Partijen en gegevens

In accordance with article 13, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Argentine Republic declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

In respect of cases where the alleged offenders belong to a national liberation movement recognized by Burundi or by an international organization of which Burundi is a member, and their actions are part of their struggle for liberation, the Government of the Republic of Burundi reserves the right not to apply to them the provisions of article 2, paragraph 2, and article 6, paragraph 1.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Burundi concerning article 2, paragraph 2, and article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The purpose of this Convention was to secure the world-wide repression of crimes against internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents, and to deny the perpetrators of such crime a safe haven.

Accordingly the Government of the United Kingdom of Great-Britain and Northern Ireland regard the reservation entered by the Government of Burundi as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and are unable to consider Burundi as having validly acceded to the Convention until such time as the reservation is withdrawn.

The Government of the State of Israël regards the reservation entered by the Government of Burundi as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and is unable to consider Burundi as having validly acceded to the Convention until such time as the reservation is withdrawn.

In the view of the Government of Israel, the purpose of this Convention was to secure the worldwide repression of crimes against internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents, and to deny the perpetrators of such crimes a safe haven.

[…] With regard to the reservation expressed by Burundi on 17 December 1980, [the Italian Government considers that] the purpose of the Convention is to ensure the punishment, worldwide, of crimes against internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents, and to deny a safe haven to the perpetrators of such crimes. Considering therefore that the reservation expressed by the Government of Burundi is incompatible with the aim and purpose of the Convention, the Italian Government can not consider Burundi's accession to the Convention as valid as long as it does not withdraw that reservation.

France objects to the declaration made by Burundi on 17 December 1980 limiting the application of the provisions of article 2, paragraph 2 and article 6, paragraph 1.

In the view of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Article 12 of the Convention, and in particular the second sentence of that Article, in no way affects the applicability of Article 33 of the Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees.

…The Federal Republic of Germany reserves the right upon ratifying this Convention, to state its views on the explanations of vote and declarations made by other States upon signing or ratifying or acceding to that Convention and to make reservations regarding certain provisions of the said Convention.

With effect from the day on which the Convention enters into force for the Federal Republic of Germany it will also apply to Berlin(West) subject to the rights and responsibilities of the Allied authorities.

… The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, on the basis of the legal situation set out in the note of 18 February 1982, wishes to confirm that the application in Berlin (West) of the above-mentioned Convention extended by it under the established procedure continues in full force and effect. …

Bulgaria does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, and states that, in each individual case the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.’

The State of Israel does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention.

[The People's Republic of China] declares that in accordance with paragraph 2 of article 13 of the Convention, the People's Republic of China has reservations on paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention and does not consider itself bound by the provisions of the said paragraph.

The Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, recognizing that any dispute between two or more State Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention should not, without consent of both parties, be submitted to international arbitration and to the International Court of Justice.

Until further decision, the Convention shall not apply to the Faroe Islands or Greenland.

The German Democratic Republic does not regard itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, and reaffirms its view that in conformity with the principle of the sovereign equality of States the approval of all parties to any dispute is required in order to subject a certain dispute to arbitration or to submit it for decision to the International Court of Justice.

Ecuador wishes to avail of the provisions of article 13, paragraph 2, of the Convention, declaring that it does not consider itself bound to refer disputes concerning the application of the Convention to the International Court of Justice.

The State of El Salvador does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention.

Finland reserves the right to apply the provision of article 8, paragraph 3, in such a way that extradition shall be restricted to offences which, under Finnish Law, are punishable by a penalty more severe than imprisonment for one year and, provided also that other conditions in the Finnish Legislation for extradition are fulfilled.

Finland also reserves the right to make such other reservations as it may deem appropriate if and when ratifying this Convention.

The Hungarian People's Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention. These provisions are at variance with the position of the Hungarian People's Republic according to which for the submission of disputes between States to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice the consent of all of the interested parties is required.

The Government of the Republic of India does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 13 which establishes compulsory arbitration or adjudication by the International Court of Justice concerning dispute between two or more States Parties relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention.

The statement by the Republic of Iraq on sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (1) of article 1 of the Convention does not have any legal effects for the Federal Republic of Germany.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland do not regard as valid the reservation made by Iraq in respect of paragraph (1)(b) of article 1 of the said Convention.

The Instrument deposited by the Government of Iraq contains a statement of a political character in respect to Israel. In the view of the Government of Israel, this is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements, which are, moreover, in flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of the Organization. That pronouncement by the Government of Iraq cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon it under general international law or under particular treaties.

The Government of Israel will, insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Iraq an attitude of complete reciprocity.

The Government of the State of Israel does not regard as valid the reservation made by Iraq in respect of paragraph (1)(b) of article 1 of the said Convention.

[…]The Italian Government does not consider as valid the reservation made by Iraq on 28 February 1978 with regard to article 1, paragraph 1(b), of the said Convention;

France contests the interpretation made by Iraq on 28 February 1978 that the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly with which the above-mentioned Convention is enclosed should be considered to be an integral part of the Convention, and objects to Iraq's reservation relating to article 1, paragraph 1(b) of the Convention.

The Government of the State of Israel declares that its accession to the Convention does not constitute acceptance by it as binding of the provisions of any other international instrument, or acceptance by it of any other international instrument as being an instrument related to the Convention.

The Government of Israel reaffirms the contents of its communication of 11 May 1979 to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Declaration:

The Republic of Singapore understands Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention to include the right of competent authorities to decide not to submit any particular case for prosecution before the judicial authorities if the alleged offender is dealt with under national security and preventive detention laws.

Reservation:

Pursuant to Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Republic of Singapore declares that it will no be bound by the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Jamaica avails itself of the provisions of article 13, paragraph 2, and declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice and states that in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for the submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.

In acceding to this Convention, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen does not consider itself bound by article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, which states that disputes between two or more States parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention may, at the request of anyone of the parties to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice. It declares that the competence of the International Court of Justice with respect to disputes concerning the interpretation of application of the Convention shall in each case be subject to the express consent of all parties to the dispute.

The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan declares that its accession to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, cannot give rise to relations with ‘Israel’.

The instrument deposited by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan contains a statement of a political character in respect to Israel. In the view of the Government of Israel, this is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements, which are, moreover, in flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of the Organization. That pronouncement by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon it under general international law or under particular treaties.

The Government of Israel will, insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan an attitude of complete reciprocity.

In cases where the judicial authorities of either the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba cannot exercise jurisdiction pursuant to one of the principles mentioned in Article 3, paragraph 1, the Kingdom accepts the aforesaid obligation subject to the condition that is has received and rejected a request for extradition from another State Party to the Convention.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands withdraws the reservation made upon accession to article 7, only for the European part of the Netherlands and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba).

The Government of the Republic of Malawi [declares], in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 13, that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention.

The Mongolian People's Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, and states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.

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

The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, and states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.

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.

Pakistan shall not be bound by paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention.

Peru does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

The Polish People's Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

[…] the Government of Poland […] to withdraw its reservation with regard to article 13, paragraph 1 of the Convention made upon ratification.

The Socialist Republic of Romania declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice.

The Socialist Republic of Romania considers that such disputes may be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of all parties to the dispute in each individual case.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, and states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.

Withdrawal of reservation to Article 13, paragraph 1:

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, and states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.

The Syrian Arab Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, concerning arbitration and the result thereof.

The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago avails itself of the provision of article 13, paragraph 2, and declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of that article under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice, and states that in each individual case, the consent of all Parties to such a dispute is necessary for the submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.

The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention[lees: Convention] and declares that, in conformity with the principle of the sovereign equality of States, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.

[Czechoslowakia] does not feel itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

No dispute may be brought before the International Court of Justice unless by agreement between all parties to the dispute.

The Government of Guatemala [does] not accept this provision, in view of the fact that the Territory of Belize is a territory concerning which a dispute exists and to which [Guatemala] maintains a claim that is the subject, by mutual agreement, of procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes between the two Governments concerned.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to their sovereignty over Belize and do not accept the reservation submitted by the Government of Guatemala.

[The Government of Argentina makes a] formal objection to the [declaration] of territorial extension issued by the United Kingdom with regard to the Malvinas Islands [and dependencies], which that country is illegally occupying and refers to as the ‘Falkland Islands’.

The Argentine Republic rejects and considers null and void the [said declaration] of territorial extension.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great-Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to their right, by notification to the Depositary under the relevant provisions of the above-mentioned Convention, to extend the application in question to the Falkland Islands or to the Falkland Island Dependencies, as the case may be.

For this reason alone, the Government of the United Kingdom are unable to regard the Argentine Communications under reference as having any legal effect.

The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen declares that its accession to this Convention shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or serve as grounds for the establishment of relation of any sort with Israel.

The instrument deposited by the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen contains a statement of a political character in respect to Israel. In the view of the Government of Israel, this is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements, which are, moreover, in flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of the Organization. That pronouncement by the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon it under general international law or under particular treaties.

The Government of Israel will, insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen an attitude of complete reciprocity.

The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, and states that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.

The Republic of Zaire does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice. In the light of its policy based on respect for the sovereignty of States, the Republic of Zaire is opposed to any form of compulsory arbitration and hopes that such disputes may be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice not at the request of one of the parties but with the consent of all the interested parties.

The Swiss Federal Council interprets article 4 and article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention to mean that Switzerland undertakes to fulfil the obligation contained therein on the conditions specified by its domestic legislation.

[The Government of Kuwait] wishes to reiterate Kuwait's complete reservation on paragraph 1 of article 13 in the Convention, for its accession to it does not mean in any way a recognition of Israël by the Government of the State of Kuwait and does not engage them into any treaty relations as a result.

The instrument deposited by the Government of Kuwait contains a statement of a political character in respect to Israel. In the view of the Government of Israel, this is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements, which are, moreover, in flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of the Organization. That pronouncement by the Governement[lees: Government] of Kuwait cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon it under general international law or under particular treaties.

The Government of Israel will, insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Kuwait an attitude of complete reciprocity.

Accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to this Convention in no way implies recognition of Israel or entry into any relation with Israel concerning any question regulated by this Convention.

The instrument deposited by the Syrian Arab Republic contains a statement of a political character in respect to Israel. In the view of the Government of Israel, this is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements, which are, moreover, in flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of the Organization. That pronouncement by the Syrian Arab Republic cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon it under general international law or under particular treaties.

The Government of Israel will, insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Syrian Arab Republic attitude of complete reciprocity.

The Principality of Liechtenstein construes articles 4 and 5, paragraph 1 of the Convention, to mean that the Principality of Liechtenstein undertakes to fulfil the obligations contained therein under the conditions laid down in its domestic legislation.

Withdrawal of the following reservations made upon accession:

Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, China notified the Secretary-General that the Convention with reservation will also apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Macao, China notified the Secretary-General that the Convention with reservation will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region.

In accordance with article 13, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Republic of Cuba declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of the said paragraph.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines avails itself of the provisions of article 13, paragraph 2 of the aforesaid Convention and declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of that article under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice, and states that in each individual case, the consent of all Parties to such a dispute is necessary for the submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.

The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents.

The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria states that in each individual case, a dispute may be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of all parties to the dispute.

Acceding to this Convention, the Soialist Republic of Viet Nam makes its reservation to paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention.

... Whereas it is provided in paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the said Convention, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania declares that the Republic of Lithuania does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 13 of the said Convention, providing that any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall be referred to the International Court of Justice

In accordance with paragraph 2, Article 13 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, the Lao People's Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1, article 13 of the present Convention. The Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that to refer to a dispute relating to interpretation and application of the present Convention to arbitration or International Court of Justice, the agreement of all parties concerned in the dispute is necessary.

The Republic of Mozambique does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

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

Reservation in relation to paragraph 1 of article 13:

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

France understands that only acts which may be defined as acts of terrorism constitute crimes within the meaning of article 2 of the Convention.

The application of the Convention shall be without prejudice to the Convention adopted at New York on 9 December 1994 on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel.

In accordance with Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, the Republic of Mauritius hereby declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and states that it considers that a dispute may be submitted or referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of all parties to the dispute.

The Republic of Mozambique, in accordance with its Constitution and domestic laws, can not extradite Mozambique citizens. Therefore, Mozambique citizens will be tried and sentenced in national courts.

…the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not consider itself obligated to observe paragraph 1 of Article 13 with deals with resolving any dispute arising from interpretation of the Convention.

The Republic of Mauritius rejects the extension of the Convention by the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland to the Chagos Archipelago (so-called British Indian Ocean Territory) and reaffirms its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago which forms part of its national territory.

(…) has the honour to register its strong objection against the extension by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the socalled ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, of the Agreements listed at Annex and in respect of which the Secretary-General is the depositary.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius considers that by extending these Agreements to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, the United Kingdom purported to exercise sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago - a claim which is untenable under international law.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius wishes to reiterate in emphatic terms that it does not recognize the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’.

The fact that the Chagos Archipelago is, and has always been, part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, and that the United Kingdom has never had sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, has been authoritatively established by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019, on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. In this authoritative legal determination, the Court declared that the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius had not been lawfully completed in 1968, since the Chagos Archipelago had been unlawfully detached in 1965, in violation of the right of self-determination of peoples and the Charter of the United Nations, as applied and interpreted in accordance with UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, resolution 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, resolution 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and resolution 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967. Accordingly, it went on to hold that the United Kingdom’s ongoing administration of the Chagos Archipelago, as the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, was an internationally wrongful act, of a continuing nature, that engaged the State responsibility of the United Kingdom. It determined that the United Kingdom is under a legal obligation to terminate its unlawful colonial administration ‘as rapidly as possible’.

The Court further determined that all UN Member States have an obligation to cooperate with the United Nations in facilitating the completion of the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, including an obligation not to support the continuing wrongful conduct of the United Kingdom in maintaining its colonial administration in the Chagos Archipelago.

On 22 May 2019, the General Assembly, by an overwhelming majority of 116 votes to 6, adopted resolution 73/295. By this resolution, it endorsed the Court’s Advisory Opinion, affirmed that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, and demanded that the United Kingdom terminate its unlawful colonial administration within a maximum of six months, that is, by no later than 22 November 2019. That deadline has now expired.

Moreover, the General Assembly in its resolution called upon Member States to ‘cooperate with the United Nations to ensure the completion of the decolonization of Mauritius as rapidly as possible’ and to refrain from conduct that might impede or delay the completion of decolonization. It further called upon the United Nations and all its specialized agencies to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, and to refrain from impeding that process by recognizing the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’. Lastly, the resolution also called upon ‘all other international, regional and intergovernmental organizations, including those established by treaty,’ to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support its speedy decolonization, and to ‘refrain from impeding that process’ by recognizing the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’.

The Republic of Mauritius has, over the years, consistently asserted, and hereby reasserts, its full sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. The Government of the Republic of Mauritius therefore unequivocally protests against the extension by the United Kingdom of the Agreements listed at Annex to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’ and against the purported exercise by the United Kingdom of any sovereignty, rights or jurisdiction within the territory of the Republic of Mauritius.

For the above stated reasons, which arise from established principles of international law as authoritatively interpreted and applied by the International Court of Justice and endorsed by the UN General Assembly, the Government of the Republic of Mauritius does not recognize the extension by the United Kingdom of the Agreements listed at Annex to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, reserves all its rights in this regard, and calls upon all States Parties to the Agreements listed at Annex to reject the United Kingdom's extension of these Agreements to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’.

--

See depositairy notification no. C.N.44.2020.TREATIES-XVIII.7 for the Annex (list of Agreements).

The Government of Myanmar does not consider itself bound by the Article 13 (1) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents adopted on 14 December 1973.

In view of article 1, paragraph 1(a) of this Convention, the Principality of Andorra declares that, in accordance with article 43 of the Constitution of Andorra, and the tradition dating from the Pareatges of 1278, the Heads of State of Andorra are jointly and indivisbly the Coprinceps. These Coprinceps, in their personal and exclusive right, are the Bishop of Urgell and the President of the French Republic.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the declaration relating to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents made by the Government of Malaysia at the time of its accession to the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that in making the interpretation and application of Article 7 of the Convention subject to the national legislation of Malaysia, the Government of Malaysia is formulating a general and indefinite reservation that makes it impossible to identify the changes to the obligations arising from the Convention that it is intended to introduce. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore considers that a reservation formulated in this way is likely to contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.

For these reasons, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby objects to this declaration which it considers to be a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Malaysia.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the declaration relating to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against internationally protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents made by the Government of Malaysia at the time of its accession to the Convention.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that in making the interpretation and application of Article 7 of the Convention subject to the national legislation of Malaysia, the Government of Malaysia introduces a general and indefinite reservation that makes it impossible to clearly identify in which way the Government of Malaysia intends to change the obligations arising from the Convention. Therefore the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany hereby objects to this declaration which is considered to be a reservation that is 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 Malaysia.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in accordance with the provision of article 13 (2) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents formulates a reservation with respect to the provision established under paragraph 1 of the said article. Consequently, it does not consider itself obligated to refer to arbitration as a means of settlement of disputes, nor does it recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

Luxembourg courts are competent to apply the Convention, and Luxembourg criminal law applies to the crimes referred to in article 2 of the Convention when the alleged offender is in Luxembourg territory and has not been extradited to another State, regardless of the nationality of the alleged offender and the place where the crime was perpetrated.

The Government of Romania notifies the Secretary-General that it has decided to withdraw the reservation made upon signature to the Convention and confirmed upon ratification thereof:

‘The Socialist Republic of Romania declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice.

The Socialist Republic of Romania considers that such disputes may be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of all parties to the dispute in each individual case.’

By acceding to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, the Holy See intends to contribute and to give its moral support to the global prevention, repression and prosecution of such crimes and to the protection of their victims.

In conformity with its own nature, its Mission, and the particular character of Vatican City State, the Holy See upholds the values of brotherhood, justice and peace between persons and peoples, whose protection and strengthening require the primacy of the rule of law and respect for human rights, and it reaffirms that instruments of criminal and judicial cooperation constitute effective safeguards in the face of criminal activities that jeopardize human dignity and peace. […]

Pursuant to articles 8.2 and 8.3 of the Convention, the Holy See declares that it takes the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other Parties to the Convention, subject tot he limitations to the extradition of persons provided for by its domestic law.

With regard to articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the Holy See declares that, in light of its legal doctrine and the sources of its law (Vatican City State Law LXXI, 1 October 2008), nothing in the Convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to extradite or provide mutual legal assistance if there are substantial grounds for believing that the request is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person's race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or political opinion; that compliance with the request would cause prejudice to that person's position for any of these reasons; or that the person would be subject to the death penalty or to torture.

Pursuant to the last sentence of article 2.2(a) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the financing of Terrorism, of 9 December 1999, the Holy See, acting also in the name and on behalf of Vatican City State, declares that, from the moment the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, enters into force for the Holy See, it shall be deemed to be included within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism pursuant to its article 2.1(a).

Pursuant to article 13.2 of the Convention, the Holy See, acting also in the name and on behalf of Vatican City State, declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 13.1 of the Convention. The Holy See, acting also in the name and on behalf of Vatican City State, specifically reserves the right to agree in a particular case, on an ad hoc basis, to any convenient means to settle any dispute arising out of this Convention.