reservation formulated by Viet Nam is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The French Government also notes that Viet Nam intends, by means of this declaration, to make the application of the provisions of the Convention subordinate to the principle of reciprocity. However, the object and purpose of the Convention is to develop international cooperation between States so as to ensure that any person who commits the act of hostage-taking is prosecuted or extradited, even if the State of which the hostage-taker is a national does not apply the provisions of the Convention or is not a party thereto. In this regard, the French Government considers that the Government of Viet Nam has formulated a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, which is to ensure that any person who commits an act of hostage-taking is prosecuted or extradited.

The Government of the French Republic therefore objects to the declaration formulated by Viet Nam. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between France and Viet Nam.

Pursuant to Article 16, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Republic of Singapore declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

The Republic of Singapore understands Article 8(1) of the Convention to include the right of competent authorities to decide not to submit any particular case for prosecution before the judicial authorities if the alleged offender is dealt with under national security and preventive detention laws.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the unilateral declaration with respect to article 8, paragraph 1, made by Singapore upon acceding to the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages of 17 December 1979. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the said declaration constitutes a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the 1979 Convention, insofar as it is difficult to determine precisely the extent to which Singapore accepts the obligations set out in article 8, paragraph 1. The said reservation affects fundamental obligations resulting from the Convention, the performance of which is necessary for the realization of the object of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain therefore objects to the reservation formulated by Singapore to article 8, paragraph 1, of the 1979 Convention. This objection shall not prevent the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and Singapore.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Singapore to Article 8 (1) is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose. The reservation furthermore is not compatible with the terms of Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to “in accordance with its laws […] take other measures to ensure [the alleged offender's] presence for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.”

The Government of the Portuguese Republic recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Singapore to Article 8 (1) of the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, New York, 17 December 1979.

However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Singapore.

[…] the State of Qatar accede[s] to the Convention Against the Taking of Hostages of 1979, with reservation [to] paragraph 1 of article 16 of the Convention.