Partijen en gegevens

Withdrawal of the reservations to Articles 20 and 30 (1) of the Convention made upon ratification.

Article 21: The Algerian Government declares, pursuant to article 21 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

Article 22: The Algerian Government declares, pursuant to article 22 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

…The Argentine Republic recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. It also recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of the provisions of the Convention.

The Government of Australia declares that it recognises, 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; and

The Government of Australia hereby declares that it recognises, for and on behalf of Australia, the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to Australia's jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a state Party of the provisions of the aforesaid Convention.

This provision prohibits the transfer of a person directly to a State where this person is exposed to a concrete danger of being subjected to torture. In the opinion of the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 3 as well as the other provisions of the Convention exclusively establish State obligations that are met by the Federal Republic of Germany in conformity with the provisions of its domestic law which is in accordance with the Convention.

The Government of Canada declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture, pursuant to Article 21 of the said Convention, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a state party claims that another state party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

The Government of Canada also declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture, pursuant to Article 22 of the said Convention, to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a state party of the provisions of the Convention.

The Government of Italy considers that the reservations entered by Chile in respect of article 2(3) and article 3 of this Convention are not valid, as they are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The present objection is in no way an obstacle to the entry into force of this Convention between Italy and Chile.

The Government of Denmark hereby enters its formal objection to the reservations to Article 2, Paragraph 3, and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, made by the Government of Chile upon ratification of the Convention on 30 September 1988.

The Danish Government considers the said reservations as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore invalid.

This objection is not an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Danemark and Chile.

The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic considers the reservations of the Government of Chile with respect to Article 2, paragraph 3 and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of December 10, 1984 as incompatible with the object and purpose of this Convention.

The obligation of each State to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction is unexceptional. It is the obligation of each State to ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. This obligation is confirmed, inter alia, in Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Convention concerned.

The observance of provisions set up in Article 3 of this Convention is necessitated by the need to ensure more effective protection for persons who might be in danger of being subjected to torture and this is obviously one of the principal purposes of the Convention.

Therefore, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic does not recognize these reservations as valid. ’

The Swedish Government has examined the reservations made by Chile with respect to article 2, paragraph 3, and article 3 of the Convention and has come to the conclusion that these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore are impermissible according to article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. For this reason the Government of Sweden objects to these reservations. This objection does not have the effect of preventing the Convention from entering into force between Sweden and Chile, and the said reservations cannot alter or modify, in any respect, the obligations arising from the Convention. ’

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain declares that it objects to the reservations made by Chile to article 2, paragraph 3, and article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984, because the aforementioned reservations are contrary to the purposes and aims of the Convention.

‛ The present objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Spain and Chile. ’

The Government of Norway hereby objects to the reservations to Article 2, Paragraph 3, and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, made by the Government of Chile upon ratification of the Convention on 30 September 1988. The Government of Norway considers the said reservations as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the convention and therefore invalid.

This objection is not an obstacle to the entry into force of the said convention between Norway and Chile. ’

The Government of Portugal hereby presents its formal objection to the reservations to article two, paragraph three and article three of the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, made by the Government of Chile upon ratification of the said Convention.

The Government of Portugal considers such reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of this Convention and therefore invalid.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Chile. ’

The Government of Finland hereby enters its formal objection to the reservations to Article 2, Paragraph 3, and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, made by the Government of Chile upon ratification of the Convention on 30 September 1988.

The Government of Finland considers the said reservations as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore invalid.

This objection is not an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Finland and Chile. ’

The Government of Canada hereby formally objects to the reservations made by Chile in respect of Article 2, Paragraph 3 and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The reservations by Chile are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention Against Torture and thus inadmissible under Article 19(C) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. ’

The Government of Turkey presents its formal objection to the reservation regarding to article two, paragraph three of the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, made by the Government of Chile upon ratification of the said Convention.

The Government of Turkey considers such reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of this Convention and therefore invalid.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between turkey and Chile. ’

The Government of Australia has examined the reservations made by Chile with respect to article 2, paragraph 3, and article 3 of the Convention and has come to the conclusion that these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore are impermissible according to article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Government of Australia therefore objects to these reservations.

This objection does not have the effect of preventing the Convention from entering into force between Australia and Chile, and the aforementioned reservations cannot alter or modify, in any respect, the obligations arising from the Convention. ’

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservations to Article 2, paragraph 3, and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concluded at New York on 10 December 1984, made by Chile upon ratification on 30 September 1988, as being contrary to the object and purpose of that Convention.

Since the purpose of the Convention is the strengthening of the existing prohibition of torture and similar practices, the reservation to Article 2, paragraph 3, to the effect that an order from a superior officer or a public authority may — in some cases — be invoked as a justification of torture, must be rejected as contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.

For similar reasons the reservation to Article 3 must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

These objections are not an obstacle to the entry into force of this Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Chili. ’

Upon its ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, Chile made reservations to Article 2 (paragraph 3), and Article 3 of the Convention.

France considers that the reservations made by Chile are not valid as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

Such objection is not an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between France and Chile.

The reservations made by the Republic of Chile with respect to article 2 paragraph 3 and article 3 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or degrading Treatment or Punishment are incompatible with the object and purpose of the convention and are therefore impermissible under article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Republic of Austria therefore objects against these reservations and states that they cannot alter or modify, in any respect, the obligations arising from the Convention for all States parties thereto.

Concerning Reservations made by Chile; The Government of New Zealand hereby presents its formal Objection to the Reservations made by Chile when ratifying the Convention relating to Article 2, Paragraph 3 and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. The New Zealand Government considers the said Reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. This Objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between New Zealand and Chile. ’

The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria considers the reservations made by Chile with regard to Art. 2, para. 3 and Art. 3 of the Convention against torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of December 10, 1984 incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria holds the view that each State is obliged to take all measures to prevent any acts of torture and other forms of cruel and inhuman treatment within its jurisdiction, including the unconditional qualification of such acts as crimes in its national criminal code. It is in this sense that Art. 2, para. 3 of the Convention is formulated.

The provisions of Art. 3 of the Convention are dictated by the necessity to grant the most effective protection to persons who risk to suffer torture or other inhuman treatment. For this reason these provisions should not be interpreted on the basis of subjective or any other circumstances, under which they were formulated.

In view of this the Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria does not consider itself bound by the reservations.

The Government of the Republic of Cyprus hereby declares that the Republic of Cyprus recognizes the competence of the Committee established under Article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1984:

The Government of Denmark declares, […] that Denmark recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that the State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

The Government of Denmark also declares, […] that Denmark recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of the provisions of the Convention. ’

The German Democratic Republic declares that it will bear its share only of those expenses in accordance with article 17, paragraph 7, and article 18, paragraph 5, of the Convention arising from activities under the competence of the Committee as recognized by the German Democratic Republic.

Upon its ratification, on 9 September 1987, of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the German Democratic Republic made the following declaration: ‘The German Democratic Republic declares that it will bear its share only of those expenses in accordance with article 17, paragraph 7, and article 18, paragraph 5, of the Convention arising from activities under the competence of the Committee as recognized by the German Democratic Republic.

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg objects to this declaration, which it deems to be a reservation the effect of which would be to inhibit activities of the Committee in a manner incompatible with the purpose and the goal of the Convention.

The present objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the German Democratic Republic.

The Government of Sweden has examined the content of the declaration made by the German Democratic Republic, by which ‘The German Democratic Republic declares that it will bear its share only of those expenses in accordance with Article 17, paragraph 7, and Article 18, paragraph 5, of the Convention arising from activities under the competence of the Committee as recognized by the German Democratic Republic.

According to Article 2, paragraph 1(d) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties a unilateral statement, whereby a State e.g. when ratifying a treaty purports to exclude the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application, is regarded as a reservation. Thus, such unilateral statements are considered as reservations regardless of their name or phrase.

The Government of Sweden has come to the conclusion that the declaration made by the German Democratic Republic is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore is invalid according to Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. For this reason the Government of Sweden objects to this declaration. ’

The Government of Denmark hereby enters its formal objection to this declaration which it considers to be a unilateral statement with the purpose of modifying the legal effect of certain provisions of the Convention against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in their application to the German Democratic Republic. It is the position of the Government of Denmark that the said declaration has no legal basis in the Convention or in international treaty law.

This objection is not an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Denmark and the German Democratic Republic. ’

The Government of Norway has examined the content of the declaration made by the German Democratic Republic upon ratification of the Convention by which ‘The German Democratic Republic declares that it will bear its share only of those expenses in accordance with article 17, paragraph 7, and article 18, paragraph 5, of the Convention arising from activities under the competence of the Committee as recognized by the German Democratic Republic.

The Government of Norway cannot accept this declaration entered by the German Democratic Republic. The Government of Norway considers that any such declaration is without legal effect, and cannot in any manner diminish the obligation of a government to contribute to the costs of the Committee in conformity with the provisions of the Convention. ’

The Declaration entered upon ratification by the German Democratic Republic — which stipulates that the German Democratic Republic would bear her share only of those expenses in accordance with art. 17, para. 7, and art. 18, para. 5, of the Convention arising from activities under the competence of the Committee against Torture as recognized by the German Democratic Republic — cannot alter or modify, in any respect, the obligations arising from that Convention for all States Parties thereto. ’

The Government of Canada hereby formally objects to the declaration made by the German Democratic Republic when ratifying the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, in which it declares that it will bear its share only of those expenses in accordance with article 17, paragraph 7, and article 18, paragraph 5, of the Convention arising from activities under the competence of the Committee against Torture as recognized by the German Democratic Republic.

The Government of Canada considers that this declaration is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention against Torture, and thus inadmissible under article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Through its functions and its activities, the Committee against Torture plays an essential role in the execution of the obligations of States parties to the Convention against Torture. Any restriction whose effect is to hamper the activities of the Committee would thus be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Hellenic Republic raises an objection to this declaration, which it considers to be in violation of article 19, paragraph (b), of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Convention against Torture expressly sets forth in article 28, paragraph 1, and article 30, paragraph 2, the reservations which may be made. The declaration of the German Democratic Republic is not, however, in conformity with these specified reservations.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the said Convention as between the Hellenic Republic and the German Democratic Republic.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain declares that it objects to the reservation made by the German Democratic Republic, in ratifying the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to the effect that it will be responsible for only those expenses which, under article 17, paragraph 7, and article 18, paragraph 5, are incurred in connection with activities of the Committee whose competence it has recognized. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain feels that such a reservation is a violation of article 19, paragraph (b), of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, because the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment sets forth, in article 28, paragraph 1, and article 30, paragraph 2, the only reservations that may be made to the Convention, and the above-mentioned reservation of the German Democratic Republic does not conform to either of those reservation.

The Swiss Government objects to the reservation by the German Democratic Republic to the effect that that State will bear its share only of those expenses in accordance with article 17, paragraph 7, and article 18, paragraph 5, of the Convention arising from activities under the competence of the Committee as recognized by the German Democratic Republic. That reservation is contrary to the purpose and aims of the Convention which are, through the Committee's activities, to encourage respect for a vitally important human right and to enhance the effectiveness of the struggle against torture the world over. This objection does not have the effect of preventing the Convention from entering into force between the Swiss Confederation and the German Democratic Republic.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby declares that it objects to the declaration made by the German Democratic Republic upon its ratification of the Convention by which it states that it would bear its share only of those expenses that — in accordance with article 17, paragraph 7, and article 18, paragraph 5, of the Convention — arise from activities under the competence of the Committee against Torture as recognized by that State.

This declaration, clearly a reservation according to Article 2, paragraph 1, under (d), of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, not only ‘purports to exclude or modify the legal effect’ of Articles 17, paragraph 7, and 18, paragraph 5, of the present Convention in their application to the German Democratic Republic itself, but it would also affect the obligations of the other States Parties which would have to pay additionally in order to ensure the proper functioning of the Committee against Torture. For this reason the reservation is not acceptable to the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Thus, the assessment of the financial contributions of the States Parties to be made under Article 17, paragraph 7, and Article 18, paragraph 5, must be drawn up in disregard of the declaration of the German Democratic Republic.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has taken note of the reservations formulated by the Government of the German Democratic Republic pursuant to Article 28, paragraph 1, and Article 30, paragraph 2, respectively, and the declaration made by the German Democratic Republic with reference to Article 17, paragraph 7, and Article 18, paragraph 5. It does not regard the said declaration as affecting in any way the obligations of the German Democratic Republic as a State Party to the Convention (including the obligations to meet its share of the expenses of the Committee on Torture as apportioned by the first meeting of the States Parties held on 26 November 1987 or any subsequent such meetings) and do not accordingly raise objections to it. It reserves the rights of the United Kingdom in their entirety in the event that the said declaration should at any future time be claimed to affect the obligations of the German Democratic Republic as aforesaid. ’

The Government of Italy objects to the reservation made by the German Democratic Republic at the time of its ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to the effect that it will be responsible only for those expenses which, under the terms of article 17, paragraph 7, and article 18, paragraph 5, have been incurred in connection with activities that the German Democratic Republic recognizes as being within the Committee's competence. The Convention authorizes only the reservations indicated in articles 28 (1) and 30 (2). The reservation made by the German Democratic Republic is not therefore inadmissible under the terms of article 19(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. ’

The Government of Portugal hereby presents its formal objection to the declaration made by G.D.R. when ratifying the Convention, in which [it] declares that it will bear its share only of those expenses in accordances with article 17, paragraph 7, and article 18, paragraph 5 of the Convention, arising from activities under the competence of the Committee Against Torture, as recognized by G.D.R.

The Government of Portugal considers that this declaration is incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and G.D.R. ’

The Government of Australia has examined the Declaration made by the German Democratic Republic upon ratification in the following terms: …

The Government of Australia considers that this Declaration is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and, accordingly, hereby conveys Australia's objection to the Declaration. ’

The Government of Finland has examined the content of the declaration made by the German Democratic Republic upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, by which the German Democratic Republic declares that it will bear its share only of those expenses in accordance with article 17, paragraph 7, and article 18, paragraph 5, of the Convention arising from activities under the competence of the Committee as recognized by the German Democratic Republic.

The Government of Finland cannot accept this declaration made by the German Democratic Republic. The Government of Finland considers that any such declaration is without legal effect, and cannot in any manner diminish the obligation of a government to contribute to the costs of the Committee in conformity with the provisions of the Convention. ’

Concerning the Declaration made by the German Democratic Republic: The Government of New Zealand hereby presents its formal Objection to the Declaration made by the German Democratic Republic when ratifying the Convention, in which it declares that it will bear its share only of the expenses in accordance with Article 17, Paragraph 7, and Article 18.

Paragraph 5 of the Convention, arising from activities under the competence of the Committee Against Torture, as recognised by the German Democratic Republic. The Government of New Zealand considers that this Declaration is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. This Objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between New Zealand and the German Democratic Republic. ’

The German Democratic Republic declares in accordance with Article 21, Paragraph 1, that it recognizes 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 this Convention.

The German Democratic Republic in accordance with Article 22, Paragraph 1, declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. ’

‛ Ecuador declares that, in accordance with the provisions of article 42 of its Political Constitution, it will not permit extradition of its nationals. ’

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Ecuador, in exercise of his authority, expressly declares that the Ecuadorian State, pursuant to article 21 of the International Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention; it also recognizes in regard to itself the competence of the Committee, in accordance with article 21.

It further declares, in accordance with the provisions of article 22 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

Finland declares that it recognizes fully the competence of the Committee against Torture as specified in Article 21 paragraph 1 and Article 22 paragraph 1 of the Convention. ’

The Government of France declares […] that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.

The Government of France delcares […] that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of the provisions of the Convention. ’

The Hellenic Republic declares, pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.

The Hellenic Republic declares, pursuant to article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

Article 21: Italy hereby declares, in accordance with Article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

Article 22: Italy hereby declares, in accordance with Article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture to receive and to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of violations by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. ’

Yugoslavia recognizes, in compliance with Article 21, para. 1 of the Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications in which one State Party to the Convention claims that another State Party does not fulfil the obligations pursuant to the Convention.

Yugoslavia recognizes, in conformity with Article 22, para. 1 of the Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the term ‘lawful sanctions’ in Article 1, paragraph 1, must be understood as referring to those sanctions which are lawful not only under national law but also under international law. ’

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture, under the conditions laid down in Article 21, to receive and consider communications to the effect that another State Party claims that the Kingdom is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention;

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture, under the conditions laid down in Article 22, to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the Kingdom of the provisions of the Convention. ’

[The] Republic of Croatia … accepts the competence of the Committee in accordance with Article 21 and 22 of the said Convention. ’

The Principality of Liechtenstein recognizes, in accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

The Principality of Liechtenstein recognizes, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg declares that the only sanctions that it recognizes as ‘lawful sanctions’ as used in article 1 are those that are recognized as such equally under domestic law as under international law.

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg declares […] that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg declares […] that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of the provisions of the Convention.

The Government of Malta fully recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture as specified in article 21, paragraph 1, and article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Principality of Monaco declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfulling[lees: fulfilling] its obligations under this Convention.

In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Principality of Monaco declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

The Government of New Zealand reserves the right to award compensation to torture victims referred to in Article 14 of the Convention Against Torture only at the discretion of the Attorney-General of New Zealand.

Article 21

1. In accordance with Article 21, Paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognises the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention; and

Article 22

2. In accordance with Article 22, Paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognises the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

… Norway recognizes 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 this Convention.

… Norway recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of the provisions of the Convention.

Ukraine fully recognizes extension to its territory of Article 21 of the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as regards recognition of the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

Ukraine fully recognizes extension to its territory of Article 22 of the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as regards recognition of the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to jurisdiction of a State Party who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

Ukraine declares that the provisions of Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment shall extend to cases which may arise as from the date of receipt by the UN Secretary General of the notification concerning the withdrawal of reservations and relevant declarations of Ukraine.

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.

Withdrawal of declaration made upon ratification in respect of Article 5 of the Convention.

… Austria recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

… Austria recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to Austrian jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation of the provisions of the Convention.

The Republic of Panama declares in accordance with article 30, paragraph 2 of the Convention that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of the said article.

The Government of the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 21 and 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1984, recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that the Republic of Poland is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention or communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of Poland of the provisions of the Convention. ’

Article 21: Portugal hereby declares, in accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that the State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

Article 22: Portugal hereby declares, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. ’

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture, as defined by article 20 of the Convention in respect of situations and events occurring after the adoption of the present declaration.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that, pursuant to article 21 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications in respect of situations and events occurring after the adoption of the present declaration, to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics also declares that, pursuant to article 22 of the Convention, it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in respect of situations or events occurring after the adoption of the present declaration, from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

Spain declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that the Spanish State is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Spain understands that, in accordance with the article to which reference is made, such communications shall be accepted and transmitted only when they come from a State party which has made a similar declaration.

Spain declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to Spanish jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the Spanish State of the provisions of the Convention. Such communications shall comply with the provisions of the article concerned, and especially of its paragraph 5.

The Government of the Republic of Togo hereby declares, […] that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Togo further declares, […] that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

[The Government of Tunisia] declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture provided for in article 17 of the Convention to receive communications pursuant to articles 21 and 22, thereby withdrawing any reservation made on Tunisia's behalf in this connection.

The Government of Turkey declares in accordance with Article 30, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that it does not consider itself bound by the provision of paragraph 1 of this Article. ’

The Government of Turkey declares, pursuant to Article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.

The Government of Turkey declares, pursuant to Article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of the provisions of the Convention. ’

On 27 July 1988, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Uruguay a declaration made under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention by which the Government of Uruguay recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications referring to the said articles. ’

The Government of the Republic of Venezuela recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture as provided for under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention… ’

The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:

The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:

The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declarations:

The Government of the United Kingdom declares under Article 21 of the said Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture 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 in regard to the United Kingdom, made a declaration under Article 21 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in regard to itself. ’

…Sweden recognizes 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 this Convention.

…Sweden recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of the provisions of the Convention. ’

The Government of Tunisia reserves the right to make at some later stage any reservation or declaration which it deems necessary, in particular with regard to articles 20 and 21 of the said Convention.

‛ The Government of the United States of America reserves the right to communicate, upon ratification, such reservations, interpretive understandings, or declarations as are deemed necessary. ’

‛ nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States. ’

… it is hereby further declared in accordance with Article 30 (2) of the said Convention that the submission under Article 30 (1) to arbitration or the International Court of Justice of disputes between State Parties relating to the interpretation or application of the said Convention shall be by the consent of ALL the Parties concerned and not by one or more of the Parties concerned.

It is hereby further declared in accordance with Articles 21 and 22 of the said Convention that the Government of the Republic of Ghana recognises the competence of the Committee against Torture to consider complaints brought by or against the Republic in respect of another State Party which has made a Declaration recognising the competence of the Committee as well as individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic who claim to be victims of any violations by the Republic of the provisions of the said Convention.

And it is hereby also declared that the Government of the Republic of Ghana interprets Article 21 and Article 22 as giving the said Committee the competence to receive and consider complaints in respect of matters occurring after the said Convention had entered into force for Ghana and shall not apply to decisions, acts, omissions or events relating to matters, events, omissions, acts or developments occurring before Ghana becomes a party.

The Government of the Republic of Botswana considers itself bound by Article 1 of the Convention to the extent that ‘torture’ means the torture and inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment prohibited by Section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana.

… with reservation as to:

The Government of the Italian Republic has examined the reservation to the Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment made by the Government of Qatar. The Government of the Italian Republic believes that the reservation concerning the compatibility of the rules of the Convention with the precepts of the Islamic law and the Islamic Religion raises doubts as the commitment of Qatar to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. The Government of the Italian Republic considers this reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention according to article 19 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This reservation does not fall within the rule of article 20, paragraph 5 and can be objected anytime.

Therefore, the Government of the Italian Republic objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Qatar to the Convention.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Italy and Qatar.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservation made by the Government of Qatar to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (New York, 10 December 1984), whereby it excludes any interpretation of the said Convention which would be incompatible with the precepts of Islamic Law and the Islamic Religion.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic is of the view that this reservation goes against the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a State party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform according to the obligations set out by the said treaty, creating legitimate doubts on its commitment to the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of International Law.

Furthermore, the said reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic wishes, therefore, to express its disagreement with the reservation made by the Government of Qatar. ’

The Government of the United Kingdom have examined the reservation made by the Government of Qatar on 11 January 2000 in respect of the Convention, which reads as follows: '…… with reservation as to: (a) Any interpretation of the provisions of the Convention that is incompatible with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic religion.'.

The Government of the United Kingdom note that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does nog[lees: does not] clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to the reservation made by the Government of Qatar.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Qatar.

‛ The Republic of Seychelles accepts without reservations the competence of the Committee against Torture. ’

In accordance with article 21 (1) of the Convention, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.

In accordance with article 22 (1) of the Convention, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the Federal Republic of Germany of the provisions of the Convention.

In accordance with Article 21 of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Uganda declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications submitted by another State party, provided that such other State Party has made a declaration under Article 21 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in regard to itself.

… the Republic of Costa Rica, with a view to strengthening the international instruments in this field and in accordance with full respect for human rights, the essence of Costa Rica's foreign policy, recognizes, unconditionally and during the period of validity of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 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 Convention.

Furthermore, the Republic of Costa Rica recognizes, unconditionally and during the period of validity of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

The foregoing is in accordance with articles 21 and 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1984.

The United Mexican States recognizes as duly binding the competence of the Committee against Torture, established by article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1984.

Pursuant to Article 22 of the Convention, the United Mexican States declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, Belgium declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.

Ireland declares, in accordance with article 21 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

The Holy See considers the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment a valid and suitable instrument for fighting against acts that constitute a serious offence against the dignity of the human person. In recent times the Catholic Church has consistently pronounced itself in favour of unconditional respect for life itself and unequivocally condemned ‘whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself’ (Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 7 December 1965).

The law of the Church (Code of Canon Law, 1981) and its catechism (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1987) enumerate and clearly identify forms of behaviour that can harm the bodily or mental integrity of the individual, condemn their perpetrators and call for the abolition of such acts. On 14 January 1978, Pope Paul VI, in his last address to the diplomatic corps, after referring to the torture and mistreatment practised in various countries against individuals, concluded as follows: ‘How could the Church fail to take up a stern stand ... with regard to torture and to similar acts of violence inflicted on the human person?’ Pope John Paul II, for his part, has not failed to affirm that ‘torture must be called by its proper name’ (message for the celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 1980). He has expressed his deep compassion for the victims of torture (World Congress on Pastoral Ministry for Human Rights, Rome, 4 July 1998), and in particular for tortured women (message to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, 1 March 1993). In this spirit the Holy See wishes to lend its moral support and collaboration to the international community, so as to contribute to the elimination of recourse to torture, which is inadmissible and inhuman.

The Holy See, in becoming a party to the Convention on behalf of the Vatican City State, undertakes to apply it insofar as it is compatible, in practice, with the peculiar nature of that State.

…the Government of the Republic of Paraguay recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture, pursuant to articles 21 and 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984.

…the Honourable National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay has granted its approval for the recognition of the competence of the Committee to receive communications from States parties and individuals.

The Republic of Peru recognizes, in accordance with Article 21 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the said Convention. Likewise, the Republic of Peru recognizes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 22 of the above-mentioned Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

‛ The State of Bosnia and Herzegovina…, accepts without reservations the competence of the Committee Against Torture. ’

The Government of the Republic of Burundi declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee of the United Nations against Torture to receive and consider individual communications in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted at New York on 10 December 1984.

Yugoslavia recognizes, in compliance with article 21, paragraph 1 of the Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications in which one State Party to the Convention claims that another State Party does not fulfil the obligations pursuant to the Convention;

Yugoslavia recognizes, in conformity with article 22, paragraph 1 of the Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, Belgium declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

Ireland declares, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

By virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution of the Republic of Chile, I should like to declare that the Government of Chile recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture established pursuant to article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984, with respect to acts occurring after the communication of this declaration by the Republic of Chile to the Secretary-General of the United Nations:

In accordance with the provisions of article 28, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Syrian Arab Republic does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture provided for in article 20 thereof;

The accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to this Convention shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or entail entry into any dealings with Israel in the context of the provisions of this Convention.

Article 20

The Mauritanian Government does not recognize the competence granted to the Committee in article 20 of the Convention, which provides as follows:

Article 30, paragraph 1

In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York on December 10, 1984 Georgia hereby declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture under the conditions laid down in article 21, to receive and consider communications to the effect that another state party claims that Georgia is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York on December 10, 1984 Georgia hereby declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture under the conditions laid down in article 22, to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by Georgia of the provisions of the Convention.

The Government of Bolivia recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture as provided for under article 21 of the Convention.

The Government of Bolivia recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture as provided for under article 22 of the Convention.

the Federative Republic of Brazil recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider denunciations of violations of the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted in New York on December 10, 1984, as permitted by Article 22 of the Convention.

Confirmed upon succession:

Yugoslavia recognizes, in compliance with article 21, paragraph 1 of the Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications in which one State Party to the Convention claims that another State Party does not fulfil the obligations pursuant to the Convention; Yugoslavia recognizes, in conformity with article 22, paragraph 1 of the Convention, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

On 19 October 2006, the Government of Morocco notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation made regarding article [21], made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification. The reservation reads as follows:

The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article [21].

The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco declares, under article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, that it recognizes, on the date of deposit of the present document, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation, subsequent to the date of deposit of the present document, of the provisions of the Convention.

The Kingdom of Thailand does not consider itself bound by Article 30, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Interpretative declaration:

The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement does not determine whether or not it constitutes a reservation to a treaty. If the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified by an interpretative declaration, this in fact amounts to a reservation.

Since the application of a number of provisions of the Convention have been made subject to provisions of the Thai Penal Code it is unclear to what extent the Kingdom of Thailand considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty. This in turn raises doubts as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Thailand to the object and purpose of the Convention. This applies in particular to the declaration made under Article 1 of the Convention which contains a clear and generally recognized definition of the concept of torture.

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Kingdom of Thailand to the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Thailand and Sweden, without the Kingdom of Thailand benefiting from its reservation.

The Republic of Korea recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture, pursuant to Article 21 of the … Convention, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention …

[The Republic of Korea] … recognizes the competence of the … Committee [against Torture], pursuant to Article 22 of the … Convention, to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment done at New York on December 10, 1984 the Republic of Kazakhstan hereby declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture under the conditions laid down in article 21, to receive and consider communications to the effect that another state party claims that the Republic of Kazakhstan is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment done at New York on December 10, 1984 the Republic of Kazakhstan hereby declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture under the conditions laid down in article 22, to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of Kazakhstan of the provisions of the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984, with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 28 and 30 of the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Poland is of the view that the implementation of the reservations aiming at the elimination of the duty to fulfill by the reserving State vital obligations enshrined in the Convention made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention would make it impossible to attain the objective of the Convention, which is to protect entities from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and to make the struggle against such violations of human rights more effective. In consequence, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is a treaty and customary norm, these reservations shall not be permitted as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

In order to justify its will to exclude the legal consequences of certain provisions of the Convention, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan raised in the reservations with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 the inconsistency of these provisions with its domestic legislation. The Government of the Republic of Poland recalls that, according to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is a treaty and customary norm, the State Party to an international agreement may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan refers in the above-mentioned reservations to the Sharia laws and to its domestic legislation as possibly affecting the application of the Convention. Nonetheless it does specify the exact content of these laws and legislation. As a result, it is impossible to clearly define the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention.

Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Poland objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984, with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Poland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The Czech Republic believes that the reservations of Pakistan made to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention, if put into practice, would result in restriction and weakening of the universal prohibition of torture. Such restriction or weakening is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. Furthermore, Pakistan supports reservations to 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 by references to its domestic law, which is, in the opinion of the Czech Republic, unacceptable under customary international law, as codified in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Finally, the reservations to 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 that refer to the notions such as ‘Constitution of Pakistan’ and ‘Sharia laws’ and to Article 3 that refer to the notions such as ‘the provisions of its laws relating to extradition and foreigners’, without specifying its contents, do not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations under the Convention.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to Article 28 paragraph 2 of the Convention and according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

The Czech Republic, therefore, objects to the aforesaid reservations made by Pakistan to the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Czech Republic and Pakistan. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the Czech Republic and Pakistan, without Pakistan benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the reservation with respect to Article 3, a core provision of the Convention, which subjects its application to the laws of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan relating to extradition and foreigners without specifying their content, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the above Convention.

Moreover, the Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the reservations with respect to Articles 4, 12, 13 and 16, which contain a general reference to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and Sharia laws do not specify the extent of the derogation therefrom and, therefore, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

For those reasons the Government of the Hellenic Republic objects to the abovementioned reservations formulated by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The Government of Ireland has examined the reservations made on 23 June 2010 by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Government of Ireland notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan subjects Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 to the Constitution of Pakistan, its domestic law and/or Sharia law. The Government of Ireland is of the view that a reservation which consists of a general reference to the Constitution or the domestic law of the reserving State or to religious law, may cast doubt on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfill its obligations under the Convention. The Government of Ireland is of the view that such general reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and may undermine the basis of international treaty law.

The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The Slovak Republic has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon its ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, of 10 December 1984, according to which:

‘The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Article 3 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the provisions of its laws relating to extradition and foreigners.

The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention, it does not take this Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States Parties.

The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of these Articles [4, 6, 12, 13 and 16] shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws.

In accordance with Article 28, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 20.

The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not consider itself bound by Article 30, paragraph 1 of the Convention.’

The Slovak Republic considers that with the reservations to 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 the application of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is made subject to the Islamic Sharia law. Moreover it considers the reservations with respect to Article 3 of the Convention as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

This makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the Convention as to its commitment to the object and purpose of the Convention.

It is in the common interest of States that all parties respect treaties to which they have chosen to become party, as to their object and purpose, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Slovak Republic recalls that the customary international law, as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c), sets out that the reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted. The Slovak Republic therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Slovak Republic and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its reservations.

The Government of Austria has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of Austria considers that in aiming to exclude the application of those provisions of the Convention which are deemed incompatible with the Constitution of Pakistan, Sharia laws and certain national laws, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has made reservations of general and indeterminate scope. These reservations do not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention.

The Government of Austria therefore considers the reservations of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to them.

These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Austria and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The Government of Canada has carefully examined the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, in accordance with which the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that:

the provisions of Articles 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 ‘shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws’.

The Government of Canada considers that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law or to the prescriptions of the Islamic Sharia constitutes, in reality, a reservation with a general, indeterminate scope. Such a reservation makes it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Convention that it purports to introduce and impossible for the other States Parties to the Convention to know the extent to which Pakistan has accepted the obligations of the Convention, an uncertainty which is unacceptable, especially in the context of treaties related to human rights.

The Government of Canada notes that the above-mentioned reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, addressing many of the most essential provisions of the Convention, and aiming to exclude the obligations under those provisions, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and thus inadmissible under article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Government of Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between Canada and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan..

The Government of the French Republic has considered the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon its ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on 23 June 2010.

Concerning the reservations to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16, France considers that in seeking to exclude the application of provisions of the Convention, insofar as they might be contrary to or inconsistent with laws relating to extradition and foreigners, the Constitution of Pakistan and Sharia law, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has made reservations of a general and indeterminate nature.

Indeed, these reservations are vague since they do not specify which provisions of domestic law are affected. Thus, they do not allow other States Parties to appreciate the extent of the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, including the compatibility of the provisions with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the French Republic therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between France and Pakistan.

The Government of Australia has examined the reservation made by The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and now hereby objects to the same for and on behalf of Australia:

The Government of Australia considers that the reservations by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Convention).

The Government of Australia recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

Furthermore, the Government of Australia considers that The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, through its reservations, is purporting to make the application of the Convention subject to the provisions of general domestic law in force in The Islamic Republic of Pakistan. As a result, it is unclear to what extent The Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the Convention and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of Australia considers that the reservations to the Convention are subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation, pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

For the above reasons, the Government of Australia objects to the aforesaid reservations made by The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Convention and expresses the hope that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will withdraw its reservations.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Australia and The Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Belgium has carefully examined the reservations made by Pakistan upon accession on 23 June 2010 to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The vagueness and general nature of the reservations made by Pakistan with respect to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment may contribute to undermining the bases of international human rights treaties.

The reservations make the implementation of the Convention's provisions contingent upon their compatibility with the Islamic Sharia and legislation in force in Pakistan. This creates uncertainty as to which of its obligations under the Convention Pakistan intends to observe and raises doubts as to Pakistan's respect for the object and purpose of the Convention.

It is in the common interest for all parties to respect the treaties to which they have acceded and for States to be willing to enact such legislative amendments as may be necessary in order to fulfil their treaty obligations. Belgium also notes that the reservations concern fundamental provisions of the Convention.

Consequently, Belgium considers the reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of that instrument.

Belgium notes that under customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted (article 19 (c)).

Furthermore, under Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

Consequently, Belgium objects to the reservations formulated by Pakistan with respect to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Belgium and Pakistan.

The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Government of Denmark considers, that the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention, which make the application of these essential obligations under the Convention subject to Sharia and/or constitutional and/or national law in force in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, raise doubts as to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty and concern as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of Denmark wishes to recall that, according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

Consequently, the Government of Denmark considers the said reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law.

The Government of Denmark therefore objects to the aforementioned reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention in its entirety between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Denmark.

The Government of Denmark recommends the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to reconsider its reservations to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on 23 June 2010 to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that these reservations subject the application of Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16, all of which are core provisions of the Convention, to a system of domestic norms without specifying the contents thereof, leaving it uncertain to which extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan accepts to be bound by the obligations under the Convention and raising serious doubts as to its commitment to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. The reservations therefore are considered incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and consequently impermissible under Art. 19 c of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The Government of Finland welcomes the ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Government of Finland has carefully examined the content of the reservations relating to Articles 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 28 and 30 of the Convention made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification.

The Government of Finland notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves the right to apply the provisions of Article 3 so as to be in conformity with the provisions of its laws relating to extradition and foreigners, and the provisions of Articles 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 to the extent that they are not repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws.

The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its content does not clearly define to other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving States commits itself to the Convention and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.

The reservations to Articles 3, Articles 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 seeks to restrict essential obligations of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan under the Convention and raise serious doubts as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in respect of Articles 3, Articles 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Finland.

The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its reservations.

With regard to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

The Government of the Republic of Hungary has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984, with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 28 and 30 of the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Hungary is of the view that the implementation of the reservations aiming at the elimination of the duty to fulfill by the reserving State vital obligations enshrined in the Convention made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention would make it impossible to attain the objective of the Convention, which is to protect entities from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and to make the struggle against such violations of human rights more effective. In consequence, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is a treaty and customary norm, these reservations shall not be permitted as they are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

In order to justify its will to exclude the legal consequences of certain provisions of the Convention, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan raised in the reservations with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 the inconsistency of these provisions with its domestic legislation. The Government of the Republic of Hungary recalls that, according to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is a treaty and customary norm, the State Party to an international agreement may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan refers in the above-mentioned reservations to the Sharia laws and to its domestic legislation as possibly affecting the application of the Convention. Nonetheless, it fails to specify the exact content of these laws and legislation. As a result, it is impossible to clearly define the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention.

Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Hungary objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984, with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the [Convention] between the Republic of Hungary and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The Government of Italy has examined the reservations made on 23 June 2010 by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, regarding Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention.

The Government of Italy notes that the said articles of the Convention are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing legislation in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The Government of Italy is of the view that, in the absence of further clarification, these reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as to the object and purpose of the Convention and would like to recall that, according to customary international law as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all Parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Italy, therefore, objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Italy and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 are reservations that seek to subject the application of the Convention to its Constitution, its domestic law or/and Sharia Law, limiting the scope of the Convention on an unilateral basis and contributing to undermining the basis of International Law.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the International Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, by invoking its Constitution, the domestic law or/and the Sharia Law raise serious doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention, as the reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Convention of their effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof.

It is in the common interest of all the States that Treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the Treaties.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984.

However, these objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Portuguese Republic and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservations made by Pakistan upon its ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of that international instrument.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that those articles refer to rights and guarantees that are essential for achieving the object and purpose of the Convention. As the reservations formulated by Pakistan make application of those articles of the Convention subject to their consistency with domestic law on extradition, with the Constitution and with Sharia laws, to which it refers in general terms without specifying their content, they make it impossible to determine the extent of Pakistan's commitment to achieving the object and purpose of the Convention. Furthermore, they violate the principle of international law, well established in practice, that a State cannot make compliance with international obligations that are assumed voluntarily subordinate to the application of the provisions of domestic law, whatever their nature. In no case may such reservations, as formulated, exclude the legal effects of obligations arising from the relevant provisions of the Convention.

Consequently, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the reservations made to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and Pakistan.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has examined the reservations made by the Government of Pakistan to the Convention [against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment] on 23 June 2010, which read:

In the view of the United Kingdom a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention. Reservations which consist of a general reference to a constitutional provision, law or system of laws without specifying their contents do not do so.

The Government of the United Kingdom therefore objects to the reservations made by the Government of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16.

The United Kingdom will re-consider its position in light of any modifications or withdrawals of the reservations made by the Government of Pakistan to the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservations expressed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 28 and 30 of the Convention upon ratification.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the reservations expressed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan seek to limit the effect of the application of the Convention.

Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia notes that the reservations expressed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention, viewed as constituting the object and purpose thereof, subject these provisions to the regime of its national law.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties sets out that a State Party may not invoke provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform obligations arising from an international treaty.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia also recalls that customary international law as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c) thereof, sets out that a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permissible.

Hence, reservations expressed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention raise doubts as to whether the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will apply the Convention in line with its object and purpose.

Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention.

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

The Government of Norway has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of Norway considers that the reservations with regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention are so extensive as to be contrary to its object and purpose. The Government of Norway therefore objects to the said reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Convention thus becomes operative between the Kingdom of Norway and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from the aforesaid reservations.

The Government of the United States of America objects to Pakistan's reservations to the CAT. Pakistan has reserved to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention, which address nonrefoulement, criminalization of acts which constitute torture, arrest or apprehension of those suspected of committing torture, investigation of credible allegations of torture, the right to bring before and have examined by competent authorities allegations of torture and for protection of complainants and witnesses, and the prevention of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. At the same time, Pakistan has chosen not to participate in the Committee’s inquiry process under Article 20. The combination of Pakistan's reservations and its decision not to participate in the Article 20 process raises serious concerns because the reservations obscure the extent to which Pakistan intends to modify its substantive obligations under the Convention, and preclude further inquiry by the Committee if wellfounded indications of systematic torture do arise. As a result, the United States considers the totality of Pakistan's reservations to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the [Convention]. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the [Convention] between the United States and Pakistan, and the aforementioned articles shall apply between our two states, except to the extent of Pakistan’s reservations.

[Communication]

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with its reservations to the Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has made the application of essential obligations under the Convention subject to the Sharia laws and/or the constitutional and/or national laws in force in Pakistan.

This makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty and raises concerns as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that reservations of this kind must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservations of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the aforesaid Articles of the Convention.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Withdrawal of reservations to Articles 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention made upon ratification.

In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Republic of Moldova recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Republic of Moldova recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 28 of the Convention, the United Arab Emirates declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture referred to in article 20 of the Convention. In accordance with paragraph 2 of article 30 of the Convention, the United Arab Emirates does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 30 relating to arbitration in this Convention.

The United Arab Emirates also confirms that the lawful sanctions applicable under national law, or pain or suffering arising from or associated with or incidental to these lawful sanctions, do not fall under the concept of ‘torture’ defined in article 1 of this Convention or under the concept of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment mentioned in this Convention.

The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by the United Arab Emirates upon accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Government of Austria considers that by the reference to national law regarding Art. 1 of the Convention the United Arab Emirates have made a reservation of general and indeterminate scope. This reservation does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention.

The Government of Austria therefore considers the reservation of the United Arab Emirates to Art. 1 incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and objects to it.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Austria and the United Arab Emirates.

The Government of Sweden has examined the declaration and reservations made by the United Arab Emirates at the time of its accession to the Convention.

The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation 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. The Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention.

The Government of Sweden notes that the reservation, according to which ‘the lawful sanctions applicable under national law, or pain or suffering arising from or associated with or incidental to these lawful sanctions, do not fall under the concept of ‘torture’ defined in article 1 of this Convention or under the concept of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment mentioned in this Convention’, implies that the application of the Convention is made subject to a general reservation referring to existing legislation in the United Arab Emirates.

The Government of Sweden is of the view that such a reservation, which does not clearly specify the extent of its scope, raises serious doubt as to the commitment of the United Arab Emirates to the object and purpose of the Convention.

According to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the United Arab Emirates to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and considers this reservation null and void. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Arab Emirates and Sweden. The Convention enters into force between the United Arab Emirates and Sweden, without the United Arab Emirates benefiting from this reservation.

The Government of Romania has examined the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates which sustains that 'the lawful sanctions applicable under national law, or pain or suffering arising from or associated with or incidental to these lawful sanctions, do not fall under the concept of 'torture' defined in article 1 of this Convention or under the concept of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment mentioned in this Convention' and regards this declaration as a disguised reservation. The reservation refers to the legislation in force in the United Arab Emirates as to the definition of torture and thus to the scope of the application of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Furthermore, if the intention of the United Arab Emirates is to subordinate the application of the Convention entirely to the provisions of its internal law as it results from the text of the declaration, the reservation is contrary to the general rule (contained in article 27 VCLT) according to which a party may not invoke its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty. Thus, the reservation is inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty. Romania appreciates that the term ‘lawful sanctions’ under article 1, paragraph 1 of the Convention must not be subordinated only to domestic law but it incorporates also a standard of legality under international law.

For these reasons, the Government of Romania objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the United Arab Emirates to the Convention as being incompatible with its object and purpose even though the objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Romania and the United Arab Emirates. At the same time, the Government of Romania recommends the United Arab Emirates to reconsider its reservation and expresses the hope in its withdrawal.

The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the declaration and reservations made by the United Arab Emirates at the time of its accession to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government of the Czech Republic considers that the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention. The Government of the Czech Republic is of the view that the reservation, according to which ‘the lawful sanctions applicable under national law, or pain or suffering arising from or associated with or incidental to these lawful sanctions, do not fall under the concept of ‘torture’ defined in article 1 of this Convention or under the concept of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment mentioned in this Convention’ raises serious doubt as to the commitment of the United Arab Emirates to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Czech Republic therefore considers the aforesaid reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and objects to it.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Arab Emirates and the Czech Republic. The Convention enters into force between the United Arab Emirates and the Czech Republic, without the Untied Arab Emirates benefiting from this reservation.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservations and the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates upon accession to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates regarding Article 1 of the Convention in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of the Convention is made subject to national legislation in force in the United Arab Emirates.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that reservations of this kind must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation of the United Arab Emirates to Article 1 of the Convention.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Arab Emirates.

The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the reservation made by the United Arab Emirates upon accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel. Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984, with regard to Article 1 of the Convention.

The reservation made by the United Arab Emirates with regard to Article 1 of the Convention is of general nature and in view of the reference to national law does not allow to define the extent to which State Party making a reservation will be bound by the Convention's provisions. In consequence, according to Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, which is a treaty and customary norm, the reservation shall not be permitted as incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.

The Government of Ireland has examined the declaration contained in the instrument of accession to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, made by the United Arab Emirates on 19 July 2012.

The Government of Ireland is of the view that this declaration in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention.

The Government of Ireland considers that a reservation which consists of a general reference to domestic laws of the reserving State and which does not clearly specify the extent of the reservation to the provisions of the Convention may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.

The Government of Ireland is furthermore of the view that such a reservation may undermine the basis of international treaty law and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the United Arab Emirates to Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and the United Arab Emirates.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the declaration made by theUnited Arab Emirates upon accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman orDegrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates, to Article 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 2 of the Convention according to which each State Party shall take effective measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 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 United Arab Emirates to Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984.

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

The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, pursuant to Article 28 of the Convention, does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture under Article 20.

The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 30, paragraph 1, to refer any dispute concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention to the International Court of Justice.

It is the understanding of the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic that the term ‘torture’ in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention means torture as defined in both national law and international law. The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention it makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty. Therefore, it does not consider the Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of the offences set forth therein. It further declares that bilateral agreements will be the basis for extradition as between the Lao People's Democratic Republic and other States Parties in respect of any offences.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservations and declaration made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic on ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the declaration made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 1 of the Convention, insofar as it refers to the national law of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, constitutes in substance a reservation of general scope, which does not specify the extent of the derogation and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic underlines that according to Customary International Law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted, and recalls that it is in the common interest of all States that Treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the Treaties.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid declaration made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984. The present objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Portuguese Republic and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservations and the declarations made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic regarding Article 1 of the Convention in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of the Convention is made subject to national legislation in force in the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that reservations of this kind must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 1 of the Convention.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the declaration [made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic relating to article 1, paragraph 1 of the Convention] and considers that it amounts to a reservation as it seems to modify the obligations of the Lao People's Democratic Republic under the said article.

A reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore, raises doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such a reservation is also subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Finland wishes to recall that according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty is not permitted. In its present formulation, the reservation to article 1, paragraph 1, is in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention.

Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to the aforesaid reservation to article 1, paragraph 1, made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and the Lao People's Democratic Republic. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without the Lao People's Democratic Republic benefitting from this reservation.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic has examined the reservations and declarations formulated by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the declaration formulated by the Lao People's Democratic Republic regarding Article 1 paragraph 1 of the above Convention constitutes in substance a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention to the extent that with this reservation the application of the Convention is made subject to national legislation in force in the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that reservations of this kind must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and would like to recall that according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

For these reasons the Government of the Hellenic Republic objects to the above mentioned reservation formulated by the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Greece and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The Government of Italy has examined the reservations and declarations formulated by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment.

The Government of Italy considers that the declaration formulated by the Lao People's Democratic Republic regarding Article 1, paragraph 1, of the above Convention constitutes in substance a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention to the extent that with this reservation the application of the Convention is made subject to national legislation in force in the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The Government of Italy considers that reservations of this kind must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and would like to recall that according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

For these reasons the Government of Italy objects to the above mentioned reservation formulated by the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Italy and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The Government of Austria has examined the declaration made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

In Austria's view the declaration amounts to a reservation. The Government of Austria considers that by the reference to national law regarding Art. 1 of the Convention the Lao People's Democratic Republic has made a reservation of general and indeterminate scope. This reservation does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The Government of Austria therefore considers the reservation to Art. 1 incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and objects to it. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Austria and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation 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. The Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic, according to which the term 'torture' in Article 1 paragraph 1 of the Convention shall mean torture as defined in both national law and international law, in substance constitutes a reservation modifying the scope of the Convention.

The Government of Sweden notes that this reservation implies that the application of the Convention is made subject to a general reservation referring to existing legislation in the Lao People's Democratic Republic. The Government of Sweden is of the view that such a reservation, which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation, raises serious doubt as to the commitment of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to the object and purpose of the Convention. According to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and considers the reservation null and void.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Sweden, without the Lao People's Democratic Republic benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of the United Kingdom have examined the Declaration made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic in respect of Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Convention: ‘It is the understanding of the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic that the term ‘torture’ in Article 1, paragraph1 of the Convention means torture as defined in both national law and international law.’

The Government of the United Kingdom considers that the Declaration is capable of being understood as an attempt by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to exclude or modify the definition of torture set out in under Article 1 of the Convention. To the extent that the Declaration is intended to exclude or modify the definition of torture under Article 1 of the Convention, and is accordingly a reservation, the United Kingdom objects to the said reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon its ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984 with respect to Article 1, paragraph 1, thereof.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the declaration, notwithstanding its designation, amounts to a reservation which is meant to limit the scope of application of the Convention. A reservation which makes the application of the Convention conditional on a definition contained in national laws is of a general and indeterminate nature and raises doubts as to the extent of the State's commitment to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. In the opinion of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany such a reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to this reservation as being impermissible.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the reservations and declarations made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic on ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter as the ‘Convention’).

The Government of the Czech Republic is of the view that the declaration made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic with regard to the definition of torture in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention is of general and vague nature and, therefore, its character and scope cannot be properly assessed. The declaration leaves open the question whether it amounts to a reservation and whether such a reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, i.e., to what extent the Lao People's Democratic Republic commits itself to the binding definition of torture as contained in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention, which forms part of the object and purpose of the Convention and cannot be excluded or modified by the definitions of torture contained in national law of the States Parties to the Convention.

The Government of the Czech Republic wishes to recall that reservations may not be general or vague, since such reservations, without indicating in precise terms their scope, make it impossible to assess whether or not they are compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. Therefore, the Government of the Czech Republic objects to the aforesaid declaration made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Lao People's Democratic Republic and the Czech Republic, without the Lao People's Democratic Republic benefiting from its declaration.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservations and declarations made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic to the Convention upon ratification.

Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia believes that the first declaration, making the notion of ‘torture’ as it is understood by this Convention subject to national legislation of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, should not be considered an interpretative declaration having a mere declarative purpose. The interpretative declaration is deemed to change the legal effect of the Convention by limiting its applicability. Thus, it should be considered a reservation as stipulated in Article 2 (1) (d) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia holds an opinion that this reservation contains vague reference to national legislation thus making impossible to determine to what extent the Lao People's Democratic Republic considers itself bound by the provisions of the Convention. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia regards this reservation as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

Whereof, the Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that customary international law as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c) thereof, sets out that a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permissible. Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to the declaration of the Lao People's Democratic Republic made upon the ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

At the same time, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and the Lao People's Democratic Republic benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of Norway has examined the declarations contained in the instrument of ratification to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (New York, 10 December 1984), made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic on 26 September 2012.

The Government of Norway is of the view that the declaration with regard to Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention in substance constitutes a general reservation aimed at limiting the scope of the Convention with reference to national law, without identifying the provisions in question. The Government of Norway accordingly considers that the reservation casts serious doubts on the commitment of the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore objects to the said reservation. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the Lao People's Republic.

The Convention thus becomes operative between the Kingdom of Norway and the Lao People's Democratic Republic without the Lao People's Democratic Republic benefiting from the aforesaid reservation.

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 the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Secretary-General's communication of 9 April 2014, numbered C.N.184.2014.TREATIES-IV.9, 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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ‘Palestine’ is not able to accede to this convention, and that the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 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.278.2014.TREATIES-IV.9, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, dated 10 December 1984.

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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which entered into force on 2 May 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 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 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 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.184.2014.TREATIES-IV.9).

‘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.296.2014.TREATIES-IV.9, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Israel regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, dated 10 December 1984.

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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which entered into force on 2 May 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 United States Mission to the United Nations presents its compliments to the United Nations and has the honor to refer to the Secretary-General's depositary notification C.N.184.2014, dated April 9, 2014, regarding the purported accession of the ‘State of Palestine’ to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at New York, December 10, 1984.

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.262.2014.TREATIES-IV.9, dated 15 May 2014, conveying a communication of the United States of America regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, dated 10 December 1984.

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 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which entered into force on 2 May 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.

In accordance with Article 28 of the Convention, Eritrea declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for it in article 20.

The State of Eritrea does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 30 which stipulates that all disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall be referred to the International Court of Justice by one of the parties.

The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam declares, in accordance with article 28 paragraph 1, that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20, and in accordance with article 30, paragraph 2, that it does not consider itself bound by article 30, paragraph 1.

The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam does not consider the Convention as the direct legal basis for extradition in respect of the offences referred to in Article 4 of the Convention. Extradition shall be decided on the basis of extradition treaties to which Viet Nam is a party or the principle of reciprocity, and shall be in accordance with Vietnamese laws and regulations.

The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the declaration made by the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted in New York on December 10, 1984. The declaration meets the definition of a reservation laid out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The Government of the Republic of Poland notes that the purpose and object of the Convention is to ensure an enhanced effectiveness of the protection from torture and other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment globally. To this end State-parties took it upon themselves to undertake legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent the use of torture.

The Government of the Republic of Poland notes that the reservation of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam – to the extent it concerns not recognizing the Convention as a direct legal basis for extradition in relation to offences referred to in Article 4 – leads to an exemption of certain provisions of that treaty. The efficacy of Article 7, paragraph 1, and Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention will depend on the extradition treaties binding the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam or on the domestic authorities' decision regarding the principle of mutuality. Furthermore, the reservation may cause the avoidance of the obligation to supplement the catalogue of offences in the already-binding extradition treaties with the offence of use of torture as stipulated in Article 8, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

It is the opinion of the Government of the Republic of Poland that the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention in relation to the indicated provisions and as such is not permissible. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Poland objects to the reservation made by the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted in New York on December 10, 1984. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam and the Republic of Poland.

…the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Senegal declares, in accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communciations to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Senegal declares, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

The Republic of San Marino hereby declares, in accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention […]

[…] The Republic of San Marino hereby declares, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of violations by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Fiji does not recognize the definition of Torture as provided for in article 1 of the Convention therefore shall not be bound by these provisions. The definition of Torture in the Convention is only applicable to the extent as expressed in the Fijian Constitution. The Government of the Republic of Fiji recognizes the article 14 of the Convention only to the extent that the right to award compensation to victims of an act of torture shall be subject to the determination of a Court of law.

The Government of the Republic of Fiji does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture as provided for in article(s) 20, 21 and 22 of the Convention and therefore shall not be bound by these provisions. The Government of the Republic of Fiji does not recognize paragraph 1 of article 30 of the Convention and therefore shall not be bound by this provision.

The Government of Sweden has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Republic of Fiji in relation to article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Republic of Fiji expresses that ‘[t]he Government of the Republic of Fiji does not recognize the definition of Torture as provided for in article 1 of the Convention therefore shall not be bound by these provisions. The definition of Torture in the Convention is only applicable to the extent as expressed in the Fijian Constitution’.

As regards the reservation to the definition of torture provided for in article 1 of the Convention, Sweden would like to state the following.

Reservations by which a State Party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by not considering itself bound by certain articles and by invoking general references to national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.

It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and the Republic of Fiji, without the Republic of Fiji benefitting from its aforementioned reservation.

The Swiss Federal Council has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Republic of Fiji upon ratification of the Convention of 10 December 1984 against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The reservation made regarding the definition of torture contained in article 1 of the Convention, as well as the fact that in general it subordinates the definition of torture to the Constitution of the Republic of Fiji, constitutes a reservation of general scope that may raise doubts about the full commitment of the Republic of Fiji to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Swiss Federal Council notes that, according to article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 on the Law of Treaties, no reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention is permissible.

It is in the common interest of States that the object and purpose of the instruments to which they choose to become parties be respected by all parties thereto, and that States be prepared to amend their legislation in order to fulfil their treaty obligations.

Consequently, the Swiss Federal Council objects to the reservation made by the Republic of Fiji concerning article 1 of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention, in its entirety, between Switzerland and the Republic of Fiji.

… The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the reservations made by the Republic of Fiji concerning the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Regarding the reservation to Article 1 of the Convention, the Government of Finland notes that reservations by which a State Party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking national law may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention. Such reservations are also subject to the general principle of treaty law according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.

In view of the Government of Finland, the reservation made by Fiji to Article 1 of the Convention is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. According to Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and customary international law, such reservations shall not be permitted.

Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Fiji. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and the Republic of Fiji. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without the Republic of Fiji benefitting from the aforementioned reservation…

The Government of Ireland welcomes the ratification by the Republic of Fiji of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) on 14 March 2016.

The Government of Ireland has examined the reservation to Article 1 made by the Government of the Republic of Fiji upon ratification.

The Government of Ireland considers that a reservation which consists of a general reference to the Constitution of the reserving State and which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provision of the Convention may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.

The Government of Ireland is furthermore of the view that such a reservation may undermine the basis of international treaty law and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of Ireland recalls that under international treaty law a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Fiji to Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and the Republic of Fiji.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservations made by Fiji upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

With respect to the reservation to Article 1 of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that Fiji does not consider itself bound by the definition of torture contained therein and that it considers this definition only to be applicable to the extent as expressed in the Fijian Constitution.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking provisions of its domestic law, is likely to deprive the provisions of the Convention of their effect and therefore must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation of Fiji to Article 1 of the Convention.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Fiji.

The Government of Norway has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Fiji in relation to article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, in which the Government of the Republic of Fiji declares: ‘The Government of the Republic of Fiji does not recognize the definition of Torture as provided for in article 1 of the Convention therefore shall not be bound by these provisions. The definition of Torture in the Convention is only applicable to the extent as expressed in the Fijian Constitution.’

By declaring itself not bound by an essential provision of the Convention and invoking general reference to the national Constitution without further description of its content, the Republic of Fiji exempts the other States Parties to the Convention from the possibility of assessing the full effects of the reservation. The Government of Norway is of the view that the reservation casts doubts as to the full commitment of the Government of the Republic of Fiji to the object and purpose of the Convention. Furthermore, such a reservation may contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all Parties. The Government of Norway therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Fiji. The Convention thus becomes operative between the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Fiji without the Republic of Fiji benefiting from the aforesaid reservation.

The United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations in New York […] wishes to lodge an objection to one of the reservations made by Fiji upon accession to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment.

The reservation is as follows:

Reservation

‘The Government of the Republic of Fiji does not recognize the definition of Torture as provided for in article 1 of the Convention therefore shall not be bound by these provisions. The definition of Torture in the Convention is only applicable to the extent as expressed in the Fijian Constitution.’

The Government of the United Kingdom considers that the effect of the reservation is to exclude or modify the definition of torture, which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. Further, the Government of the United Kingdom note that a reservation which consists of a general reference to a system of law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to the aforesaid reservation.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Fiji upon its ratification of ... the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984 with respect to Article 1 thereof.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the reservation to Article 1 makes the application of the Convention conditional on a definition contained in the national Constitution. The reservation is of a general and indeterminate nature and raises doubts as to the extent of the Republic of Fiji’s commitment to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. In the opinion of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany such a reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to this reservation as being impermissible.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Fiji.

The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Fiji upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Austria considers that by recognizing the definition of torture according to Article 1 of the Convention only to the extent as expressed in the Fijian Constitution Fiji has made a reservation of a general and indeterminate scope. This reservation does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention.

Austria therefore considers the reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and objects to it. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Fiji.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the contents of the reservations made by the Republic of Fiji upon ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the reservation made upon ratification regarding Article 1 is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by not recognizing the definition of torture and invoking domestic law raises doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention, as the reservation is likely to deprive the provisions of the Convention of their effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic recalls that according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of the Portuguese Republic thus objects to this reservation.