Статус Международного пакта о гражданских и политических правах (Нью-Йорк, 16 декабря 1966 года) [рус., англ.]

[неофициальный перевод]

INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Status as at: 29-10-2026

Entry into force: 23 March 1976, in accordance with article 49, for all provisions except those of article 41; 28 March 1979 for the provisions of article 41 (Human Rights Committee), in accordance with paragraph 2 of the said article 41.

Registration: 23 March 1976, No. 14668

Status: Signatories: 74. Parties: 175.

Text: Certified true copy

United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171 and vol. 1057, p. 407 ( procès - verbal of rectification of the authentic Spanish text); depositary notification C.N.782.2001.TREATIES-6 of 5 October 2001 [Proposal of correction to the original of the Covenant (Chinese authentic text)] and C.N.8.2002.TREATIES-1 of 3 January 2002 [Rectification of the original of the Covenant (Chinese authentic text)].

Note: The Covenant was opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966.

DECLARATIONS AND RESERVATIONS

(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon ratification, accession or succession. For objections thereto and declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee under article 41, see hereinafter.)

Afghanistan

[See chapter IV.3.]

Algeria <13>

[See chapter IV.3.]

Argentina

Understanding:

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

Australia <14>

Reservations:

Article 10

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

Article 14

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

Article 20

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

Declaration:

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

Austria

1. Article 12, paragraph 4, of the Covenant will be applied provided that it will not affect the Act of April 3, 1919, State Law Gazette No. 209, concerning the Expulsion and the Transfer of Property of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine as amended by the Act of October 30, 1919, State Law Gazette No. 501, the Federal Constitutional Act of July 30, 1925, Federal Law Gazette No. 292, and the Federal Constitutional Act of January 26, 1928, Federal Law Gazette No. 30, read in conjunction with the Federal Constitutional Act of July 4, 1963, Federal Law Gazette No. 172.

2. Article 9 and article 14 of the Covenant will be applied provided that legal regulations governing the proceedings and measures of deprivation of liberty as provided for in the Administrative Procedure Acts and in the Financial Penal Act remain permissible within the framework of the judicial review by the Federal Administrative Court or the Federal Constitutional Court as provided by the Austrian Federal Constitution.

3. Article 10, paragraph 3, of the Covenant will be applied provided that legal regulations allowing for juvenile prisoners to be detained together with adults under 25 years of age who give no reason for concern as to their possible detrimental influence on the juvenile prisoner remain permissible.

4. Article 14 of the Covenant will be applied provided that the principles governing the publicity of trials as set forth in article 90 of the Federal Constitutional Law as amended in 1929 are in no way prejudiced and that

(a) paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (d) is not in conflict with legal regulations which stipulate that an accused person who disturbs the orderly conduct of the trial or whose presence would impede the questioning of another accused person, of a witness or of an expert can be excluded from participation in the trial;

(b) paragraph 5 is not in conflict with legal regulations which stipulate that after an acquittal or a lighter sentence passed by a court of the first instance, a higher tribunal may pronounce conviction or a heavier sentence for the same offence, while they exclude the convicted person's right to have such conviction or heavier sentence reviewed by a still higher tribunal;

(c) paragraph 7 is not in conflict with legal regulations which allow proceedings that led up to a person's final conviction or acquittal to be reopened.

5. Articles 19, 21 and 22 in connection with article 2 (1) of the Covenant will be applied provided that they are not in conflict with legal restrictions as provided for in article 16 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

6. Article 26 is understood to mean that it does not exclude different treatment of Austrian nationals and aliens, as is also permissible under article 1, paragraph 2, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Bahamas (The)

Reservation

"The Government of The Bahamas recognizes and accepts the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment contained in paragraph 6 of article 14, but the problems of implementation are such that the right not to apply that principle is presently reserved."

Bahrain <15>

Reservation:

"1. The Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain interprets the Provisions of Article 3, (18) and (23) as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah.

2. The Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain interprets the provisions of Article (9), Paragraph (5) as not detracting from its right to layout the basis and rules of obtaining the compensation mentioned in this Paragraph.

3. The Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain interprets Article (14) Paragraph (7) as no obligation arise from it further those set out in Article (10) of the Criminal Law of Bahrain which provides:

"Legal Proceedings cannot be instated against a person who has been acquitted by Foreign Courts from offenses of which he is accused or a final judgement has been delivered against him and the said person fulfilled the punishment or the punishment has been abolished by prescription."

Bangladesh

Reservation:

Article 14

"The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh reserve apply paragraph 3 (d) of Article 14 in view of the fact, that, while the existing laws of Bangladesh provide that, in the ordinary course a person, shall be entitled to be tried in his presence, it also provides for a trial to be held in his absence if he is a fugitive offender, or is a person, who being required to appear before a court, fails to present himself or to explain the reasons for non-appearance to the satisfaction of the court."

Declarations:

"Article 10:

So far as the first part of paragraph 3 of Article 10 relating to reformation and social rehabilitation of prisoners is concerned, Bangladesh does not have any facility to this effect on account of financial constraints and for lack of proper logistics support. The last part of this paragraph relating to segregation of juvenile offenders from adults is a legal obligation under Bangladesh law and is followed accordingly.

Article 11:

Article 11 providing that "no one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation," is generally in conformity with the Constitutional and legal provisions in Bangladesh, except in some very exceptional circumstances, where the law provides for civil imprisonment in case of willful default in complying with a decree. The Government of People's Republic of Bangladesh will apply this article in accordance with its existing municipal law.

Article 14:

So far as the provision of legal assistance in paragraph 3(d) of Article 14 is concerned, a person charged with criminal offences is statutorily entitled to legal assistance if he does not have the means to procure such assistance.

The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, notwithstanding its acceptance of the principle of compensation for miscarriage of justice, as stipulated in Article 14, paragraph 6, is not in a position to guarantee a comprehensive implementation of this provision for the time being. However, the aggrieved has the right to realise compensation for miscarriage of justice by separate proceedings and in some cases, the court suo moto grants compensation to victims of miscarriage of justice. Bangladesh, however, intends to ensure full implementation of this provision in the near future."

Barbados

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

Belarus <16>

Belgium <17>

Reservations:

...

2. The Belgian Government considers that the provision of article 10, paragraph 2 (a), under which accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons is to be interpreted in conformity with the principle, already embodied in the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners [resolution (73) 5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of 19 January 1973], that untried prisoners shall not be put in contact with convicted prisoners against their will [rules 7 (b) and 85 (1)]. If they so request, accused persons may be allowed to take part with convicted persons in certain communal activities.

3. The Belgian Government considers that the provisions of article 10, paragraph 3, under which juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status refers exclusively to the judicial measures provided for under the régime for the protection of minors established by the Belgian Act relating to the protection of young persons. As regards other juvenile ordinary-law offenders, the Belgian Government intends to reserve the option to adopt measures that may be more flexible and be designed precisely in the interest of the persons concerned.

4. With respect to article 14, the Belgian Government considers that the last part of paragraph 1 of the article appears to give States the option of providing or not providing for certain derogations from the principle that judgements shall be made public. Accordingly, the Belgian constitutional principle that there shall be no exceptions to the public pronouncements of judgements is in conformity with that provision. Paragraph 5 of the article shall not apply to persons who, under Belgian law, are convicted and sentenced at second instance following an appeal against their acquittal of first instance or who, under Belgian law, are brought directly before a higher tribunal sch as the Court of Cassation, the Appeals Court or the Assize Court.

5. Articles 19, 21 and 22 shall be applied by the Belgian Government in the context of the provisions and restrictions set forth or authorized in articles 10 and 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, by the said Convention.

Declarations:

6. The Belgian Government declares that it does not consider itself obligated to enact legislation in the field covered by article 20, paragraph 1, and that article 20 as a whole shall be applied taking into account the rights to freedom of thought and religion, freedom of opinion and freedom of assembly and association proclaimed in articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in articles 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant.

7. The Belgian Government declares that it interprets article 23, paragraph 2, as meaning that the right of persons of marriageable age to marry and to found a family presupposes not only that national law shall prescribe the marriageable age but that it may also regulate the exercise of that right.

Belize

Reservations:

"(a) The Government of Belize reserves the right not to apply paragraph 2 of article 12 in view of the statutory provisions requiring persons intending to travel abroad to furnish tax clearance certificates;

(b) The Government of Belize reserves the right not to apply in full the guarantee of free legal assistance in accordance with paragraph 3 (d) of article 14, since, while it accepts the principle contained in that paragraph and at present applies it in certain defined cases, the problems of implementation are such that full application cannot be guaranteed at present;

(c) The Government of Belize recognizes and accepts the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment contained in paragraph 6 of article 14, but the problems of implementation are such that the right not to apply that principle is presently reserved."

Botswana <18>

Reservations made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

"The Government of the Republic of Botswana considers itself bound by:

a) Article 7 of the Covenant to the extent that "torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" means torture inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment prohibited by Section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana.

b) Article 12 paragraph 3 of the Covenant to the extent that the provisions are compatible with Section 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana relating to the imposition of restrictions reasonably required in certain exceptional instances."

Bulgaria

[See chapter IV.3.]

Congo

Reservation:

The Government of the People's Republic of Congo declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 11 [...]

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

Cuba

Declaration:

The Republic of Cuba hereby declares that it was the Revolution that enabled its people to enjoy the rights set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America and its policy of hostility and aggression against Cuba constitute the most serious obstacle to the Cuban people's enjoyment of the rights set out in the Covenant.

The rights protected under this Covenant are enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic and in national legislation.

The State's policies and programmes guarantee the effective exercise and protection of these rights for all Cubans.

With respect to the scope and implementation of some of the provisions of this international instrument, Cuba will make such reservations or interpretative declarations as it may deem appropriate.

Czech Republic <7>

Denmark <19>

2 April 2014

Modification of the reservation made upon ratification:

"b) (i) Article 14, paragraph 5, shall be applied in such a manner that:

- An unlimited right to appeal does not have to be instituted in cases where the conviction concerns a minor offence and the sentence imposed is a fine and/or confiscation below a certain amount to be laid down by law.

- A right to a further appeal does not have to be instituted in cases where the accused person, having been acquitted by a lower court, is convicted for the first time by a higher court hearing an appeal of the acquittal.

- A right to appeal does not have to be instituted in criminal proceedings against a Member of Government or any other person brought before the High Court of the Realm (Rigsretten).

(ii) Article 14, paragraph 7, shall be applied in such a manner that criminal proceedings which led to a final conviction or acquittal may be reopened in certain circumstances to be laid down by law."

The Government of Denmark confirmed that the reservation to Article 14, paragraph 5 above is a narrowing of the reservation made upon ratification and that the reservation to Article 14, paragraph 7 above is a clarification of the reservation made upon ratification.

Paragraphs 1, 2 (a) and 3 of Denmark's reservation made upon ratification remain unchanged:

"1. The Government of Denmark makes a reservation in respect of Article 10, paragraph 3, second sentence. In Danish practice, considerable efforts are made to ensure appropriate age distribution of convicts serving sentences of imprisonment, but it is considered valuable to maintain possibilities of flexible arrangements.

2. (a). Article 14, paragraph 1, shall not be binding on Denmark in respect of public hearings. In Danish law, the right to exclude the press and the public from trials may go beyond what is permissible under this Covenant, and the Government of Denmark finds that this right should not be restricted.

3. Reservation is further made to Article 20, paragraph 1. This reservation is in accordance with the vote cast by Denmark in the XVI General Assembly of the United Nations in 1961 when the Danish Delegation, referring to the preceding article concerning freedom of expression, voted against the prohibition against propaganda for war."

Egypt

[See chapter IV.3.]

Finland <20>

Reservations:

"With respect to article 10, paragraph 2 (b) and 3, of the Covenant, Finland declares that although juvenile offenders are, as a rule, segregated from adults, it does not deem appropriate to adopt an absolute prohibition not allowing for more flexible arrangements;

With respect to article 14, paragraph 7, of the Covenant, Finland declares that it is going to pursue its present practice, according to which a sentence can be changed to the detriment of the convicted person, if it is established that a member or an official of the court, the prosecutor or the legal counsel have through criminal or fraudulent activities obtained the acquittal of the defendant or a substantially more lenient penalty, or if false evidence has been presented with the same effect, and according to which an aggravated criminal case may be taken up for reconsideration if within a year until then unknown evidence is presented, which would have led to conviction or a substantially more severe penalty;

With respect to article 20, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, Finland declares that it will not apply the provisions of this paragraph, this being compatible with the standpoint Finland already expressed at the 16th United Nations General Assembly by voting against the prohibition of propaganda for war, on the grounds that this might endanger the freedom of expression referred in article 19 of the Covenant."

France <21>, <22>

Declarations and reservations:

(1) The Government of the Republic considers that, in accordance with Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations, in case of conflict between its obligations under the Covenant and its obligations under the Charter (especially Articles 1 and 2 thereof), its obligations under the Charter will prevail.

(2) The Government of the Republic enters the following reservation concerning article 4, paragraph 1: firstly, the circumstances enumerated in article 16 of the Constitution in respect of its implementation, in article 1 of the Act of 3 April 1978 and in the Act of 9 August 1849 in respect of the declaration of a state of siege, in article 1 of Act No. 55-385 of 3 April 1955 in respect of the declaration of a state of emergency and which enable these instruments to be implemented, are to be understood as meeting the purpose of article 4 of the Covenant; and, secondly, for the purpose of interpreting and implementing article 16 of the Constitution of the French Republic, the terms "to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation" cannot limit the power of the President of the Republic to take "the measures required by circumstances".

(3) The Government of the Republic enters a reservation concerning articles 9 and 14 to the effect that these articles cannot impede enforcement of the rules pertaining to the disciplinary régime in the armies.

(4) The Government of the Republic declares that article 13 cannot derogate from chapter IV of Order No. 45-2658 of 2 November 1945 concerning the entry into, and sojourn in, France of aliens, nor from the other instruments concerning the expulsion of aliens in force in those parts of the territory of the Republic in which the Order of 2 November 1945 does not apply.

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

(6) The Government of the Republic declares that articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant will be implemented in accordance with articles 10, 11 and 16 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950.

(7) The Government of the Republic declares that the term "war", appearing in article 20, paragraph 1, is to be understood to mean war in contravention of international law and considers, in any case, that French legislation in this matter is adequate.

(8) In the light of article 2 of the Constitution of the French Republic, the French Government declares that article 27 is not applicable so far as the Republic is concerned.

Gambia

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

Germany <9>, <23>

Guinea

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

Guyana

In respect of sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 3 of article 14

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

In respect of paragraph 6 of article 14

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

Hungary

[See chapter IV.3.]

Iceland <24>, <25>, <26>

The ratification is accompanied by reservations with respect to the following provisions:

1. ...

2. ...

3. ...

4. ...

5. Article 20, paragraph 1, with reference to the fact that a prohibition against propaganda for war could limit the freedom of expression. This reservation is consistent with the position of Iceland at the General Assembly at its 16th session.

Other provisions of the Covenant shall be inviolably observed.

India

[See chapter IV.3.]

Indonesia

Declaration:

"With reference to Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that, consistent with the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, and the relevant paragraph of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action of 1993, the words "the right of self-determination" appearing in this article do not apply to a section of people within a sovereign independent state and can not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states."

Iraq

[See chapter IV.3.]

Ireland <27>, <28>

Article 10, paragraph 2

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

...

Article 20, paragraph 1

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

Israel

Reservation:

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

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

Italy <29>

...

Article 15, paragraph 1

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

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

Article 19, paragraph 3

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

Japan

[See chapter IV.3.]

Kuwait <30>

Lao People's Democratic Republic <31>

Reservation:

"The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic accepts Article 22 of the Covenant on the basis that Article 22 shall be interpreted in accordance with the right to selfdetermination in Article 1, and shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Constitution and the relevant laws of the Lao People's Democratic Republic."

Declarations:

"The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that Article 1 of the Covenant concerning the right to self-determination shall be interpreted as being compatible with the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted by the General Assembly on 24th October 1970, and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights on 25th June 1993.

The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that Article 18 of the Covenant shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any activities, including economic means, by anyone which directly or indirectly, coerce or compel an individual to believe or not to believe in a religion or to convert his or her religion or belief. The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic considers that all acts creating division and discrimination among ethnic groups and among religions are incompatible with Article 18 of the Covenant."

Libya

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

Liechtenstein <32>

Declarations concerning article 3:

"The Principality of Liechtenstein declares that it does not interpret the provisions of article 3 of the Covenant as constituting an impediment to the constitutional rules on the hereditary succession to the throne of the Reigning Prince."

Reservation concerning article 14 (1):

"The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to apply the provisions of article 14, paragraph 1 of the Covenant, concerning the principle that hearings must be held and judgments pronounced in public, only within the limits deriving from the principles at present embodied in the Liechtenstein legislation on legal proceedings."

Reservation concerning article 17 (1):

"The Principality of Liechtenstein makes the reservation that the right to respect for family life, as guaranteed by article 17, paragraph 1 of the Covenant, shall be exercised, with regard to aliens, in accordance with the principles at present embodied in the legislation on aliens."

...

Reservation concerning article 26:

"The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to guarantee the rights contained in article 26 of the Covenant concerning the equality of all persons before the law and their entitlement without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law only in connection with other rights contained in the present Covenant."

Luxembourg

"(a) The Government of Luxembourg considers that article 10, paragraph 3, which provides that juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status, refers solely to the legal measures incorporated in the system for the protection of minors, which is the subject of the Luxembourg youth welfare act. With regard to other juvenile offenders falling within the sphere of ordinary law, the Government of Luxembourg wishes to retain the option of adopting measures that might be more flexible and be designed to serve the interests of the persons concerned."

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

The Government of Luxembourg further declares that article 14, paragraph 5, shall not apply to persons who, under Luxembourg law, are remanded directly to a higher court or brought before the Assize Court."

"(c) The Government of Luxembourg accepts the provision in article 19, paragraph 2, provided that it does not preclude it from requiring broadcasting, television and film companies to be licensed."

"(d) The Government of Luxembourg declares that it does not consider itself obligated to adopt legislation in the field covered by article 20, paragraph 1, and that article 20 as a whole will be implemented taking into account the rights to freedom of thought, religion, opinion, assembly and association laid down in articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in articles 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant."

1 December 2004 <*>

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

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

<*> [Within a period of 12 months from the date of circulation of the depositary notification (i.e. 1 December 2003), none of the Contracting States to the above Covenant notified the Secretary-General of an objection. Consequently the modified reservation is deemed to have been accepted for deposit upon the expiration of the 12-month period, i.e., on 1 December 2004.]

Maldives <33>

Reservation:

"The application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives."

Malta

Reservations:

"1. Article 13 - The Government of Malta endorses the principles laid down in article 13. However, in the present circumstances it cannot comply entirely with the provisions of this article;

2. Article 14 (2) - The Government of Malta declares that it interprets paragraph 2 of article 14 of the Covenant in the sense that it does not preclude any particular law from imposing upon any person charged under such law the burden of proving particular facts;

3. Article 14 (6) - While the Government of Malta accepts the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment, it is not possible at this time to implement such a principle in accordance with article 14, paragraph 6, of the Covenant;

4. Article 19 - The Government of Malta desiring to avoid any uncertainty as regards the application of article 19 of the Covenant declares that the Constitution of Malta allow such restrictions to be imposed upon public officers in regard to their freedom of expression as are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. The code of Conduct of public officers in Malta precludes them from taking an active part in political discussions or other political activity during working hours or on the premises.

"The Government of Malta also reserves the right not to apply article 19 to the extent that this may be fully compatible with Act 1 of 1987 entitled "An act to regulate the limitations on the political activities of aliens", and this in accordance with Article 16 of the Convention of Rome (1950) for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or with Section 41 (2) (a) (ii) of the Constitution of Malta;

"5. Article 20 - The Government of Malta interprets article 20 consistently with the rights conferred by Articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant but reserves the right not to introduce any legislation for the purposes of article 20;

"6. Article 22 - the Government of Malta reserves the right not to apply article 22 to the extent that existing legislive measures may not be fully compatible with this article.

Mauritania

Reservations:

Article 18

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

The Mauritanian Government, while accepting the provisions set out in article 18 concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion, declares that their application shall be without prejudice to the Islamic Shariah.

Article 23, paragraph 4

States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

The Mauritanian Government interprets the provisions of article 23, paragraph 4, on the rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah.

Mexico <34>

Interpretative statements:

Article 9, paragraph 5

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

Article 18

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

Reservations:

Article 25, subparagraph (b)

The Government of Mexico also makes a reservation to this provision, since article 130 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States provides that ministers of religion shall have neither a passive vote nor the right to form associations for political purposes.

Monaco

Interpretative declarations and reservations made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

The Government of Monaco declares that it does not interpret the provisions of article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2, and articles 3 and 25 as constituting an impediment to the constitutional rules on the devolution of the Crown, according to which succession to the Throne shall take place within the direct legitimate line of the Reigning Prince, in order of birth, with priority being given to male descendants within the same degree of relationship, or of those concerning the exercise of the functions of the Regency.

The Princely Government declares that the implementation of the principle set forth in article 13 shall not affect the texts in force on the entry and stay of foreigners in the Principality or of those on the expulsion of foreigners from Monegasque territory.

The Princely Government interprets article 14, paragraph 5, as embodying a general principle to which the law can introduce limited exceptions. This is particularly true with respect to certain offences that, in the first and last instances, are under the jurisdiction of the police court, and with respect to offences of a criminal nature. Furthermore, verdicts in the last instance can be appealed before the Court of Judicial Review, which shall rule on their legality.

The Princely Government declares that it considers article 19 to be compatible with the existing system of monopoly and authorization applicable to radio and television corporations.

The Princely Government, recalling that the exercise of the rights and freedoms set forth in articles 21 and 22 entails duties and responsibilities, declares that it interprets these articles as not prohibiting the application of requirements, conditions, restrictions or penalties which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society to national security, territorial integrity or public safety, the defence of order and the prevenion or crime, the protection of health or morals, and the protection of the reputation of others, or in order to prevent the disclosure of confidential information or to guarantee the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

The Princely Government formulates a reservation concerning article 25, which shall not impede the application of article 25 of the Constitution and of Order No. 1730 of 7 May 1935 on public employment.

Article 26, together with article 2, paragraph 1, and article 25, is interpreted as not excluding the distinction in treatment between Monegasque and foreign nationals permitted under article 1, paragraph 2, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, taking into account the distinctions established in articles 25 and 32 of the Monegasque Constitution.

Mongolia

[See chapter IV.3.]

Netherlands (Kingdom of the) <35>

Reservations:

"Article 10

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

"Article 12, paragraph 1

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

"Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 4

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

"Article 14, paragraph 3 (d)

"The Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves the statutory option of removing a person charged with a criminal offence from the court room in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings.

"Article 14, paragraph 5

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

"Article 14, paragraph 7

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

"1. Except in cases where court decisions are eligible for review, no person may be prosecuted again for an offence in respect of which a court in the Netherlands or the Netherlands Antilles has delivered an irrevocable judgement.

"2. If the judgement has been delivered by some other court, the same person may not be prosecuted for the same of fence in the case of (I) acquittal or withdrawal of proceeding or (II) conviction followed by complete execution, remission or lapse of the sentence.

"Article 19, paragraph 2

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

"Article 20, paragraph 1

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

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

11 October 2010

Declaration:

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

New Zealand

Reservations:

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

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

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

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

Norway <36>

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

19 September 1995

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

1. "Riksrett" (Court of Impeachment)

According to article 86 of the Norwegian Constitution, a special court shall be convened in criminal cases against members of the Government, the Storting (Parliament) or the Supreme Court, with no right of appeal.

2. Conviction by an appellate court

In cases where the defendant has been acquitted in the first instance, but convicted by an appellate court, the conviction may not be appealed on grounds of error in the assessment of evidence in relation to the issue of guilt. If the appellate court convicting the defendant is the Supreme Court, the conviction may not be appealed whatsoever.

Oman

Reservations and Interpretative Declarations:

Reservations and Interpretative Declarations on Certain Provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

1. The Sultanate of Oman enters a reservation to paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of Article (23) of the said Covenant, as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Islamic Sharia.

2. The Sultanate of Oman interprets Article (3) of the said Covenant in a manner consistent with Article (5) of the Basic Law of the State.

3. The Sultanate of Oman interprets Article (18) of the said Covenant in a manner consistent with Article (2) of the Basic Law of the State.

4. The Sultanate of Oman interprets Article (22) of the said Covenant in accordance with the laws in force concerning the establishment of trade unions for employees of the administrative apparatus of the State and other public legal persons.

5. The Sultanate of Oman interprets Article (27) of the said Covenant in a manner consistent with public order and public morals.

Pakistan <37>

Upon signature

Reservation:

"The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to attach appropriate reservations, make declarations and state its understanding in respect of various provisions of the Covenant at the time of ratification."

Qatar <38>

Reservations upon accession:

The State of Qatar does not consider itself bound by the following provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the below mentioned reasons:

1. Article 3 with regard to provisions related to the inheritance of power, for it contravenes the provisions of article 8 of the Constitution.

2. Article 23.4, for it contravenes the Islamic Sharia.

Statements upon accession:

1. The State of Qatar shall interpret the term "punishment" in Article 7 of the Covenant in accordance with the applicable legislation of Qatar and the Islamic Sharia.

2. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Covenant based on the understanding that it does not contravene the Islamic Sharia. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such paragraph in accordance with such understanding.

3. The State of Qatar shall interpret that the term "trade unions" and all related matters, as mentioned in Article 22 of the Covenant, are in line with the Labor Law and national legislation. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such article in accordance with such understanding.

4. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant in a manner that does not contravene the Islamic Sharia. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such paragraph in accordance with such understanding.

5. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 27 of the Covenant that professing and practicing one's own religion require that they do not violate the rules of public order and public morals, the protection of public safe[t]y and public health, or the rights of and basic freedoms of others.

Republic of Korea <39>

Reservation:

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

Romania

Upon signature:

The Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania declares that the provisions of article 48, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are at variance with the principle that all States have the right to become parties to multilateral treaties governing matters of general interest. (a) The State Council of the Socialist Republic of Romania considers that the provisions of article 48 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are inconsistent with the principle that multilateral international treaties whose purposes concern the international community as a whole must be open to universal participation. (b) The State Council of the Socialist Republic of Romania considers that the maintenance in a state of dependence of certain territories referred to in article 1 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations and the instruments adopted by the Organization on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, including the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, which solemnly proclaims the duty of States to promote the realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples in order to bring a speedy end to colonialism.

Russian Federation

Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

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

Samoa

Declarations:

"The term "forced or compulsory labour" as appears in article 8 paragraph 3 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights of 1966 shall be interpreted as being compatible with that expressed in article 8 (2) (a) (b) (c) (d) of the Constitution of the Independent State of Samoa 1960, which stipulates that the "term forced or compulsory labour" shall include, (a) any work required to be done in consequence of a sentence of a Court; or (b) any service of a military character or, in the case of conscientious objectors, service exacted instead of compulsory military service; or (c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening life or well-being of the community; or (d) any work or service which is required by Samoan custom or which forms part of normal civic obligations.

The Government of the Independent State of Samoa considers that article 10 paragraphs 2 and 3, which provides that juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status refers solely to the legal measures incorporated in the system for the protection of minors, which is addressed by the Young Offenders Act 2007 (Samoa)."

Slovakia <7>

Sweden

Reservations:

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

Switzerland <40>

Reservations:

...

(b) Reservation concerning article 12, paragraph 1:

The right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose one's residence is applicable, subject to the federal laws on aliens, which provide that residence and establisment permits shall be valid only for the canton which issues them.

...

(f) Reservation concerning article 20:

Switzerland reserves the right not to adopt further measures to ban propaganda for war, which is prohibited by article 20, paragraph 1.

...

(g) Reservation concerning article 25, subparagraph (b):

The present provision shall be applied without prejudice to the cantonal and communal laws, which provide for or permit elections within assemblies to be held by a means other than secret ballot.

(h) Reservation concerning article 26:

The equality of all persons before the law and their entitlement without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law shall be guaranteed only in connection with other rights contained in the present Covenant.

Syrian Arab Republic

[See chapter IV.3.]

Thailand <41>

Interpretative declarations:

"The Government of Thailand declares that:

1. The term "self-determination" as appears in article 1, paragraph 1, of the Covenant shall be interpreted as being compatible with that expressed in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights on 25 June 1993.

2. [Withdrawn]

3. [Withdrawn]

4. With respect to article 20 of the Covenant, the term "war" appearing in paragraph 1 is understood by Thailand to mean war in contravention of international law."

Trinidad and Tobago <42>

(i) The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right not to apply in full the provision of paragraph 2 of article 4 of the Covenant since section 7 (3) of its Constitution enables Parliament to enact legislation even though it is inconsistent with sections (4) and (5) of the said Constitution;

(ii) Where at any time there is a lack of suitable prison facilities, the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right not to apply article 10 (2) (b) and 10 (3) so far as those provisions require juveniles who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults;

(iii) The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right not to apply paragraph 2 of article 12 in view of the statutory provisions requiring persons intending to travel abroad to furnish tax clearance certificates;

(iv) The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right not to apply paragraph 5 of article 14 in view of the fact that section 43 of its Supreme Court of Judicature Act No. 12 of 1962 does not confer on a person convicted on indictment an unqualified right of appeal and that in particular cases, appeal to the Court of Appeal can only be done with the leave of the Court of Appeal itself or of the Privy Council;

(v) While the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago accepts the principle of compensation for wrongful imprisonment, it is not possible at this time to implement such a principle in accordance with paragraph 6 of article 14 of the Covenant;

(vi) With reference to the last sentence of paragraph 1 of article 15 - "If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby", the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago deems this provision to apply exclusively to cases in progress. Consequently, a person who has already been convicted by a final decision shall not benefit from any provision made by law, subsequent to that decision, for the imposition of a lighter penalty.

(vii) The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right to impose lawful and or reasonable restrictions with respect to the right of assembly under article 21 of the Covenant;

(viii) The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right not to apply the provision of article 26 of the Covenant in so far as it applies to the holding of property in Trinidad and Tobago, in view of the fact that licences may be granted to or withheld from aliens under the Aliens Landholding Act of Trinidad and Tobago.

Turkiye

Declarations and reservation:

The Republic of Turkey declares that; it will implement its obligations under the Covenant in accordance to the obligations under the Charter of the United Nations (especially Article 1 and 2 thereof).

The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of this Covenant only to the States with which it has diplomatic relations.

The Republic of Turkey declares that this Convention is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied.

The Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes.

Ukraine

Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

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

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland <43>

Upon signature:

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

"Secondly, the Government of the United Kingdom declare that:

"(a) In relation to Article 14 of the Covenant, they must reserve the right not to apply, or not to apply in full, the guarantee of free legal assistance contained in sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 3 in so far as the shortage of legal practitioners and other considerations render the application of this guarantee in British Honduras, Fiji and St. Helena impossible;

"(b) In relation to Article 23 of the Covenant, they must reserve the right not to apply the first sentence of paragraph 4 in so far as it concerns any inequality which may arise from the operation of the law of domicile;

"(c) In relation to Article 25 of the Covenant, they must reserve the right not to apply:

"(i) Sub-paragraph (b) in so far as it may require the establishment of an elected legislature in Hong Kong and the introduction of equal suffrage, as between different electoral rolls, for elections in Fiji; and

"(ii) Sub-paragraph (c) in so far as it applies to jury service in the Isle of Man and to the employment of married women in the Civil Service of Northern Ireland, Fiji, and Hong Kong.

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

Upon ratification:

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

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

"Where at any time there is a lack of suitable prison facilities or where the mixing of adults and juveniles is deemed to be mutually beneficial, the Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply article 10 (2) (b) and 10 (3), so far as those provisions require juveniles who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults, and not to apply article 10 (2) (a) in Gibraltar, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands in so far as it requires segregation of accused and convicted persons.

"The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to interpret the provisions of article 12 (1) relating to the territory of a State as applying separately to each of the territories comprising the United Kingdom and its dependencies.

"The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to continue to apply such immigration legislation governing entry into, stay in and departure from the United Kingdom as they may deem necessary from time to time and, accordingly, their acceptance of article 12 (4) and of the other provisions of the Covenant is subject to the provisions of any such legislation as regards persons not at the time having the right under the law of the United Kingdom to enter and remain in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom also reserves a similar right in regard to each of its dependent territories.

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

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

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

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

"The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to enact such nationality legislation as they may deem necessary from time to time to reserve the acquisition and possession of citizenship under such legislation to those having sufficient connection with the United Kingdom or any of its dependent territories and accordingly their acceptance of article 24 (3) and of the other provisions of the Covenant is subject to the provisions of any such legislation.

"The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply sub-paragraph (b) of article 25 in so far as it may require the establishment of an elected Executive or Legislative Council in Hong Kong [...].

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

United States of America

Reservations:

"(1) That article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

"(2) That the United States reserves the right, subject to its Constitutional constraints, to impose capital punishment on any person (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing or future laws permitting the imposition of capital punishment, including such punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age.

"(3) That the United States considers itself bound by article 7 to the extent that "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel and unusual treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

"(4) That because U.S. law generally applies to an offender the penalty in force at the time the offence was committed, the United States does not adhere to the third clause of paragraph 1 of article 15.

"(5) That the policy and practice of the United States are generally in compliance with and supportive of the Covenant's provisions regarding treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, the United States reserves the right, in exceptional circumstances, to treat juveniles as adults, notwithstanding paragraphs 2 (b) and 3 of article 10 and paragraph 4 of article 14. The United States further reserves to these provisions with respect to States with respect to individuals who volunteer for military service prior to age 18."

Understandings:

"(1) That the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee all persons equal protection of the law and provide extensive protections against discrimination. The United States understands distinctions based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or any other status - as those terms are used in article 2, paragraph 1 and article 26 - to be permitted when such distinctions are, at minimum, rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. The United States further understands the prohibition in paragraph 1 of article 4 upon discrimination, in time of public emergency, based "solely" on the status of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin, not to bar distinctions that may have a disproportionate effect upon persons of a particular status.

"(2) That the United States understands the right to compensation referred to in articles 9 (5) and 14 (6) to require the provision of effective and enforceable mechanisms by which a victim of an unlawful arrest or detention or a miscarriage of justice may seek and, where justified, obtain compensation from either the responsible individual or the appropriate governmental entity. Entitlement to compensation may be subject to the reasonable requirements of domestic law.

"(3) That the United States understands the reference to "exceptional circumstances" in paragraph 2 (a) of article 10 to permit the imprisonment of an accused person with convicted persons where appropriate in light of an individual's overall dangerousness, and to permit accused persons to waive their right to segregation from convicted persons. The United States further understands that paragraph 3 of article 10 does not diminish the goals of punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation as additional legitimate purposes for a penitentiary system.

"(4) That the United States understands that subparagraphs 3 (b) and (d) of article 14 do not require the provision of a criminal defendant's counsel of choice when the defendant is provided with court-appointed counsel on grounds of indigence, when the defendant is financially able to retain alternative counsel, or when imprisonment is not imposed. The United States further understands that paragraph 3 (e) does not prohibit a requirement that the defendant make a showing that any witness whose attendance he seeks to compel is necessary for his defense. The United States understands the prohibition upon double jeopardy in paragraph 7 to apply only when the judgment of acquittal has been rendered by a court of the same governmental unit, whether the Federal Government or a constituent unit, as is seeking a new trial for the same cause.

"(5) That the United States understands that this Covenant shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the state or local governments may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of the Covenant."

Declarations:

"(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing.

"(2) That it is the view of the United States that States Party to the Covenant should wherever possible refrain from imposing any restrictions or limitations on the exercise of the rights recognized and protected by the Covenant, even when such restrictions and limitations are permissible under the terms of the Covenant. For the United States, article 5, paragraph 2, which provides that fundamental human rights existing in any State Party may not be diminished on the pretext that the Covenant recognizes them to a lesser extent, has particular relevance to article 19, paragraph 3 which would permit certain restrictions on the freedom of expression. The United States declares that it will continue to adhere to the requirements and constraints of its Constitution in respect to all such restrictions and limitations.

"(3) That the United States declares that the right referred to in article 47 may be exercised only in accordance with international law."

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) <44>

Article 60, paragraph 5, of the Constitution of the Republic of Venezuela establishes that: "No person shall be convicted in criminal trial unless he has first been personally notified of the charges and heard in the manner prescribed by law. Persons accused of an offence against the res publica may be tried in absentia, with the guarantees and in the manner prescribed by law". Venezuela is making this reservation because article 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant makes no provision for persons accused of an offence against the res publica to be tried in absentia.

Viet Nam

[See chapter IV.3.]

Yemen <45>

[See chapter IV.3.]

Objections (Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were made upon ratification, accession or succession.)

Australia

18 September 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:

"The Government of Australia considers that the reservation with respect to article 18 of the Covenant is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of the 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 Republic of Maldives, through this reservation, is purporting to make the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights subject to the provisions of constitutional law in force in the Republic of Maldives. As a result, it is unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Republic of Maldives to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Australia considers that the reservation with respect to article 18 of the Covenant is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation, pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on 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.

Further, the Government of Australia recalls that according to article 4 (2) of the Covenant, no derogation of article 18 is permitted.

For the above reasons, the Government of Australia objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and expresses the hope that the Republic of Maldives will soon be able to withdraw its reservation in light of the ongoing process of a revision of the Maldivian Constitution.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Australia and the Republic of Maldives."

28 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"The Government of Australia has examined the reservation made by The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 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 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant).

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 Covenant 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 Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Australia considers that the reservations to the Covenant 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.

Further, the Government of Australia recalls that according to article 4 (2) of the Covenant, no derogation of article 18 is permitted.

For the above reasons, the Government of Australia objects to the aforesaid reservations made by The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Covenant 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 Covenant between Australia and The Islamic Republic of Pakistan."

Austria

18 September 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:

"The Government of Austria has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006 in respect of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of Austria is of the opinion that reservations which consist in a general reference to a system of norms (like the constitution of the legal order of the reserving State) without specifying the contents thereof leave it uncertain to which extent that State accepts to be bound by the obligations under the treaty. Moreover, those norms may be subject to changes.

The reservation made by the Republic of Maldives is therefore not sufficiently precise to make it possible to determine the restrictions that are introduced into the agreement. The Government of Austria is therefore of the opinion that the reservation is capable of contravening the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Austria therefore regards the above-mentioned reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Maldives."

13 October 2010

With regard to the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification:

"The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights at the time of its ratification.

In the view of Austria a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. A reservation which consists of a general reference to constitutional provisions without specifying its implications does not do so. The Government of Austria therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Austria and the Lao People's Democratic Republic."

24 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"The Government of Austria has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The Government of Austria considers that in aiming to exclude the application of those provisions of the Covenant 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 Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant.

The Government of Austria therefore considers the reservations of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19; further to Articles 12, 13 and 25 incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to them.

Austria further considers that the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant has a pivotal role in the implementation of the Covenant. The exclusion of the competence of the Committee is not provided for in the Covenant and in Austria's views incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Austria therefore objects to this reservation.

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

16 May 2019

With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

"The Government of Austria has carefully examined the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Austria considers statements 1, 2, 3 and 4 to amount to reservations as they aim at applying provisions of the Covenant only in conformity with national legislation or the Islamic sharia. However, the Covenant is to be applied in accordance with international law, not only in accordance with the legislation of a particular state.

By referring to its national legislation or to the Islamic sharia, Qatar's reservations to Articles 7, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 23.4 of the Covenant are of a general and indeterminate scope. These reservations do not clearly define for the other States Parties the extent to which the reserving state has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. Furthermore, the reservation to Article 23.4 contravenes Article 3 of the Covenant, one of its most central provisions.

Austria therefore considers the reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to them. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Austria and the State of Qatar. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without Qatar benefitting from the aforementioned reservations."

Belgium

6 November 1984

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

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

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

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

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

5 October 1993

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

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

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

28 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

Belgium has carefully examined the reservations made by Pakistan upon accession on 23 June 2010 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The vagueness and general nature of the reservations made by Pakistan with respect to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may contribute to undermining the bases of international human rights treaties.

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

As to the reservation made with respect to Article 40, Belgium emphasizes that the object and purpose of the Covenant are not only to confer rights upon individuals, thereby imposing corresponding obligations on States, but also to establish an effective mechanism for monitoring obligations under the Covenant.

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 a fundamental provision of the Covenant.

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

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, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

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

21 May 2019

With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

The Kingdom of Belgium has carefully examined the reservations and declarations made by the State of Qatar upon its accession, on 21 May 2018, to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Reservations to articles 3 and 23 (4), as well as declarations 1 to 4 relating to articles 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (2), makes the provisions of the Covenant subject to their compatibility with Sharia or with the national legislation. The Kingdom of Belgium considers that these reservations and declarations tend to limit the responsibility of the State of Qatar under the Covenant by means of a general reference to the rules of national law and Sharia Law. This creates an uncertainty as to the extent to which the State of Qatar intends to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant and raises doubts about the State of Qatar's compliance with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Kingdom of Belgium recalls that under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, a State cannot make a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty. Moreover, article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties stipulates that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justifying the non-fulfilment of a treaty.

Accordingly, the Kingdom of Belgium objects to the reservations made by the State of Qatar with regard to articles 3 and 23 (4) and to the declarations made by it in respect of articles 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Kingdom of Belgium specifies that this objection does not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights between the Kingdom of Belgium and the State of Qatar.

Burkina Faso

10 March 2025

By a notification dated 6 March 2025, the Government of Burkina Faso informed the depositary that by Decree No. 2023-0444/PRES-TRANS/PM/MDAC/MATDS/MJDHRI of 14 April 20231, declared a state of emergency in 22 of the country's 45 provinces from 30 March to 29 April 2023, pursuant to Act No. 023-2019/AN of 14 May 2019 on states of siege and states of emergency in Burkina Faso. The declaration of a state of emergency is aimed at combating terrorism swiftly and effectively and restoring calm among the population. The extension of the state of emergency for a period of six months, from 29 April to 29 October 2023, was authorized by Act No. 007-2023/AN of 12 May 2023 extending the state of emergency declared by Decree No. 2023-0444. It is aimed at allowing local authorities to create the conditions for better promotion and protection of the human rights of people unjustly affected by violence and the cruelty of terrorist attacks.

The Government of Burkina Faso further notified that in accordance with article 5 of Decree No. 2023-0444, the measures provided for in the context of the state of emergency may involve a derogation from the obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular articles 9, 12, 17, 19 and 21. However, the measures do not authorize any derogation from the provisions of articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 or 18 of the Covenant.

(See depositary notification C.N.136.2025.TREATIES-IV.4 of 17 March 2025)

Canada

18 September 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:

"The Government of Canada has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Maldives upon acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with which the "application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives".

The Government of Canada considers that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law constitutes, in reality, a reservation with a general, indeterminate scope, such that it makes it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant, which it purports to introduce and it 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 Covenant.

The Government of Canada notes that the reservation made by the Government of the Maldives which addresses one of the most essential provisions of the Covenant, to which no derogation is allowed according to article 4 of the Covenant, is in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Maldives.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Canada and the Maldives."

27 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"The Government of Canada has carefully examined the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which declare that:

"the provisions of Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 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 provisions of Article 12 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan";

"With respect to Article 13, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners";

"the provisions of Article 25 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan"; and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan "does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant".

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

The Government of Canada further considers that the competence of the Committee to receive, study and comment on the reports submitted by States Parties as provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant is essential to the implementation of the Covenant. Through its function and its activity, the Human Rights Committee plays an essential role in monitoring the fulfillment of the obligations of the States Parties to the Convention. Participation in the reporting mechanism outlined in Article 40, which is aimed at encouraging more effective implementation by States Parties of their treaty obligations, is standard practice of States Parties to the Covenant.

The Government of Canada notes that the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, addressing many of the most essential provisions of the Covenant, and aiming to exclude the obligations under those provisions, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and thus inadmissible under Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In addition, Articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant are among the provisions from which no derogation is allowed, according to Article 4 of the Covenant. 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 Covenant between Canada and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan."

21 May 2019

With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

"The Government of Canada has carefully examined the reservations and declarations made by the Government of Qatar upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of Canada considers that reservations consisting of a general reference to national law or to the prescriptions of the Islamic Sharia constitute. in reality reservations with a general, indeterminate scope. This makes it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant that the reservation purports to introduce. With such a reservation, the other States Parties to the Covenant do not know the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. This uncertainty is unacceptable, especially in the context of treaties related to human rights.

The Government of Canada notes that the reservations made by the Government of Qatar, which address some of the most essential provisions of the Covenant and aim to exclude or limit the obligations under those provisions, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and thus inadmissible under Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The Government of Canada notes that the declarations made by the Government of Qatar aim at applying a provision of the Covenant only in conformity with domestic law or Islamic Sharia. However, the Covenant is to be applied in accordance with international law. The Government of Canada considers that these declarations are reservations in disguise, incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and thus inadmissible under article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

It is in the common interest of States that the 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.

The Government of Canada therefore objects to the reservations and declarations made by the Government of Qatar. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Canada and Qatar."

Cyprus

26 November 2003

With regard to the declaration made by the Turkey upon ratification:

"...the Government of the Republic of Cyprus has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966) on 23 September 2003, in respect of the implementation of the provisions of the Convention only to the States Parties which it recognizes and with which it has diplomatic relations.

In the view of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, this declaration amounts to a reservation. This reservation creates uncertainty as to the States Parties in respect of which Turkey is undertaking the obligations in the Covenant, and raises doubt as to the commitment of Turkey to the object and purpose of the said Covenant. The Government of the Republic of Cyprus therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This reservation or the objection to it shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Turkey."

Czech Republic <7>

12 September 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:

"The Government of the Czech Republic has carefully examined the contents of the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, in respect of Article 18 thereof.

The Government of the Czech Republic is of the opinion that the aforementioned reservation is in contradiction with 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 treaty. Furthermore, the reservation consists of a general reference to the Constitution without specifying its content and as such does not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Covenant.

The Government of the Czech Republic recalls that 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. 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 Government of the Czech Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Czech Republic and the Republic of Maldives, without the Republic of Maldives benefiting from its reservation.".

20 June 2011

"The Czech Republic believes that the reservations of Pakistan made to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant, if put into practice, would result in weakening of the relevant human rights, which is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. Furthermore, Pakistan supports these reservations 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 Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 that refer to the notions such as "Sharia law" and "Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan"; the reservations to Articles 12 and 25 that refer to the notions such as "law relating to foreigners" without specifying its contents, do not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations under the Covenant.

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 Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Czech Republic and Pakistan. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the Czech Republic and Pakistan, without Pakistan benefiting from its reservation."

20 May 2019

With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

"The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the reservations and statements formulated by the State of Qatar upon its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of the Czech Republic is of the view that the statements formulated by the State of Qatar with respect to Article 7, Article 18.2, Article 22 and Article 23.2 amount to reservations of general and vague nature, since they make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia and national law and their character and scope cannot be properly assessed.

These statements, together with the reservation formulated by the State of Qatar to Article 23.4, leave open the question to what extent the State of Qatar commits itself to the obligations under these Articles and to the object and purpose of the Covenant as a whole.

The Government of the Czech Republic wishes to recall that the reservations may not be general or vague and that the Covenant is to be applied and interpreted in accordance with international law.

The Government of the Czech Republic therefore considers the aforementioned reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to them. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Czech Republic and the State of Qatar, without the State of Qatar benefitting from the reservations."

Denmark

1 October 1993

With regard to the reservations made by the United States of America:

"Having examined the contents of the reservations made by the United States of America, Denmark would like to recall article 4, para 2 of the Covenant according to which no derogation from a number of fundamental articles, inter alia 6 and 7, may be made by a State Party even in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.

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

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

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

4 October 2001

With regard to the reservations made by the Botswana upon ratification:

"The Government of Denmark has examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of Botswana to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reservations refer to legislation in force in Botswana as regards the scope of application of two core provisions of the Covenant, Articles 7 and 12 para. 3. The Government of Denmark considers that the reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to fulfill her obligations under the Covenant and are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

For these reasons, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations made by the Government of Botswana. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant in its entirety between Botswana and Denmark without Botswana benefiting from the reservations."

28 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"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 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of Denmark considers that the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant, which make the applications of these essential obligations under the Covenant 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 Covenant.

The Government of the Kingdom on Denmark has also examined the reservation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with respect to Article 40 of the Covenant.

The Government of Denmark considers, that the supervisory machinery established under the Covenant, including the system of periodic reporting to the human rights Committee is an essential part of the treaty.

Accordingly a reservation to the effect that a State Party does not recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee to review and comment State reports must be considered contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

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 Covenant shall not be permitted.

Consequently, the Government of Denmark considers the said reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant 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 Covenant 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 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

Estonia

12 September 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:

"The Government of Estonia has carefully examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Estonia considers the reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant as with this reservation the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the provisions of constitutional law. The Government of Estonia is of the view that the reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Republic of Maldives to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Estonia therefore objects to the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and expresses the hope that the Republic of Maldives will soon be able to withdraw its reservation in light of the ongoing process of the revision of the Maldivian Constitution.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights between Estonia and the Republic of Maldives."

21 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"The Government of the Republic of Estonia has carefully examined the reservations made on 23 June 2010 by Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant.

Regarding Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25, the Government of the Republic of Estonia considers these reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant as with these reservations the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the provisions of constitutional law. The Government of Estonia is of the view that the reservation which consists of a general reference to a national law without specifying its content does not clearly indicate to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations contained in the relevant Articles of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

Furthermore, the reservation made by Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Article 40 of the Covenant is in the view of the Government of the Republic of Estonia contrary to the aim of the Covenant as this Article sets out the commitments of States towards the Human Rights Committee. The reporting mechanism is one of the core elements of the implementation of the Covenant.

Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Estonia objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Nevertheless, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as between the Republic of Estonia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan."

8 May 2019

With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

"The Government of Estonia has carefully examined the reservations made by the State of Qatar to Article 3 and Article 23(4), as well as the statements made with regard to Article 7, Article 18(2), Article 22 and Article 23(2) of the Covenant.

The reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23(4) as well as statements 1 to 4 make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Statements 1 to 4 are thus of their nature also reservations. The reservations and statements 1 to 4 are raising doubts concerning the extent to which the State of Qatar intends to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant.

Estonia considers aforementioned reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, which are not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. The Government of Estonia thus objects to them.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Estonia and the State of Qatar."

Finland

28 September 1993

With regard to the reservations, understandings and declarations made by the United States of America:

"...It is recalled that under international treaty law, the name assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. Understanding (1) pertaining to articles 2, 4 and 26 of the Covenant is therefore considered to constitute in substance a reservation to the Covenant, directed at some of its most essential provisions, namely those concerning the prohibition of discrimination. In the view of the Government of Finland, a reservation of this kind is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant, as specified in article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

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

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

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

25 July 1997

With regard to declarations and the reseration made by Kuwait:

"The Government of Finland notes that according to the interpretative declarations the application of certain articles of the Covenant is in a general way subjected to national law. The Government of Finland considers these interpretative declarations as reservations of a general kind.

The Government of Finland is of the view that such general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Kuwait to the object and purpose of the Covenant and would recall that a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted. As regards the reservation made to article 25 (b), the Government of Finland wishes to refer to its objection to the reservation made by Kuwait to article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

It is 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 Finland is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Kuwait, which do not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provisions of the covenant, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.

The Government of Finland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Kuwait to the [said Covenant] which are considered to be inadmissible.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Kuwait and Finland."

13 October 2004

With regard to declarations and the reservation made by Turkey upon ratification:

"The Government of Finland has examined the declarations and reservation made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland notes that the Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 27 of the Covenant in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes.

The Government of Finland emphasises the great importance of the rights of minorities provided for in Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reference to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey is of a general nature and does not clearly specify the content of the reservation. The Government of Finland therefore wishes to declare that it assumes that the Government of the Republic of Turkey will ensure the implementation of the rights of minorities recognised in the Covenant and will do its utmost to bring its national legislation into compliance with the obligations under the Covenant with a view to withdrawing the reservation. This declaration does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Turkey and Finland."

15 November 2005

With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification:

"The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the declaration made by the Government of Mauritania on Article 18 and paragraph 4 of Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to religious or other national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the receiving 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 asjustification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.

The Government of Finland notes that the reservations made by the Government of Mauritania, addressing some of the most essential provisions of the Covenant, and aiming to exclude the obligations under those provisions, are in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration made by the Government of Mauritania to the Covenant. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and Finland. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without the Islamic Republic of Mauritania benefiting from its declarations."

14 September 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:

"The Government of Finland has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland notes that the Republic of Maldives reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 18 of the Covenant in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives.

The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Covenant and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the receiving State to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. 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.

Furthermore, the Government of Finland emphasises the great importance of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion which is provided for in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Finland therefore wishes to declare that it assumes that the Government of the Republic of Maldives will ensure the implementation of the rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion recognised in the Covenant and will do its utmost to bring its national legislation into compliance with the obligations under the Covenant with a view to withdrawing the reservation.

This declaration does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Maldives and Finland. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without the Republic of Maldives benefiting from its reservation."

5 October 2010

With regard to the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification:

"The Government of Finland welcomes the ratification by the Lao People's Democratic Republic of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Finland has taken note of the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 22 thereof upon ratification. The Government of Finland notes that Article 22(2) provides that States Parties may, under certain specific circumstances and for certain specific purposes, restrict the right protected under Article 22(1). The Government of Finland is of the view that the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic seeks to limit the obligation of the Lao People's Democratic Republic not to restrict the freedom of association to an extent which is incompatible with Article 22(2). The reservation would therefore restrict one of the essential obligations of the Lao People's Democratic Republic under the Covenant and raises serious doubts as to the commitment of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties they have chosen to become parties to 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 such treaties. Furthermore, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, and according to well established customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic in respect of Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Finland. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without the Lao People's Democratic Republic benefiting from its reservation."

28 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

The Government of Finland welcomes the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Government of Finland has carefully examined the content of the reservations relating to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 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, 6, 7, 18 and 19 to the extent that they are not repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws, the provisions of Article 12 so as to be in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan, and the provisions of Article 25 to the extent that they are not repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan, and that, as regards the provisions of Article 13, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves the right to apply its law relating to foreigners.

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 Covenant the extent to which the reserving States commits itself to the Covenant and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. 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.

Furthermore, the Government of Finland notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant. The reporting mechanism established under Article 40 is an essential feature of the system of human rights protection created by the Covenant and an integral undertaking of States Parties to the Covenant.

All of the above reservations seek to restrict essential obligations of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan under the Covenant and raise serious doubts as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant. 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, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant 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.

16 May 2019

With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

"The Government of Finland is pleased to learn that the State of Qatar has become party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the Government of Finland has carefully examined the reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23.4, as well as the statements concerning Article 7, 18.2, 22, and 23.2 made by the State of Qatar upon accession, and is of the view that they raise certain concerns. In fact, also the said statements amount to reservations that purport to subject the application of specific provisions of the Covenant to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation.

The reservations to Article 3, 7, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 23.4 make the application of these provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Thus, the Government of Finland is of the opinion that the State of Qatar has submitted reservations which cast doubts on the commitment of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Covenant. 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 above-mentioned reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and are accordingly not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Finland and the State of Qatar. The Covenant will thus enter into force between the two stateswithout Qatar benefitting from the aforementioned reservation."

France

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

4 October 1993

At the time of the ratification of [the said Covenant], the United States of America expressed a reservation relating to article 6, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age.

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

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

15 October 2001

With regard to the reservation made by Botswana upon ratification:

The Government of the French Republic has studied Botswana's reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The purpose of the two reservations is to limit Botswana's commitment to articles 7 and 12, paragraph 3, of the Covenant to the extent to which these provisions are compatible with sections 7 and 14 of the Constitution of Botswana. The Government of the French Republic considers that the first reservation casts doubt upon Botswana's commitment and might nullify article 7 of the Covenant which prohibits in general terms torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Consequently, the Government of the French Republic objects to the Government of Botswana's reservation to article 7 of the Covenant.

18 November 2005

With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification:

"The Government of the French Republic has examined the declarations formulated by the Government of Mauritania upon acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, in accordance with which the Government of Mauritania, on the one hand, "while accepting the provisions set out in article 18 concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion, declares that their application shall be without prejudice to the Islamic sharia" and, on the other, "interprets the provisions of article 23, paragraph 4, on the rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic sharia". By making the application of article 18 and the interpretation of article 23, paragraph 4, of the Covenant subject to the prescriptions of the Islamic sharia, the Government of Mauritania is, in reality, formulating reservations with a general, indeterminate scope, such that they make it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant, which they purport to introduce. The Government of the French Republic considers that the reservations thus formulated are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of any effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof. It therefore enters an objection to these reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between France and Mauritania."

19 September 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:

The Government of the French Republic has reviewed the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives at the time of its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 to the effect that the Republic of Maldives intends to apply the principles relating to freedom of thought, conscience and religion set out in article 18 of twithout prejudice to its own Constitution.

The French Republic considers that by subordinating the general application of a right set out in the Covenant to its internal law, the Republic of Maldives is formulating a reservation that is likely to deprive a provision of the Covenant of any effect and makes it impossible for other States Parties to know the extent of its commitment.

The Government of the French Republic considers the reservation as contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. It therefore objects to that reservation. This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Covenant between the French Republic and the Republic of Maldives.

24 June 2011

With regard to the servations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

The Government of the French Republic has considered the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 23 June 2010.

Concerning the reservations to articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 18, 19 and 25, France considers that in seeking to exclude the application of provisions of the Covenant, insofar as they might be contrary to or inconsistent with the Constitution of Pakistan and/or 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 Covenant.

With regard to article 40, France believes that in seeking to exclude the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider periodic reports, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is depriving this key body under the Covenant of its main function. As such, the Government of the French Republic considers this reservation to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

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 Covenant between France and Pakistan.

Germany

[See under "Objections" in chapter IV.3.]

21 April 1982

"The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the [reservation (i) by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago]. In the opinion of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany it follows from the text and the history of the Covenant that the said reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant."

25 October 1990

With regard to interpretative declaration made by Algeria:

[See under "Objections" in chapter IV.3.]

28 May 1991

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

29 September 1993

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

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

10 July 1997

With regard to declarations and the reservation made by Kuwait:

[See under "Objections" in chapter IV.3.]

13 October 2004

With regard to declarations and the reservation made by Turkey upon ratification:

The Government of the Republic of Turkey has declared that it will implement the provisions of the Covenant only to the states with which it has diplomatic relations. Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Turkey has declared that it ratifies the Covenant exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Turkey has reserved the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 27 of the Covenant in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany would like to recall that it is in the common interest of all states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected and applied 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 these treaties. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is therefore concerned about declarations and reservations such as those made and expressed by the Republic of Turkey with respect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

However, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany believes these declarations do not aim to limit the Covenant's scope in relation to those states with which Turkey has established bonds under the Covenant, and that they do not aim to impose any other restrictions that are not provided for by the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany attaches great importance to the rights guaranteed by Article 27 of the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany understands the reservation expressed by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to mean that the rights guaranteed by Article 27 of the Covenant will also be granted to all minorities not mentioned in the provisions and rules referred to in the reservation."

15 November 2005

With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification:

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of Mauritania on 17 November 2004 in respect of Articles 18 and 23 (4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that the limitations set out therein leave it unclear to which extent Mauritania considers itself bound by the obligations resulting from the Covenant.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore regards the above-mentioned declaration as a reservation and as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and Mauritania.

12 September 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:

"The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006 in respect of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that reservations which consist in a general reference to a system of norms (like the constitution or the legal order of the reserving State) without specifying the contents thereof leave it uncertain to which extent that State accepts to be bound by the obligations under the treaty. Moreover, those norms may be subject to changes.

The reservation made by the Republic of Maldives is therefore not sufficiently precise to make it possible to determine the restrictions that are introduced into the agreement. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is therefore of the opinion that the reservation is capable of contravening the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore regards the above-mentioned reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Maldives."

28 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"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, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that these reservations subject the applications of Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant 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 Covenant and raising serious doubts as to its commitment to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. These reservations therefore are considered incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and consequently impermissible under Art. 19 c of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

By refusing to recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant the Republic of Pakistan calls into question the complete reporting mechanism which is a central procedural element of the Covenant system. This specific reservation against Article 40 therefore is considered to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant as well.

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 Covenant.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan."

25 January 2019

Objection to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar with regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966.

The reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23.4 as well as statements 1 to 4 make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Statements 1 to 4 are thus of their nature also reservations.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that by making the application of Articles 3, 7, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 23.4 of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national law, the State of Qatar has submitted reservations which raise doubts concerning the extent to which it intends to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant.

The above-mentioned reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and are accordingly not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. The Federal Republic of Germany thus objects to these reservations.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and the State of Qatar.

Greece

11 October 2004

With regard to the declarations made by Turkey upon ratification:

"The Government of Greece has examined the declarations made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of the Covenant only to the States with which it has diplomatic relations.

In the view of the Government of Greece, this declaration in fact amounts to a reservation. This reservation is incompatible with the principle that inter-State reciprocity has no place in the context of human rights treaties, which concern the endowment of individuals with rights. It is therefore contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Republic of Turkey furthermore declares that the Covenant is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied.

In the view of the Government of Greece, this declaration in fact amounts to a reservation. This reservation is contrary to the letter and the spirit of article 2 (i) of the Covenant. Indeed, a State Party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within the power or effective control of that State Party, even if not situated within the territory of such State Party. Accordingly, this reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

For these reasons, the Government of Greece objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Turkey. The Covenant, therefore, enters into force between the two States without the Republic of Turkey benefiting from these reservations."

24 October 2005

With regard to the reservations made by Mauritania upon accession:

"The Government of the Hellenic Republic have examined the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966) in respect of articles 18 and 23 paragraph 4 thereof.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic consider that these declarations, seeking to limit the scope of the aformentioned provisions on a unilateral basis, amount in fact to reservations.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic furthermore consider that, although these reservations refer to specific provisions of the Covenant, they are of a general character, as they do not clearly define the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations deriving from the Covenant.

For these reasons, the Government of the Hellenic Republic object to the abovementioned reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Greece and Mauritania."

22 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"The Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the Covenant are of fundamental importance and that the reservations formulated by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to those Articles, containing a general reference to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws without specifying the extent of the derogation there from, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

Furthermore, the Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that the reservation formulated with respect to Article 40 of the Covenant, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, which seeks, inter alia, to establish an effective monitoring mechanism for the obligations undertaken by the States Parties.

For this reason the Government of the Hellenic Republic objects to the abovementioned reservations formulated by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Greece and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan."

With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

"The Government of the Hellenic Republic has examined the reservations and the statements made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 (hereinafter 'the Covenant').

In the above reservations, the State of Qatar declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Articles 3 and 23.4 of the Covenant, for they contravene, respectively, the provisions of Article 8 of the [Constitution] of Qatar and the Islamic Sharia.

Moreover, in the statements made upon accession to the Covenant, the State of Qatar inter alia declares that it shall interpret Articles 7, 18.2, 22 and 23.2 thereof, 'in accordance with the applicable legislation of Qatar' and/or 'in a manner that does not contravene the Islamic Sharia'. However, in the view of the Government of the Hellenic Republic, these statements in fact amount to a reservation as they limit the scope of application of the relevant provisions of the Covenant solely to the extent that they do not contravene the Islamic Sharia and the national legislation of Qatar.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic notes that the above reservations are of a general and indeterminate scope, as they purport to subject the application of the aforementioned provisions of the Covenant to the Islamic Sharia and national legislation, without, however, specifying the content thereof, and are, accordingly, contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant, since they do not clearly define for the other State Parties the extent to which Qatar has accepted the obligations of the Covenant.

For the above reasons, the Government of the Hellenic Republic considers the aforesaid reservations of Qatar impermissible as contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant, according to customary international law, as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic, therefore, objects to the abovementioned reservations by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Hellenic Republic and the State of Qatar."

Hungary

18 September 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:

"The Government of the Republic of Hungary has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006 upon accession to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966. The reservation states that the application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives.

The Government of the Republic of Hungary is of the opinion that the reservation to Article 18 will unavoidably result in a legal situation in respect of the Republic of Maldives, which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

Namely the reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant thus raising concerns as to its commitment to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

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.

According to Article 19 point (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, a State may formulate a reservation unless it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.

The Government of the Republic of Hungary therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Maldives."

28 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"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 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, in respect of Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 thereof.

The Government of the Republic of Hungary is of the opinion that the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, and 19 are in contradiction with 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 treaty. Furthermore, the reservations consist of a general reference to the provisions of the Constitution, the Sharia laws, and/or Pakistani internal law relating to foreigners without specifying their content and as such do not clearly define to other Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Covenant.

The Government of the Republic of Hungary recalls that 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. 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 Government of the Republic of Hungary therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18 and 19 of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Hungary and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan."

17 May 2019

WIth regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

"Hungary has examined the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights done in New York on 16 December 1966.

The reservations to Article 3 and Article 23 paragraph 4 and the statements 1 to 5 make the application of these provisions of the Covenant subject to the Constitution of the State of Qatar, the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Hungary considers the statements 1 to 5 made by the State of Qatar by their nature also as reservations.

Hungary is of the view that making the application of Article 3, 23 paragraph 4, as well as Article 7, Article 18 paragraph 2, Article 22, Article 23 paragraph 2 and Article 27 of the Covenant subject to the Constitution of the State of Qatar, the Islamic Sharia and the national legislation, raises doubts as to the extent of Qatar's commitment to meet its obligations under the Covenant and are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, that is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all civil and political freedom by all individuals.

Accordingly, Hungary considers the aforementioned reservations inadmissible as they are not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, thus objects to these reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Hungary and the State of Qatar. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two States without the State of Qatar benefitting from its reservations."

Ireland

11 October 2001

With regard to the reservations made by Botswana upon ratification:

"The Government of Ireland have examined the reservations made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to Article 7 and to Article 12, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

These reservations invoke provisions of the internal law of the Republic of Botswana. The Government of Ireland are of the view that such reservations may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Furthermore, the Government of Ireland are of the view that such reservations may undermine the basis of international treaty law.

The Government of Ireland therefore object to the reservations made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to Article 7 and Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Covenant.

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

19 September 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:

"The Government of Ireland notes that the Republic of Maldives subjects application of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives.

The Government of Ireland is of the view 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 Covenant may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant.

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 Covenant.

The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and the Republic of Maldives."

13 October 2010

With regard to the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification:

"The Government of Ireland has examined the reservations and declarations made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and notes in particular, the intention of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to apply the provisions in Article 22 of the Covenant in its territory only insofar as those provisions are in conformity with the Constitution and relevant laws of the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

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

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 Covenant. The Government of Ireland 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 Covenant shall not be permitted.

The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and the Lao People's Democratic Republic."

23 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"The Government of Ireland has examined the reservations made on 23 June 2010 by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of Ireland notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan subjects Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 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 fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. The Government of Ireland is of the view that such general reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and may undermine the basis of international treaty law.

The Government of Ireland further notes the reservation by Pakistan to Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reporting mechanism is an integral undertaking of all States Parties to the Covenant.

The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

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

20 May 2019

With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

"Ireland welcomes the accession of Qatar to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 21 May 2018.

Ireland has examined the reservations and statements made by Qatar to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights at the time of its accession.

Ireland is of the view that the reservations by Qatar, purporting to exclude its obligations under Article 3 and Article 23 (4), are contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

Ireland is furthermore of the view that the statements by Qatar purporting to subject the implementation of Article 7, Article 18 (2), Article 22, Article 23 (2) and Article 27 to an interpretation that does not contravene the Islamic Sharia and/or its national law in substance constitute reservations limiting the scope of the Covenant.

Ireland considers that such reservations, which purport to subject the reserving State's obligations under an international agreement to religious law and to national law without specifying the content thereof and which do not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provisions of the international agreement, may cast doubt on the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the international agreement. Ireland is furthermore of the view that such reservations may undermine the basis of international treaty law and are incompatible with the object and purpose of the international agreement. Ireland recalls that under international treaty law a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the international agreement shall not be permitted.

Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by Qatar to Articles 3, 7, 18 (2), 22, 23 (2), 23 (4) and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and Qatar."

Italy

5 October 1993

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

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

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

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

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

28 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"The Government of Italy has examined the reservations made on 23 June 2010 by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of Italy has noted that the reservations to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18, 19, 12, 13 and 25 makes the constitutive provisions of International Covenant subject to the national law of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (the Constitution, its domestic law and/or Sharia laws).

In the view of the Government of Italy a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. A reservation which consists of a general reference to national provisions without specifying its implications makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Italy is of the view that such general reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and may undermine the basis of international treaty law.

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

The Government of Italy, therefore, objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18, 19, 12, 13 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

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

21 May 2019

With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

"The Government of the Italian Republic has carefully examined the reservation and statement by the State of Qatar with regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966.

The reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23.4 as well as statements 1 to 4 make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Statements 1 to 4 are thus of their nature also reservations.

The Government of the Italian Republic is of the opinion that by making the application of Articles 3, 7, 8, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 23.4 of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national law, the State of Qatar has submitted reservations which raise doubts concerning the extent to which it intends to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant.

The above-mentioned reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and are accordingly not permitted under customary international law, as codified in Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. The Italian Republic thus objects to these reservations.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Italian Republic and the State of Qatar."

Latvia

15 November 2005

With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification:

"The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the declaration made by Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights upon accession.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the declaration contains general reference to prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah, making the provisions of International Covenant subject to the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah.

Thus, the Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that the declaration is in fact a unilateral act deemed to limit the scope of application of the International Covenant and therefore, it shall be regarded as a reservation.

Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia noted that the reservation does not make it clear to what extent Mauritania considers itself bound by the provisions of the International Covenant and whether the way of implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant is in line with the object and purpose of the International Covenant.

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

The Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and Mauritania. Thus, the International Covenant will become operative without Mauritania benefiting from its reservation."

13 August 2007

With regard to reservation made by Bahrain:

"The Government of the Republic of Latvia has noted that the reservation made by the Kingdom of Bahrain is submitted to the Secretary General on 4 December 2006, but the consent to be bound by the said Covenant by accession is expressed on 20 September 2006. In accordance with Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties reservations might be made upon signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. Taking into considerations the aforementioned, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the said reservation is not in force since its submission."

4 September 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:

"The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights upon accession.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the said reservation makes the constitutive provisions of International Covenant subject to the national law (the Constitution) of the Republic of Maldives.

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

The Government of the Republic of Latvia, therefore, objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Maldives. Thus, the International Covenant will become operative without the Republic of Maldives benefiting from its reservation."

29 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservations expressed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant upon ratification.

Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the International Covenant shall be viewed as constituting the object and purpose thereof. Therefore, pursuant to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations, whereby the mentioned provisions of the International Covenant are subjected to the regime of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan or of Sharia law may not be viewed as being compatible with the object and purpose of the International Covenant.

Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia notes that the reservations expressed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the International Covenant are ambiguous, thereby lacking clarity, whether and to what extent the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the International Covenant will be ensured.

Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that Article 40 of the International Covenant contains essential provisions to oversee the implementation of the rights guaranteed by the International Covenant. Therefore, the reservation declaring that the State Party does not consider itself bound with the provisions of this Article cannot be in line with the object and purpose of the International Covenant.

Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan regarding Articles 3, 6, 7 and 40 of the International Covenant.

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

15 May 2019

With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

"The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservations and the statements made by the State of Qatar upon ratification of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights making the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation.

The Republic of Latvia considers that Article 3 and Article 23.4 of the Covenant forms the very basis of the Covenant and its main purpose. In addition, the Republic of Latvia is in the opinion that Articles mentioned in the statements 1 to 4 consists of the core elements of the Covenant and the statements also are in their nature reservations. Therefore, no derogations from those obligations can be made.

The reservations made by the State of Qatar excludes the legal effect of central provisions of the Covenant, thus the reservations are incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Covenant and therefore inadmissible under Article 19 (c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and the State of Qatar. Thus, the Covenant will become operative between the two States without the State of Qatar benefitting from its reservations."

Netherlands (Kingdom of the)

12 June 1980

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

12 January 1981

[See under "Objections" in chapter IV.3.]

17 September 1981

"I. Reservation by Australia regarding articles 2 and 50

The reservation that article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, and article 50 shall be given effect consistently with and subject to the provisions in article 2, paragraph 2, is acceptable to the Kingdom on the understanding that it will in no way impair Australia's basic obligation under international law, as laid down in article 2, paragraph 1, to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

II. Reservation by Australia regarding article 10

The Kingdom is not able to evaluate the implications of the first part of the reservation regarding article 10 on its merits, since Australia has given no further explanation on the laws and lawful arrangements, as referred to in the text of the reservation. In expectation of further clarification by Australia, the Kingdom for the present reserves the right to raise objection to the reservation at a later stage.

III. Reservation by Australia regarding "Convicted Persons"

The Kingdom finds it difficult, for the same reasons as mentioned in its commentary on the reservation regarding article 10, to accept the declaration by Australia that it reserves the right not to seek amendment of laws now in force in Australia relating to the rights of persons wo have been convicted of serious criminal offences. The Kingdom expresses the hope it will be possible to gain a more detailed insight in the laws now in force in Australia, in order to facilitate a definitive opinion on the extent of this reservation."

6 November 1984

[Same objection as the one made by Belgium.]

18 March 1991

With regard to interpretative declaration made by Algeria:

[See under "Objections" in chapter IV.3.]

10 June 1991

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

28 September 1993

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

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

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

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

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

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

22 July 1997

With regard to the declarations and the reservation made by Kuwait:

[Same objection identical in essence, mutatis mutandis as the one made for Algeria.]

26 December 1997

With regard to the interpretative declaration concerning article 6 paragraph 5 made by Thailand:

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

9 October 2001

With regard to the reservations made by Botswana upon ratification:

"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Government of Botswana upon signature of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and confirmed upon ratification, regarding articles 7 and 12, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the said articles of the Covenant are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing legislation in Botswana.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that, in the absence of further clarification, these reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Botswana as to the object and purpose of the Covenant and would like 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 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 the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Botswana to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Botswana."

31 May 2005

With regard to the reservations made by Mauritania upon accession:

"The Government of the Netherlands has examined the reservation made by Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The application of the Articles 18 and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been made subject to religious considerations. This makes it unclear to what extent Mauritania considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of Mauritania to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

It is of the common interest of States that all parties respect treaties to which they have chosen to become parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted (Art. 19 c).

The Government of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation made by Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Mauritania and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, without Mauritania benefiting from its reservation."

27 July 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Bahrain:

"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since the reservations were made after the accession of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the Covenant, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations were too late and therefore inconsistent with article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Furthermore, the reservation with respect to articles 3, 18 and 23 of the Covenant is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the Islamic Shariah. This makes it unclear to what extent the Kingdom of Bahrain considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

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, 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.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to all of the reservations made by the Kingdom of Bahrain since they were made after accession, and specifically objects to the content of the reservation on articles 3, 18 and 23 made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Bahrain."

27 July 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:

"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservation with respect to article 18 of the Covenant is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

Furthermore, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the provisions of constitutional law in force in the Republic of Maldives. This makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Republic of Maldives to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

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, 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 partiesand that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and expresses the hope that the Republic of Maldives will soon be able to withdraw its reservation in light of the ongoing process of a revision of the Maldivian Constitution.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Maldives."

8 October 2010

Objection to the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification:

"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of Article 22 of the Covenant is made subject to national law in force in the Lao People's Democratic Republic. This makes it unclear to what extent the Lao People's Democratic Republic considers itself bound by the obligations under Article 22 of the Covenant.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such a reservation must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and would recall 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 Covenant shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic republic to Article 22 of the Covenant.

This object does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Lao People's Democratic Republic."

15 May 2019

With regard to the reservations and declarations made by Qatar upon accession:

"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation and the statements made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as communicated by the Secretary-General via depositary notification C.N.262.2018.TREATIES-IV.4 of 21 May 2018, and wishes to communicate the following.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that Qatar does not consider itself bound by provisions of Article 3 and Article 23, paragraph 4, of the Covenant as these contravene provisions of the Constitution of Qatar or the Islamic Sharia.

Further, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the statements made by the State of Qatar with respect to Article 7, Article 18, paragraph 2, Article 22, and Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant in substance constitute reservations limiting the scope of these provisions of the Covenant, by applying these provisions only in conformity with the Islamic Sharia and/or national legislation of the State of Qatar.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Covenant by invoking provisions of the Islamic Sharia and/or national legislation, are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of their effect and therefore must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

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 reservations of the State of Qatar to the Covenant.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the State of Qatar."

Norway

4 October 1993

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

"1. In the view of the Government of Norway, the reservation (2) concerning capital punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age is according to the text and history of the Covenant, incompatible with the object and purpose of article 6 of the Covenant. According to article 4 (2), no derogations from article 6 may be made, not even in times of public emergency. For these reasons the Government of Norway objects to this reservation.

2. In the view of the Government of Norway, the reservation (3) concerning article 7 of the Covenant is according to the text and interpretation of this article incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. According to article 4 (2), article 7 is a non-derogable provision, even in times of public emergency. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to this reservation.

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

22 July 1997

With regard to the declarations and the reservation made by Kuwait:

"In the view of the Government of Norway, a statement by which a State Party purports to limit its responsibilities by invoking general principles of internal law may create doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to the objective and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. Under well-established treaty law, a State is not permitted to invoke internal law as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. Furthermore, the Government of Norway finds the reservations made to article 8, paragraph 1 (d) and article 9 as being problematic in view of the object and purpose of the Covenant. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the said reservations made by the Government of Kuwait.

The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the State of Kuwait."

11 October 2001

With regard to the reservation made by Botswana upon ratification:

"The Government of Norway has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The reservation's reference to the national Constitution without further description of its contents, exempts the other States Parties to the Covenant from the possibility of assessing the effects of the reservation. In addition, as the reservation concerns two of the core provisions of the Covenant, it is the position of the Government of Norway that the reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant. Norway therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Botswana.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Botswana. The Covenant thus becomes operative between Norway and Botswana without Botswana benefiting from the said reservation."

29 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"The Government of Norway has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Norway considers that the reservations with regard to articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant are so extensive as to be contrary to its object and purpose. The Government of Norway therefore objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Covenant 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."

20 May 2019

With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

"...the Government of the Kingdom of Norway has carefully examined the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966.

The reservations made by the State of Qatar to Article 3 and Article 23 (4), as well as the statements concerning Article 7, Article 18 (2), Article 22 and Article 23 (2), make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Statements 1 to 4 are thus also formulated as reservations. The Government of the Kingdom of Norway is of the view that the above-mentioned provisions concern essential elements of the Covenant, and that the State of Qatar, by making the application of these provisions subject to the Islamic Sharia or national law, has submitted reservations which raise doubts as to the full commitment of the Government of the State of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Covenant. These reservations are thus not permitted under international law.

The State of Qatar has furthermore declared that it 'shall interpret Article 27 of the Covenant that professing and practicing one's own religion require that they do not violate the rules of public order and public morals, the protection of public safety and public health, or the rights of and basic freedoms of others'. If this statement is to be understood as a mere reference to Article 18 (3) of the Covenant, the statement is acceptable to the Government of the Kingdom of Norway. However, if the statement is meant to make the application of Article 27 subject to specific national rules, which are not further specified, this statement also lacks the necessary clarity and raises doubt as to the full commitment of the Government of the State of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of the Kingdom of Norway thus objects to the reservations made by the State of Qatar with regard to Article 3, Article 7, Article 18 (2), Article 22, Article 23 (2) and Article 23 (4). The statement related to Article 27 is acceptable to the Government of the Kingdom of Norway as far as it is in conformity with Article 18 (3).

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the State of Qatar."

Pakistan

17 April 2008

With regard to the declaration made by India upon accession:

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

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

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

Poland

22 November 2005

With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification:

"The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the Declaration made by Mauritania upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, done in New York on 16 December 1966, hereinafter called the Covenant, in respect of Articles 18 and 23 (4).

The Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the Declaration made Mauritania - which constitutes de facto a reservation - is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant which guarantees every person equal enjoyment of the rights set forth in the Covenant.

The Government of the Republic of Poland therefore considers that, according to the customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, done at Vienna on 23 May 1969, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted (Article 19 c).

Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the Declaration made by Mauritania is not precise enough to define for the other State Parties the extent to which Mauritania has accepted the obligation of the Covenant.

The Government of the Republic of Poland therefore objects to Declaration made by Mauritania.

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

20 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966, with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant.

In the view of the Government of the Republic of Poland, if put into practice, the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, especially when taking into account their unspecified extent and the vast area of rights they affect, will considerably limit the ability to benefit from the rights guaranteed by the Covenant.

Consequently, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers these reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, which is to guarantee equal rights to everyone without any discrimination. 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.

In order to justify its will to exclude the legal consequences of certain provisions of the Covenant, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan raised in its reservations 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, 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. On the contrary, it should be deemed a rule that a State Party adjusts its internal law to the treaty which it decides to be bound by. On these grounds, the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant shall not be permitted.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan refers in its reservations to the Sharia laws and to its domestic legislation as possibly affecting the application of the Covenant. Nonetheless it does not 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 Covenant. Thus, the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant shall not be permitted.

Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers that reservations aimed at limitation or exclusion of the application of treaty norms stipulating non-derogable rights are in opposition with the purpose of this treaty. On these grounds, the reservations made with regard to Articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are impermissible.

The Government of the Republic of Poland objects also to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with regard to Article 40 of the Covenant considering it as impermissible as it undermines the basis of the United Nations mechanism of monitoring of the respect of human rights. The Government of the Republic of Poland considers the reporting obligations of States Parties to the Covenant to be of utmost importance for the effectiveness of the UN system of the protection of human rights and as such - not of optional nature.

Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Poland objects to the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966, with regard to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant.

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

22 March 2019

With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

"The Government of the Republic of Poland has reviewed the reservations made by the State of Qatar along with the ratification document to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, done in New York on December 16, 1966, with regard to Article 3 and Article 23(4), as well as the statements which the State of Qatar made with regard to Article 7, Article 18(2), Article 22, Article 23(2) and Article 27 of the Covenant.

The Government of the Republic of Poland is of the view that the application of the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar will introduce too wide restrictions in the implementation of the provisions of the Covenant as regards the essential spheres of social life (among others equality between women and men in the exercise of their civil and political rights, freedom to marry, rights of a woman of marriageable age to marry, prohibition of inhuman or degrading punishment, freedom of religion and the right to form and to join trade unions).

Accordingly, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers these reservations and statements to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the Covenant, which aims to create conditions that guarantee any person enjoyment of civil and political rights, and as such, to be unacceptable under Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

In its reservations, the State of Qatar has referred to the incompatibility of the provisions of the Covenant with its internal law (the Constitution) and Islamic law as justification for its intention to exclude the legal effects of certain provisions of the Covenant.

The Government of the Republic of Poland notes that pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State Party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Conversely, the domestic law should, as a rule be brought into line with the provisions of a treaty by which given state is bound.

In addition, while referring in its statements to Islamic law, national labor law and national legislation, as well as to the rights and fundamental freedoms of others, the State of Qatar does not indicate the specific content thereof that may apply to the implementation of the Covenant, which renders it impossible to determine the exact scope of application of the provisions of the Covenant in relation to the State of Qatar.

In view of the above, the Government of the Republic of Poland objects to the reservations of the State of Qatar with regard to Article 3 and Article 23(4), as well as to the statements of this State with regard to Article 7, Article 18(2), Article 22, Article 23(2) and Article 27 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, done in New York on 16 December 1966.

This objection does not hinder entrance into force of the Covenant in the relations between the Republic of Poland and the State of Qatar."

Portugal

26 October 1990

[See under "Objections" in chapter IV.3.]

5 October 1993

With regard to the reservations made by the United States of America:

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

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

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

26 July 2001

With regard to the reservation to article 7 made by Botswana upon ratification:

"The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966).

The Government of the Portuguese Republic is of the view that, according to article 4 (2) of the Covenant, the said reservation is incompatible with its object and purpose.

Furthermore, 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. It is 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 the Portuguese Republic considers that the Government of the Republic of Botswana, by limiting its responsibilities under the Covenant by invoking general principles of its Constitutional Law, may create doubts on its commitment to the Covenant and, moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of International Law.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to article 7 of the Covenant. This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Botswana."

13 October 2004

With regard to declarations and the reservation made by Turkey upon ratification:

"The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by invoking certain provisions of national law in general terms may create doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international law.

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 Portugal therefore objects to the reservation by Turkey to the ICCPR. This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Portugal and Turkey."

21 November 2005

With regard to reservations made by Mauritania upon ratification:

"Portugal considers that the declaration concerning both Article 18 and Article 23, paragraph 4 is a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis and that is not authorised by the Covenant.

This reservation creates doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international law.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic, therefore, objects to the above reservation made by the Mauritanian Government to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Portugal and Mauritania."

29 August 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:

"The Government of the Portuguese Republic has carefully examined the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

According to the reservation, the application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives. Portugal considers that this article is a fundamental provision of the Covenant and the reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Maldives considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant, raises concerns as to its commitment to the object and purpose of the Covenant and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international law. 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 these treaties. The Government of the Portuguese Republic, therefore, objects to the above mentioned reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the ICCPR. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and the Maldives."

28 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, 16 December 1966.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 25 are reservations that seek to subject the application of the Covenant to its Constitution, its domestic law or/and Sharia Law, limiting the scope of the [Covenant] 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 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 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 Covenant, as the reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant 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 furthermore notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic is of the view that the reporting mechanism is a procedural requirement of the Covenant, an integral undertaking of its States Parties and that the reservation is likely to undermine the international human rights treaty body system. Thus, the reservation to article 40 is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

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, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, 16 December 1966.

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

20 May 2019

With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

"The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the contents of the reservation to Articles 3 and 23 (4) and of the statements regarding Articles 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights made by the State of Qatar.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23 (4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are contrary to the object and purpose of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Furthermore, it considers that the statements regarding Articles 7, 18 (2), 22 and

23 (2) are in fact reservations that seek to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under [the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] by invoking the domestic law or/and religious beliefs and principles [raise] doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention, as such reservations are 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 Covenant shall not be permitted.

Thus, the Government of the Portuguese Republic objects to these reservations.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Portuguese Republic and the State of Qatar."

Republic of Moldova

21 May 2019

With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

"The Republic of Moldova has carefully examined the reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar on May 21, 2018 upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966.

The reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23.4 as well statements 1 to 4 make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Statements 1 to 4 are thus of their nature also reservations.

The Republic of Moldova considers that the reservations regarding Articles 3, 7, 18.2, 22, 23.2 and 23.4 of the Covenant are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant since these articles form an essential element of the Covenant, and are accordingly not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969.

Therefore, the Republic of Moldova objects to the aforementioned reservations made by the State of Qatar.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force or the Covenant between the Republic of Moldova and the State or Qatar. The Covenant enters into force in its [entirety] between the Republic of Moldova and the State of Qatar, without the State of Qatar benefiting from its reservation[s]."

Romania

20 May 2019

With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

"Romania has examined the reservation and the declaration made upon [accession] by the State of Qatar to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 1966).

Romania considers that the declaration aiming to interpret the term 'punishment' in Article 7, as well as the provisions of Articles 18.2, 22 and 23.2 of the Covenant in the light of the Islamic sharia and the national legislation respectively amounts to reservations of undefined character, inadmissible under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The same character has the reservation made in relation to Article 23.4 of the Covenant. In accordance with Article 27 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it is the duty of States Parties to a treaty to ensure that their internal law allows the application and observance of the treaty.

Moreover, the general nature of these reservations limits the understanding as to the extent of the obligations assumed by State of Qatar under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Therefore, Romania objects to these reservations formulated by State of Qatar to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as being incompatible with the scope and purpose of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as required by the Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

This objection shall not affect the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights between Romania and State of Qatar."

Slovakia <7>, <15>, <33>

23 June 2011

With regard to the reservations amde by Pakistan upon ratification:

"The Slovak Republic has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, according to which:

"[The] Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 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 Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Article 12 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan.

With respect to Article 13, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Article 25 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant".

The Slovak Republic considers that with the reservations to Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is made subject to the Islamic Sharia law. Moreover it considers the reservations with respect to Articles 12, 13, 25 and 40 of the Covenant as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant as to its commitment to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

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, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the Covenant.

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

Spain

5 October 1993

With regard to the reservations made by the United States of America:

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

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

Therefore, and bearing in mind that articles 6 and 7 protect two of the most fundamental rights embodied in the Covenant, the Government of Spain considers that these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and, consequently, objects to them. This position does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America.

9 October 2001

With regard to the reservation to article 7 made by Botswana upon ratification:

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation made on 16 December 2000 by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which makes its adherence to that article conditional by referring to the current content of Botswana's domestic legislation.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this reservation, by referring to domestic law, affects one of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Covenant (prohibition of torture, right to physical integrity), from which no derogation is permitted under article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. The Government of Spain also considers that the presentation of a reservation referring to domestic legislation, in the absence of further clarifications, raises doubts as to the degree of commitment assumed by the Republic of Botswana in becoming a party to the Covenant.

Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Botswana to article 7 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966.

This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Botswana.

17 September 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:

"The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has reviewed the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006, at the time of its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain observes that the broad formulation of the reservation, which makes the application of article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights conditional on its conformity with the Constitution of Maldives without specifying the content thereof, renders it impossible to ascertain to what extent the Republic of Maldives has accepted the obligations arising from that provision of the Covenant and, in consequence, raises doubts about its commitment to the object and purpose of the treaty.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers the reservation of the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain recalls that, under customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permitted.

Accordingly, the Government of Spain objects to the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Maldives."

9 June 2011

With regard to the reservation made by Pakistan upon ratification:

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, concerning articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the said Covenant.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the above-mentioned reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, since they are intended to exempt Pakistan from its commitment to respect and guarantee certain rights essential for the fulfilment of the object and purpose of the Covenant, such as equality between men and women; the right to life and restrictions on the imposition of the death penalty; the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of expression; liberty of movement and freedom in choice of residence; restrictions on the expulsion of aliens lawfully in the territory of a State Party; and the right to take part in public affairs, the right to vote and to be elected and the right to have access to public service on terms of equality, or to limit the said commitment in an undefined manner.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain also considers that the reservation whereby Pakistan declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee provided for in article 40 of the Covenant is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

Furthermore, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the above-mentioned reservations made by Pakistan, subordinating the application of certain articles of the Covenant either to their conformity with sharia law or to their conformity with the Constitution of Pakistan, or to both, to which general reference is made without specifying their content, in no way excludes the legal effects of the obligations arising from the relevant provisions of the Covenant.

Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the reservations made by Pakistan to articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, 25 and 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Spain and Pakistan.

Sweden

18 June 1993

With regard to interpretative declarations made by the United States of America:

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

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

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

• article 2; cf. Understanding (1);
• article 4; cf. Understanding (1);
• article 6; cf. Reservation (2);
• article 7; cf. Reservation (3);
• article 15; cf. Reservation (4);
• article 24; cf. Understanding (1).

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

23 July 1997

With regard to the declarations and the reservation made by Kuwait:

"The Government of Sweden notes that the interpretative declarations regarding article 2, paragraph 1, article 3 and 23 imply that central provisions of the Covenant are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of national law. The Government of Sweden further notes that the reservation concerning article 25 (b) is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Sweden is of the view that these interpretative declarations and this reservation raise doubts as to the commitment of Kuwait to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

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 interpretative declarations and reservation made by the Government of Kuwait upon accession to the [said Covenant].

This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Kuwait and Sweden."

25 July 2001

With regard to the reservation made by Botswana upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

"The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by Botswana upon signature of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and confirmed upon ratification, regarding articles 7 and 12 (3) of the Covenant.

The Government of Sweden notes that the said articles of the Covenant are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing legislation in Botswana.

The Government of Sweden is of the view that, in the absence of further clarification, this reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to the object and purpose of the Covenant and would like 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 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 Government of Botswana to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Botswana and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Botswana benefiting from its reservation."

30 June 2004

With regard to the declarations and reservation made by Turkey upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

The Government of Sweden has examined the declarations and reservation made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of the Covenant only to the State parties with which it has diplomatic relations. This statement in fact amounts, in the view of the Government of Sweden, to a reservation. The reservation of the Republic of Turkey makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Turkey considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant. In absence of further clarification, therefore, the reservation raises doubt as to the commitment of the Republic of Turkey to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Republic of Turkey furthermore declares that the Covenant is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. This statement also amounts, in the view of the Government of Sweden, to a reservation. It should be recalled that the duty to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the Covenant is mandatory upon State parties in relation to all individuals under their jurisdiction. A limitation to the national territory is contrary to the obligations of State parties in this regard and therefore incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Sweden notes that the interpretation and application of article 27 of the Covenant is being made subject to a general reservation referring to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes. The general reference to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, which, in the absence of further clarification, does not clearly specify the extent of the Republic of Turkey's derogation from the provision in question, raises serious doubts as to the commitment of the Republic of Turkey to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Sweden furthermore wishes to recall that the rights of persons belonging to minorities in accordance with article 27 of the Covenant are to be respected without discrimination. As has been laid down by the Human Rights Committee in its General comment 23 on Article 27 of the Covenant, the existence of a minority does not depend upon a decision by the state but requires to be established by objective criteria. The subjugation of the application of article 27 to the rules and provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne and its Appendixes is, therefore, in the view of the Government of Sweden, incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

According to established customary law as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. 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 Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Turkey and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without the Republic of Turkey benefiting from its reservations.

5 October 2005

With regard to the reservations made by the Mauritania upon accession:

"The Government of Sweden has examined the declarations made by the Government of Mauritania upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, regarding Article 18 and paragraph 4 of Article 23.

The Government of Sweden would like to recall 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 this declaration made by the Government of Mauritania in substance constitutes a reservation.

The reservations make general references to the Islamic Sharia. The Government of Sweden is of the view that the reservations which do not clearly specify the extent of Mauritania's derogation from the provisions in question raises serious doubts as to the commitment of Mauritania to the object and purpose of the Covenant. In addition, article 18 of the Covenant is among the provisions from which no derogation is allowed, according to article 4 of the Covenant.

The Government of Sweden wishes to recall that, 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. It is in the common interest of States that all parties respect treaties to which they have chosen to become parties 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 Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and considers the reservation null and void. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Mauritania and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Mauritania benefiting from its reservation."

18 September 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:

"...the Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Maldives on 19 September 2006 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of Sweden notes that the Maldives gives precedence to its Constitution over the application of article 18 of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden is of the view that this reservation, which does not clearly specify the extent of the Maldives' derogation from the provision in question, raises serious doubt as to the commitment of the Maldives to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

According to international customary 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. 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 Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and considers the reservation null and void. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Maldives and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the Maldives and Sweden, without the Maldives benefiting from its reservation."

22 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"The Government of Sweden is of the view that these reservations raise serious doubt as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Covenant, as the reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of their effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof.

The Government of Sweden furthermore notes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 40 of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden is of the view that the reporting mechanism is a procedural requirement of the Covenant, an integral undertaking of its States Parties and that the reservation is likely to undermine the international human rights treaty body system. Thus, the reservation to article 40 is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

According to international customary 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. 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 Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and considers the reservations null and void.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Pakistan and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between Pakistan and Sweden, without Pakistan benefiting from these reservations."

Switzerland

28 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

Concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966:

"The Swiss Federal Council has examined the reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon its accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, with regard to articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 of the Covenant.

The reservations to the articles, which refer to the provisions of domestic law and Islamic Sharia law, do not specify their scope and raise doubts about the ability of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to honour its obligations as a party to the Covenant. Furthermore, the Swiss Federal Council emphasizes that the third sentence of article 6, paragraph 1; article 7; and article 18, paragraph 2, constitute jus cogens and therefore enjoy absolute protection.

A general reservation to article 40, a key provision of the Covenant, raises serious doubts as to the compatibility of such a reservation with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 prohibits any reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty.

Consequently, the Swiss Federal Council objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966.

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

17 May 2019

WIth regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

The Swiss Federal Council has examined the reservations and declarations made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966.

The Swiss Federal Council considers that the declarations concerning articles 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (2) of the Covenant amount in fact to reservations. Reservations subjecting all or part of articles 3, 7, 18 (2), 22 and 23 (3) and (4) of the Covenant in general terms to Sharia law and/or national legislation constitute reservations of general scope which raise doubts about the full commitment of the State of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Swiss Federal Council recalls that, according to sub-paragraph (c) of article 19 of the Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 on the law of treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant are not permitted.

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

Henceforth, the Swiss Federal Council objects to these reservations by the State of Qatar. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant, in its entirety, between Switzerland and the State of Qatar.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

24 May 1991

With regard to the reservations made by the Republic of Korea upon accession:

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

17 August 2005

With regard to the declarations made by Mauritania upon accession:

"The Government of the United Kingdom have examined the Declaration made by the Government of Mauritania to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (done at New York on 16 December 1966) on 17 November 2004 in respect of Articles 18 and 23 (4).

The Government of the United Kingdom consider that the Government of Mauritania's declaration that:

"The Mauritanian Government, while accepting the provisions set out in article 18 concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion, declares that their application shall be without prejudice to the Islamic Shariah. ...

The Mauritanian Government interprets the provisions of article 23, paragraph 4, on the rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage as not affecting in any way the prescriptions of the Islamic Shariah" is a reservation which seeks to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis. The Government of the United Kingdom note that the Mauritanian reservation specifies particular provisions of the Convention Articles to which the reservation is addressed. Nevertheless this reservation does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving Sta has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Mauritania.

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

6 September 2007

With regard to the reservation made by Maldives upon accession:

"The Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General and has the honour to refer to the reservation made by the Government of the Maldives to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which reads:

"The application of the principles set out in Article 18 [freedom of thought, conscience and religion] of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of the Maldives."

In the view of the United Kingdom a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. A reservation which consists of a general reference to a constitutional provision without specifying its implications does not do so. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to the reservation made by the Government of the Maldives.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the United Kingdom and the Maldives."

28 June 2011

With regard to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has examined the reservations made by the Government of Pakistan to the [International] Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights] on 23 June 2010, which read:

1. [The] Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws.

2. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 12 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan.

3. With respect to Article 13, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners.

4. [The] Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that the provisions of Articles 25 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan.

5. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant.

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

In addition, the United Kingdom considers that the reporting mechanism enshrined in Article 40 is an essential procedural requirement of the Covenant, and an integral undertaking of States Parties to the Covenant.

The Government of the United Kingdom therefore objects to the reservations made by the Government of Pakistan.

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 Covenant."

21 May 2019

With regard to the reservations and statements made by Qatar upon accession:

"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has examined the declarations made by the Government of the State of Qatar to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("the Covenant"), done at New York on 16 December 1966, which read:

Declarations

1. The State of Qatar shall interpret the term "punishment" in Article 7 of the Covenant in accordance with the applicable legislation of Qatar and the Islamic Sharia.

2. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Covenant based on the understanding that it does not contravene the Islamic Sharia.

The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such paragraph in accordance with such understanding.

3. The State of Qatar shall interpret that the term "trade unions" and all related matters, as mentioned in Article 22 of the Covenant, are in line with the Labor Law and national legislation. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such article in accordance with such understanding.

4. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant in a manner that does not contravene the Islamic Sharia. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement such paragraph in accordance with such understanding.

5. The State of Qatar shall interpret Article 27 of the Covenant that professing and practicing one's own religion require that they do not violate the rules of public order and public morals, the protection of public safety and public health, or the rights of and basic freedoms of others.

The Government of the United Kingdom considers that the Government of the State of Qatar's declarations in respect of Article 7; Article 18, paragraph 2; Article 22; Article 23 and Article 27 are reservations which seek to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis. The Government of the United Kingdom notes that a reservation to a convention which consists of a general reference to national law or a system of law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for the other States Parties to a convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the convention. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations.

These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the State of Qatar."

United States of America

29 June 2011

Objection to the reservations made by Pakistan upon ratification:

"The Government of the United States of America objects to Pakistan's reservations to the ICCPR. Pakistan has reserved to Articles 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 25 of the Covenant, which address the equal right of men and women to the full enjoyment of civil and political rights, the right to life, protections from torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, freedom of movement, expulsion of aliens, the freedoms of thought, conscious and religion, the freedom of expression, and the right to take part in political affairs. Pakistan has also reserved to Article 40, which provides for a process whereby States Parties submit periodic reports on their implementation of the Covenant when so requested by the Human Rights Committee (HRC). These reservations raise serious concerns because they both obscure the extent to which Pakistan intends to modify its substantive obligations under the Covenant and also foreclose the ability of other Parties to evaluate Pakistan's implementation through periodic reporting. As a result, the United States considers the totality of Pakistan's reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between the United States and Pakistan, and the aforementioned articles shall apply between our two states, except to the extent of Pakistan's reservations."

Uruguay

23 June 2011

With regard to a reservation made by Pakistan upon ratification:

The Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay considers that the oversight procedures established by international human rights agreements are an essential tool for monitoring and determining the degree to which States Parties are complying with their obligations and an integral part of the system for the international protection of human rights. Rejecting the competence of the Committee to request, receive and consider reports from the State Party thwarts the aim of promoting universal and effective respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as set forth in the preamble of the Covenant.

Accordingly, the Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay objects to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with respect to article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Covenant between the Eastern Republic of Uruguay and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Declarations recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee under article 41 <46> (Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations were made upon ratification, accession or succession.)

Algeria

[The Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Algeria] recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

Argentina

The instrument contains a declaration under article 41 of the Covenant by which the Government of Argentina recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established by virtue of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Australia

28 January 1993

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

Austria

10 September 1978

[The Government of the Republic of Austria] declares under article 41 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that Austria recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Belarus

30 September 1992

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

Belgium

5 March 1987

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

18 June 1987

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

Bosnia and Herzegovina

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

Bulgaria

12 May 1993

"The Republic of Bulgaria declares that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."

Canada

29 October 1979

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

Chile

7 September 1990

As from the date of this instrument, the Government of Chile recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with article 41 thereof, with regard to all actions which may have been initiated since 11 March 1990.

Congo

6 July 1989

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

Croatia

12 October 1995

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

Czech Republic <7>

Denmark

19 April 1983

"[The Government of Denmark] recognizes, in accordance with article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature in New York on December 19, 1966, the competence of the Committee referred to in article 41 to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."

Ecuador

6 August 1984

The Government of Ecuador recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the aforementioned Covenant, as provided for in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of that article.

This recognition of competence is effective for an indefinite period and is subject to the provisions of article 41, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Finland

"Finland declares, under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the said Covenant, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Covenant."

Gambia

9 June 1988

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

Germany <9>, <47>

27 December 2001

The Federal Republic of Germany now recognizes for an unlimited period the competence of the Human Rights Committee under Article 41(1) of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that at State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

Ghana

7 September 2000

"The Government of the Republic of Ghana recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee 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 at least twelve months before Ghana becomes officially registered as Party to the Covenant.

[The Government of the Republic of Ghana] interprets Article 41 as giving the Human Rights Committee the competence to receive and consider complaints in respect of violations by the Republic of any rights set forth in the said Covenant which result from decisions, acts, commissions, developments or events occurring AFTER the date on which Ghana becomes officially regarded as party to the said Covenant and shall not apply to decisions, acts, omissions, developments or events occurring before that date."

Guinea-Bissau

24 September 2013

Recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and examine communications in which a Party claims that another Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the present Covenant, signed by Guinea-Bissau on 12 September, 2000, and for which the instrument of ratification was deposited by Guinea-Bissau on 1 November 2010.

Guyana

10 May 1993

"The Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana hereby declares that it recognises the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the aforementioned Covenant."

Hungary

7 September 1988

The Hungarian People's Republic [...] recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

Iceland

22 August 1979

"The Government of Iceland [...] recognizes in accordance with article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."

Ireland

"The Government of Ireland hereby declare that in accordance with article 41 they recognise the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under article 28 of the Covenant."

Italy

15 September 1978

The Italian Republic recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee, elected in accordance with article 28 of the Covenant, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

Liechtenstein

"The Principality of Liechtenstein declares under article 41 of the Covenant to recognize the competence of the Human Rights Committee, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."

Luxembourg

18 August 1983

"The Government of Luxembourg recognizes, in accordance with article 41, the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."

Malta

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

Netherlands (Kingdom of the)

11 December 1978

"The Kingdom of the Netherlands declares under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."

New Zealand

28 December 1978

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

Norway

31 August 1972

"Norway recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."

Peru

9 April 1984

Peru recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with article 41 of the said Covenant.

Philippines

"The Philippine Government, in accordance with article 41 of the said Covenant, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee set up in the aforesaid Covenant, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."

Poland

25 September 1990

"The Republic of Poland recognizes, in accordance with article 41, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."

Republic of Korea

[The Government of the Republic of Korea] recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee under article 41 of the Covenant.

Russian Federation

1 October 1991

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

San Marino

4 August 2015

"The Republic of San Marino declares, in accordance with article 41 of the Covenant, that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."

Senegal

5 January 1981

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

Slovakia <7>

Slovenia

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

South Africa

"The Republic of South Africa declares that it recognises, for the purposes of article 41 of the Covenant, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under present the Covenant."

Spain <48>

11 March 1998

The Government of Spain declares that, under the provisions of article 41 of the [Covenant], it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

Sri Lanka

"The Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka declares under article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant, from another State Party which has similarly declared under article 41 its recognition of the Committee's competence in respect to itself."

Sweden

26 November 1971

"Sweden recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee referred to in article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant."

Switzerland

18 June 1992

Switzerland declares, pursuant to article 41, that it shall recognize, for a period of five years, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and to consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the present Covenant.

25 April 1997

The Swiss Government declares, pursuant to article 41 (1) of the [said Covenant], that it shall recognize for a further period of five years, as from 18 September 1997, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the present Covenant.

11 May 2010

"...the Swiss Federal Council declares, pursuant to article 41 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, that it recognizes for a further period of five years, beginning on 16 April 2010, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from States parties concerning non-compliance by other States parties with the obligations arising under the Covenant."

27 March 2017

...Switzerland, pursuant to article 41 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee, for a period of five years from the present notification, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

24 January 2022

...Switzerland, pursuant to article 41 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee, for a period of five years from the present notification, to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

(This declaration replaces the one transmitted to the Secretary-General on 27 March 2017 and is in effect for five years from 24 January 2022.)

Tunisia

24 June 1993

The Government of the Republic of Tunisia declares that it recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under article 28 of the [said Covenant]..., to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that the Republic of Tunisia is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

The State Party submitting such communications to the Committee must have made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee under article 41 of the [said Covenant].

Ukraine

28 July 1992

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

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

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

United States of America

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

Zimbabwe

20 August 1991 <*>

"The Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe recognizes with effect from today's date, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another state party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant [provided that such State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication relating to Zimbabwe, made a declaration under article 41 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications relating to itself]." (<*> The text between brackets was received at the Secretariat on 27 January 1993.)"

Notifications under Article 4 (3) of the Covenant (Derogations) (Taking into account the important number of these declarations, and in order not to increase excessively the number of pages of the present publication, the text of the notifications has in some cases, exceptionally, been abridged. Unless otherwise indicated, when the notification concerns an extension, the said extension affects those articles of the Covenant originally derogated from, and was decided for the same reasons. The date on the right hand, above the notification, is the date of receipt.)

Algeria

19 June 1991

In view of public disturbances and the threat of deterioration of the situation [...] a state of siege has been proclaimed, beginning at midnight in the night of 4/5 June 1991, for a period of four months throughout Algerian territory.

The Government of Algeria subsequently specified that these disturbances had been fomented with a view of preventing the general elections to be held on 27 June 1991 and to challenge the ongoing democratic process; and that in view of the insurrectional situation which threatened the stability of the institutions, the security of the people and their property, and the normal operation of the public services, it had been necessary to derogate from the provisions of articles 9 (3), 12 (1), 17, 19 (2) and 21 of the Covenant.

The said state of siege was terminated throughout Algeria on 29 September 1991.

14 February 1992

(Dated 13 February 1992)

In view of the serious threats to public order and the safety of individuals over the past few weeks, the growth of such threats during the month of February 1992 and the dangers of aggravation of the situation, the President of the High State Council, [...], has issued Presidential decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992, decreeing a state of emergency, throughout the national territory, with effect from 9 February 1992 at 2000 hours for a duration of twelve months, in accordance with articles 67, 74 and 76 of the Algerian Constitution. [The Government of Algeria has specified that the articles of the Covenant which are derogated from are articles 9(3), 12, 17 and 21].

The establishment of the state of emergency, which is aimed essentially at restoring public order, protecting the safety of individuals and public services, does not interfere with the democratic process inasmuch as the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms continues to be guarantied.

The state of emergency may, however, be lifted ahead of schedule, once the situation which prompted its establishment has been resolved and normal conditions of life in the nation have been restored.

25 February 2011

...by Presidential Ordinance No. 11-01 of 23 February 2011, the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria has lifted the state of emergency.

[The] [s]aid Ordinance [...] repealed Legislative Decree No. 93-02 of 6 February 1993 extending the duration of the state of emergency established by Presidential Decree No. 92-44 of 9 February 1992...

Argentina

7 June 1989

(Dated 7 June 1989)

Proclamation of the state of siege throughout the national territory for a period of 30 days in response to events [attacks and looting of retail shops, vandalism, use of firearms] whose seriousness jeopardizes the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the entire community. (Derogation from articles 9 and 21.)

12 July 1989

(Dated 11 July 1989)

Termination of the state of siege as from 27 June 1989 throughout the national territory.

26 December 2001

(Dated 21 December 2001)

By decree No. 1678/2001 of 19 December 2001, proclamation of a State of siege for 30 days in the territory of Argentina.

By decree No. 1689/2001 of 21 December 2001, suspension of the State of siege declared by Decree No. 1678/2001.

(Dated 23 December 2001)

By Decrees Nos. 16, 18 and 20/2001 of 21 December 2001, declaration of a 10-day siege in the provinces of Buenos Aires, Entre Rios and San Juan.

4 January 2002

(Dated 4 January 2002)

Cessation, as from 31 December 2001, of martial law that had been imposed in the provinces of Buenos Aires, Entre Rios and San Juan.

21 January 2002

(Dated 18 January 2002)

Communication concerning the state of siege declared by Decree No. 1678/2001 and the lifting of the state of siege by Decreee No. 1689/2001; and the state of siege declared by Decrees Nos. 16/2002, 18/2001 and 20/2001 and the cessation of the state of siege. [For the text of the communication, see depositary notification C.N.179.2002.TREATIES-3 of 27 February 2002.]

1 June 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Argentina a notification dated 29 May 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the entire territory of Argentina.

(See C.N.189.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 11 June 2020 for the text of the notification.)

10 September 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Argentina a notification dated 9 September 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of a health state of emergency in the entire territory of Argentina.

(See C.N.273.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 14 September 2021for the text of the notification.)

Armenia

6 March 2008

..., in connection with the Decree of the President of the Republic of Armenia on Declaration of the State of Emergency in conformity with Article 55 paragraph 14 and Article 117 paragraph 6 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, dated 1 March 2008, and pursuant to Article 4 paragraph 3 of the Covenant, availed itself of the right of derogation from or limitation of application of the following provisions of the Covenant: Article 12 paragraph 1; Article 17 paragraph 1; Article 19 paragraphs 1 - 2; Article 21; Article 22 paragraph 1.

The above decree extends the state of emergency to the city of Yerevan for a period of 20 days in order to prevent the threat of danger to the constitutional order in the Republic of Armenia and protect the rights and legal interests of the population, following the mass disorders, resulting in human losses, personal injury and considerable material damage, which took place in Yerevan on 1 March 2008.

11 March 2008

Amendments in NH-35-N Decree of 1 March 2008

Guided by point 14 of Article 55 and point 6 of Article 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, I decree:

• 1. To declare null and void points 6 and 7 of paragraph 4 of the NH-35-N Decree of the President of the Republic of Armenia on Declaration of State of Emergency of 1 March 2008.
• 2. The decree comes into force from the moment of its announcement.

President of the Republic of Armenia

R. Kocharian

20 March 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of the Republic of Armenia a notification dated 20 March 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration on 16 March 2020 of a 30-day state of emergency throughout the country starting from 18:30 of March 16, 2020, local time, by decree 928-N.

(See C.N.114.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 27 March 2020 for the text of the notification.)

17 April 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of the Republic of Armenia a notification dated 17 April 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration on 16 March 2020 of a 30-day state of emergency throughout the country starting from 18:30 of March 16, 2020, local time, by decree 928-N, notifying the extension until 14 May 2020 of the state of emergency by decree 543-N of 13 April 2020.

(See C.N.132.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 20 April 2020 for the text of the notification.)

15 May 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of the Republic of Armenia a notification dated 15 May 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension, by Decree 729-N of 14 May 2020, of the state of emergency throughout the country until 13 June 2020.

(See C.N.167.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 18 May 2020 for the text of the notification.)

15 May 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of the Republic of Armenia a notification dated 12 June 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension, by Decree 933-N of 12 June 2020, of the state of emergency throughout the country until 13 July 2020.

(See C.N.203.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 16 June 2020 for the text of the notification.)

14 July 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of the Republic of Armenia a notification dated 14 July 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension, by Decree 1161-N of 13 July 2020, of the state of emergency throughout the country until 12 August 2020.

(See C.N.304.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 14 July 2020 for the text of the notification.)

16 September 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of the Republic of Armenia a notification dated 16 September 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the termination of the state of emergency throughout the country as of 11 September 2020.

(See C.N.399.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 16 September 2020 for the text of the notification.)

5 October 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of the Republic of Armenia a notification dated 5 October 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of martial law in the entire territory of the Republic of Armenia on 27 September 2020 by decree 1586-N.

(See C.N.431.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 6 October 2020 for the text of the notification.)

Azerbaijan

16 April 1993

Proclamation of the state of emergency for a period of 60 days as from 6 a.m. on 3 April 1993 until 6 a.m. on 3 June 1993 in the territory of the Azerbaijani Republic. The Government of the Azerbaijani Republic declared that the measures were taken as a result of the escalating aggression by the armed forces of Armenia threatening the very existence of the Azerbaijani State.

(Derogation from articles 9, 12, 19, 21 and 22.)

Extension of the State of emergency for a period of 60 days as from 2 August 1993.

27 September 1993

Lifting of the state of emergency proclaimed on 2 April 1993 as from 22 September 1993.

7 October 1994

(Dated 5 October 1994)

Proclamation of a 60 day state of emergency in Baku by Decree of the President of 4 October 1994 with effect from 20 hours on 4 October 1994 owing to the fact that in September 1994, terrorist groups wounded two prominent Azerbaijani politicians followed by a series of terrorist acts in densely populated districts of the city which caused loss of life. These acts, designed to destabilize the social and political situation in the country were preliminary to the subsequent direct attempt to overthrow by force of arms the constitutional order of the Azerbaijani Republic and the country's democratically elected leader.

The Government of Azerbaijan specifed that the rights set forth in articles 9, 12, 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant were derogated from.

27 October 1994

(Dated 21 October 1994)

Declaration of a state of emergency in the city of Gyanja for a period of 60 days as from 11 October 1994 by Decree of the President of the Azerbaijani Republic dated 10 October 1994 following an attempted coup d'état in Gyanja since on 4 October 1994, control of the organs of State was seized by criminal groups and acts of violence were perpetrated against the civilian population. This action was the latest in a series of terrorist acts designed to destabilizethe situation in Baku. A number of the criminals involved in the insurrection are continuing their activities directed against the state system of Azerbaijan and are endeavouring to disrupt public order in the city of Gyanja.

It was specified that the rights set forth in articles 9, 12, 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant were derogated from.

15 December 1994

(Dated 13 December 1994)

Extension of the state of emergency in Baku, as from 2000 hours on 4 December 1994 in view of the incomplete elimination of the causes that served as the basis for its imposition.

20 December 1994

(Dated 17 December 1994)

Extension of the state of emergency in the town of Gyandzha for a period of 60 days as from 2400 hours on 11 December 1994 in view of the incomplete elimination of the causes that served as the basis for its imposition.

23 February 1995

(Dated 23 February 1995)

First notification:

By Decree by the President of the Republic dated 2 February 1995, extension of the state of emergency in Baku, for a period of 60 days, as from 2300 hours on 2 February 1995.

Second notification:

By Decree by the President of the Republic dated 2 February 1995 on the extension of the state of emergency in the town of Gyandzha, for a period of 60 days, as from 2400 hours on 9 February 1995.

The extension of the state of emergency in Baku and Gyandzha has been declared, as indicated by the Government of Azerbaijan, bearing in mind the need to maintain social order, to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens and to restore legality and law and order and in view of the incomplete elimination of the causes that served as the basis for the imposition in October 1994 of the state of emergency in the cities of Baku and Gyandzha.

It is recalled that the provisions from which it has been derogated are articles 9, 12, 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant.

17 April 1995

(Dated 8 April 1995)

Extension of the state of emergency in Baku fora period of 60 days, by Decree of the President of the Republic dated 2 April 1995 as from 2000 hours on 3 April 1995. The extension of the state of emergency in Baku has been declared, as indicated by the Government of Azerbaijan, due to an attempted coup d'état which took place on 13 - 17 March 1995 in the city of Baku and to the fact that notwithstanding the suppression of the rebellion, criminal elements in the city of Baku are continuing activities inconsistent with the will of the people and endeavouring to disrupt public order. The Government of Azerbaijan also confirmed that the extension was decided in order to protect the constitutional order of the country, to maintain public order in the city of Baku, to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens and to restore legality and law and order.

21 April 1995

(Dated 17 April 1995)

Termination, as from 11 April 1995, on the basis of a decision of the Milli Mejlis (Parliament) of the Azerbaijani Republic dated 11 April 1995, of the State of emergency in the city of Gyanja declared on 11 October 1994.

29 September 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan a notification dated 28 September 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of martial law in the entire territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan on 28 September 2020 by Decree No. 1166 of 27 September 2020.

(See C.N.575.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 31 December 2020 for the text of the notification.)

16 December 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan a notification dated 15 December 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the end of martial law throughout the country on 12 December 2020.

(See C.N.576.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 31 December 2020 for the text of the notification.)

Bahrain

12 May 2011

"...His Majesty King Hamad bin Issa Al Khalifa, King of the Kingdom of Bahrain, issued a Royal Decree 39 for the year 2011 on 08 May 2011, lifting the State of National Safety, effective 01 June 2011."

28 April 2011

By Royal Decree No. 18 of 2011, the Kingdom of Bahrain declared a State of National Safety on 15 March 2011, for a period of three months in order to address and overcome the threat to the security, economy and society of Bahrain and its people. Bahrain invoked its right under article 4 of the Convenant to take measures derogating from Articles 9, 12, 13, 17, 21 and 22 of the Covenant.

13 June 2011

...by Royal Decree No. 39 of 2011, the State of National Safety, declared by Royal Decree No. 18 of 2011, was lifted with effect from 1 June 2011, and that accordingly the derogations from the Covenant terminated from the same date.

Bolivia (Plurinational State of)

8 March 2010

...by Supreme Decree No. 29705 of 12 September 2008, the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia declared a state of emergency throughout the territorial jurisdiction of the Department of Pando in response to crimes against humanity which caused the deaths of citizens, the violent seizure of public and private institutions, the destruction of State property, road damage and roadblocks, and public disorder that generated public unrest and insecurity and caused massive disturbance in the Department of Pando in accordance with the provisions of article 111 of its Political Constitution.

8 March 2010

...by Supreme Decree No. 29809 of 22 November 2008, the Government of the Purinational State of Bolivia lifted the state of emergency in the Department of Pando declared by Supreme Decree No. 29705 of 12 September 2008.

22 June 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia a notification dated 20 June 2026, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency throughout the national territory by Supreme Decree No. 5636 of 20 June 2026 for a period of 90 calendar days, to be counted from the date of publication of said decree.

(See depositary notification C.N.262.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 29 June 2026 for the text of the notification.)

Burkina Faso

18 April 2019

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Burkina Faso a notification dated 17 April 2019, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration, by Decree N o. 2018-1200/PRES of 31 December 2018, of a state of emergency in 14 provinces in the country, with effect from 1 January 2019, and its extension for a period of six months, from 13 January to 12 July 2019, pursuant to Act N o. 001-2019/AN of 11 January 2019.

(See C.N.148.2019.TREATIES-IV-4 of 29 April 2019 for the text of the notification.)

Chile

7 September 1976

[Chile] has been under a state of siege for reasons of internal defence since 11 March 1976; the state of siege was legally proclaimed by Legislative Decree No. 1.369.

The proclamation was made in accordance with the constitutional provisions concerning state of siege, which have been in force since 1925, in view of the inescapable duty of the government authorities to preserve public order and the fact that there continue to exist in Chile extremist seditious groups whose aim is to overthrow the established Government.

As a consequence of the proclamation of the state of siege, the rights referred to in articles 9, 12, 13, 19 and 25 (b) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been restricted in Chile.

23 September 1986

(Dated 16 September 1986)

By Decree No. 1.037, the Government of Chile declared a state of siege throughout the national territory from 8 September to 6 December 1986, for as long as circumstances warrant. The notification specifies that Chile has been subjected to a wave of terrorist aggression of alarming proportions, that an alarming number of attacks have taken the lives of a significant number of citizens and armed forces personnel, massive stockpiles of weapons were discovered in terrorists hands, and that for the first time in the history of the Republic, a terrorist attack was launched on H.E. the President of the Republic.

The notification specifies that the rights set forth in articles 9, 12, 13 and 19 of the Covenant would be derogated from.

29 October 1986

(Dated 28 October 1986)

Termination of State of siege by Decree No. 1074 of 26 September 1986 in the Eleventh Region and by Decree No. 1155 of 16 October 1986 in the 12th Region (with the exception of the Commune of Punta Arenas), in the Province of Chiloé in the Tenth Region, and in the Province of Parinacota in the First Region.

20 November 1986

(Dated 20 November 1986)

Termination of the state siege in the Provinces of Cardenal Caro in the 6th Region, Arauco in the 8th Region and Palena in the 10th Region.

29 January 1987

(Dated 20 January 1987)

Termination of the state of siege throughout Chile as at 6 January 1987.

31 August 1988

Termination of the state of emergency and of the state of danger of disturbance of the domestic peace in Chile as from 27 August 1988, [...] thereby bringing to an end all states of ex ception in the country, which is now in a situation of full legal normality.

23 March 2010

Owing to the earthquake that took place in Chile on 27 February 2010, the Government of Chile decreed a 30-day constitutional state of disaster emergency in the regions of Maule and Bío Bío , by Supreme Decrees Nos. 152 and 153 of 28 February 2010, respectively. In addition, by Supreme Decree No. 173, a constitutional state of disaster emergency was declared by the Government of Chile in the Libertador Bernardo O'Higgins region. Under these measures, the President of the Republic may restrict fundamental freedoms. The freedoms that may be restricted are freedom and movement and of assembly. Goods may be requisitioned and property rights limited in accordance with article 43 of the Constitution.

25 March 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Chile a notification dated 25 March 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the entire territory of Chile for a period of 90 days starting on 19 March 2020, by Decree No. 104 dated 18 March 2020.

(See C.N.128.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 9 April 2020 for the text of the notification.)

18 June 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Chile a notification dated 18 June 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of emergency in the Chilean territory for a period of 90 days pursuant to Decree No. 269 issued on 12 June 2019.

(See C.N.263.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 26 June 2020 for the text of the notification.)

17 September 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Chile a notification dated 17 September 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of emergency in the Chilean territory for a period of 90 days pursuant to Decree No. 400 issued on 10 september 2020.

(See C.N.410.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 25 september 2020 for the text of the notification.)

23 December 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Chile a notification dated 15 December 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of emergency in the Chilean territory for a period of 90 days pursuant to Decree No. 646 issued on 9 december 2020.

(See C.N.571.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 24 December 2020 for the text of the notification.)

14 August 2023

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Chile a notification dated 14 August 2023, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of the state of emergency in the Chilean territory since 17 May 2022, pursuant to Supreme Decree No. 189 of 2022, and its extensions. The extensions have been ordered for consecutive periods of 15 days, by Supreme Decrees Nos. 199, 214, 219, 223, 231, 242, 245, 270, 285, 296, 307, 320, 335, 356 and 365 of 2022, and Nos. 12, 40, 47, 81, 93, 100, 112, 122, 134, 143, 158, 166, 182, 192 and 203 of 2023, all issued by the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security. In addition, the aforementioned Supreme Decree No. 189 was amended by Supreme Decrees Nos. 262 of 2022 and 156 of 2023.

The latest extension, declared by Supreme Decree No. 203 of 9 August 2023 for an additional period of 15 days from the end of the period established by the previous extension, is in force up to 24 August 2023.

(See C.N.464.2023.TREATIES-IV.4 of 9 November 2023 for the text of the notification.)

13 October 2023

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Chile a notification dated 13 October 2023, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of emergency in the Chilean territory declared on 17 May 2022 pursuant to Supreme Decree No. 189 of 2022.

The aforementioned state of emergency was extended, with the agreement of the National Congress, for periods of 15 days, through Supreme Decrees Nos. 221, 229, 239 and 256 of 2023, all issued by the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security. The latest extension, ordered by Supreme Decree No. 256 of 6 October 2023, issued by the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, is for an additional period of 15 days from the end of the period established by the previous extension, that is, up to 23 October 2023.

On 8 November 2023, the Permanent Mission of Chile provided the following additional information:

• Supreme Decree No. 221 extended the state of emergency from 25 August to 8 September 2023;
• Supreme Decree No. 229 extended the state of emergency from 9 to 23 September 2023;
• Supreme Decree No. 239 extended the state of emergency from 24 September to 8 October 2023; and
• Supreme Decree No. 256 extended the state of emergency from 9 to 23 October 2023.

(See C.N.465.2023.TREATIES-IV.4 of 9 November 2023 for the text of the notification.)

28 December 2023

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Chile a notification dated 28 December 2023, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of emergency in the Araucanнa Region and in the Arauco and Biobнo Provinces of the Biobнo Region declared on 17 May 2022 pursuant to Supreme Decree No. 189 of 2022.

The aforementioned state of emergency was extended, with the agreement of the National Congress, for consecutive periods of 15 days, through Supreme Decrees Nos. 265, 293, 339, 354 and 379 of 2023, all issued by the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security. The latest extension was declared by Supreme Decree No. 379 of 22 December 2023, issued by the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, and is for an additional period of 15 days from the end of the period established by the previous extension, that is, up to 7 January 2024.

(See C.N.535.2023.TREATIES-IV.4 of 3 January 2024 for the text of the notification.)

6 February 2024

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Chile a notification dated 6 February 2024, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the provinces of Marga Marga and Valparaнso of the Valparaнso Region, by supreme decree No. 83 of the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security published on 3 February 2024, for a period of 30 days ending on 4 March 2024 in response to the forest fires in the area.

(See C.N.66.2024.TREATIES-IV.4 of 9 February 2024 for the text of the notification.)

1 March 2024

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Chile a notification dated 1 March 2024, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the further extension of the state of emergency in the Araucanнa Region and in the Arauco and Biobнo Provinces of the Biobнo Region for two consecutive periods of 30 days from the expiration of the period provided for in the previous extensions, i.e., until 7 March 2024, through Supreme Decrees Nos. 29 and 81 issued by the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security.

(See C.N.88.2024.TREATIES-IV.4 of 11 March 2024 for the text of the notification.)

2 May 2024

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Chile a notification dated 2 May 2024, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the further extension of the state of emergency in the Araucanнa Region and in the Arauco and Biobнo Provinces of the Biobнo Region for two consecutive periods of 30 days from the expiration of the period provided for in the previous extensions, i.e., until 6 May 2024, through Supreme Decrees Nos. 127 and 150 issued by the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security.

(See C.N.155.2024.TREATIES-IV.4 of 8 May 2024 for the text of the notification.)

28 February 2025

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Chile a notification dated 13 February 2025, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the further extension of the constitutional state of emergency in the areas indicated, and the temporary suspension of the right to liberty of movement, as provided for in article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

(See C.N.114.2025.TREATIES-IV.4 of 10 March 2025 for the text of the notification.)

3 March 2025

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Chile a notification dated 26 February 2025, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the establishment a constitutional state of emergency in the areas indicated, and the temporary suspension of the right to liberty of movement and the right of assembly, as provided for in articles 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

(See C.N.135.2025.TREATIES-IV.4 of 17 March 2025 for the text of the notification.)

21 January 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Chile a notification dated 20 January 2025, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the establishment a constitutional state of emergency for a period of 30 days in the areas indicated in response to forest fires. The liberty of movement, as provided for in article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may be restricted.

(See C.N.63.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 23 January 2026 for the text of the notification.)

18 February 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Chile a notification dated 18 Febuary 2025, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension for thirty days of a constitutional state of emergency in the areas indicated in response to forest fires.

(See C.N.92.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 24 February 2026 for the text of the notification.)

Colombia

18 July 1980

The Government, by Decree 2131 of 1976, declared that public order had been disturbed and that all of the national territory was in a state of siege, the requirements of the Constitution having been fulfilled, and that in the face of serious events that disturbed the public peace, it had become necessary to adopt extraordinary measures within the framework of the legal régime provided for in the National Constitution for such situations (art. 121 of the National Constitution). The events disturbing the public peace that led the President of the Republic to take that decision are a matter of public knowledge. Under the state of siege (art. 121 of the National Constitution) the Government is empowered to suspend, for the duration of the state of siege, those provisions that are incompatible with the maintenance and restoration of public order.

On many occasions the President of the Republic has informed the country of his desire to terminate the state of siege when the necessary circumstances prevail.

It should be observed that, during the state of siege in Colombia, the institutional order has remained unchanged, with the Congress and all public bodies functioning normally. Public freedoms were fully respected during the most recent elections, both the election of the President of the Republic and the election of members of elective bodies.

11 October 1982

By Decree No. 1674 of 9 June 1982, the state of siege was terminated on 20 June of 1982.

11 April 1984

(Dated 30 March 1984)

The Government of Colombia had declared a breach of the peace and a state of siege in the territory of the Departments of Caquetá , Huila, Meta and Cauca in response to the activities in those Departments of armed groups which wereseeking to undermine the constitutional system by means of repeated publidisturbances.

Further to Decree No. 615, Decree Nos. 666, 667, 668, 669 and 670 had been enacted on 21 March 1984 to restrict certainreedoms and to take other measures aimed at restoring public order. (For the provisions which were derogated from, see in fine notification of 8 June 1984 hereinafter.)

8 June 1984

(Dated 7 May 1984)

The Government of Colombia indicated that it had, through Decree No. 1038 of 1 May 1984, declared a state of siege in the territory of the Republic of Colombia owing to the assassination in April of the Minister of Justice and to recent disturbances of the public order that occurred in the cities of Bogotá , Cali, Barranquilla, Medellín , Acevedo (Department of Huila), Corinto (Department of Cauca), Sucre and Jordon Bajo (Department of Santander), Giraldo (Department of Antioquia) and Miraflores ( Comisaría of Guaviare).

Pursuant to the above-mentioned Decree No. 1038, the Government had issued Decrees Nos. 1039 and 1040 of 1 May 1984 and Decree No. 1042 of 2 May 1984, restricting certain freedoms and enacting other measures to restore public order. The Government of Colombia, in a subsequent communication dated 23 November 1984, indicated that the decrees affected the rights referred to in articles 12 and 21 of the Covenant.)

12 December 1984

(Dated 11 December 1984)

Termination of derogation from article 21.

13 August 1991

(Dated 9 August 1991)

Termination as of 7 July 1991 of the state of siege and of the measures adopted on 1 and 2 May 1984, which were still in force through the national territory.

21 July 1992

(Dated 16 July 1992)

By Legislative Decree No. 1155 of 10 July 1992, which was to remain in force until 16 July 1992, the Government of Colombia declared a state of emergency throughout the national territory... The state of emergency was proclaimed in order to preserve public order by preventing the cartels responsible for the most serious assaults on public order from evading justice. The prospect of a torrent of releases on parole of persons, many of which "awaiting trial for a wide vari of terrorist activities, ...in addition to the acts perpetrated by the drug-trafficking cartels which might have taken place under the provisions of a newly promulgated Code of Penal Procedure", in disregard of the applicability of special legislation, was causing "serious disturbances of public order".

The provisions of the Pact which were derogated from are articles 12, 17, 21 and 22.

20 November 1992

(Dated 10 November 1992)

By legislative Decree No. 1793 of 8 November 1992 which was to remain in force until 6 February 1993, the Government of Colombia declared a state of emergency throughout the national territory for a period of 90 days... The state of emergency was due to the fact that "in recent weeks, the public order situation in the country... has grown significantly worse because of terrorist activities by gorilla organizations and organized crime... Those criminal groups have also managed to obstruct and evade judicial action because the criminal justice is unable to use military forces as a judicial police organ to gather the necessary evidence".

The provisions of the Pact which were derogated from are articles 12, 17, 21 and 22.

29 March 1993

(Dated 5 March 1993)

In accordance with Legislative Decree No. 261, extension for a period of 90 days from 5 February 1993 until 7 May 1993 of the state of emergencyin effect throughout the national territory. The extension was made necessary due to a continuation of the public order disturbances described above. The provisions of the Pact which were derogated from are articles 12, 17, 21 and 22.

27 May 1994

(Dated 6 May 1994)

By legislative Decree No. 874 of 1 May 1994 which is to remain in force until 10 May 1994, declaration of the state of emergency throughout the national territory for the following reasons:

Since November 1993, there has been a significant increase in the number of investigations carried out by the Procurator-General's Office. It has become necessary to take steps to ensure that the efforts made by the Procurator-General's Office to conclude on-going investigations are not hampered through improper situations such as obstructing an agreement, requesting the postponement of formal proceedings, etc.

The large number of cases in which prior circumstances have prevented characterisation within the stipulated time-limit constitutes an unforeseen situation which is generating social insecurity, public anxiety, a lack of trust in the administration of justice and strengthening of the criminal and guerilla warfare organizations committed to disrupting law and order and destabilizing the institutions of government.

In view of the foregoing, measures must be adopted to ensure that the difficulties that have arisen do not affect institutional stability, national security and civil harmony, a judicial emergency must be declared and consequently, transition measures must be adopted in the area of administration and penal procedure.

8 June 1994

(Dated 27 May 1994)

Termination of the state of civil unrest and extension of the applicability of the provisions relating to the judicial emergency. Pursuant to the Decree No. 874 of 1 May 1994 and in exercise of the powers conferred on the Government under article 213 of the Political Constitution, the Government enacted Legislative Decree No. 875 of 1 May 1994, "by means of which a judicial emergency has been declared and measures have been adopted with regard to penal procedure". Because of the declaration of judicial emergency, it was decided to suspend for two months, in respect of cases involving offences under the jurisdiction of regional and National Court judges, the time-limits established for obtaining release on bail.

By means of Decree No. 951 of 10 May 1994, measures were adopted to strengthen the functioning of the justice system.

The Government of Colombia has specified that the provision from which it has derogated is article 9 (3) of the Covenant.

7 November 1995

(Dated 3 November 1995)

By Decree No. 1900 of 2 November 1995, declaration of a State of internal disturbance throughout the national territory for a period of ninety (90) days. The state of internal disturbance by the National Government is justified by the fact that acts of violence attributed to criminal and terrorist organizations have occurred in difference regions of the country and are seriously and manifestly disturbing public order.

25 March 1996

(Dated 21 March 1996)

First notification:

By Legislative Decree No. 1901 of 2 November, the Government limits or restricts fundamental rights or freedoms laid down in the [said] Covenant.

Second notification:

By Decree No. 205 of 29 January 1996, the state of internal disturbance was extended for 90 calendar days, starting on 31 January 1996.

The Government of Colombia has specified that the provision from which it has derogated are articles 17 and 9 respectively of the Covenant.

7 May 1996

(Dated 21 March 1996)

Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Decree No. 0717 of 18 April 1996, the guarantee set forth in article 12 of the Covenant was to be restricted.

The measure was adopted in connection with Decree No. 1900 of 2 November 1995 whereby the state of internal disturbance was declared throughout the national territory (see notification of 7 November 1995 above).

21 June 1996

(Dated 18 June 1996)

First notification:

By Decree No. 777 of 29 April 1996, the state of internal disturbance (proclaimed by Decree No. 1900 of 2 November 1995) was extended for a further period of 90 calendar days, starting on 30 April 1996.

Second notification:

By Decree No. 900 of 22 May 1996, measures were adopted to control the activities of criminal and terrorist organizations in special public-order zones. The provisions of the Pact which were derogated from are articles 9 (1) and 12.

31 July 1996

(Dated 30 July 1996)

By Decree No. 1303 of 25 July 1996, lifting of the state of internal disturbance (proclaimed by Decree No. 1900 of 2 November 1995) and extension of some of the measures instituted by means of Decree No. 1901 of 2 November 1995, Decree No. 208 of 29 January 1996 and Decree No. 777 of 29 April 1996.

13 August 2002

(Dated 12 August 2002)

Transmission of Decree No. 1837 dated 11 August 2002, which declared a state of internal disturbance throughout the national territory, and Decree No. 1838 dated 11 August 2002, which introduced a special tax to meet the necessary expenditure under the country's General Budget to maintain democratic security.

19 November 2002

(Dated 8 November 2002)

Transmission of Decree No. 2555 dated 8 November 2002, which extended the state of internal disturbance declared by Decree 1837 of 11 August 2002 for ninety (90) calendar days, as from 9 November 2002.

25 February 2003

(Dated 12 February 2003)

Transmission Decree 245 of 5 February 2003, concerning the second extension of the declaration of internal disturbance decreed on 5 February 2003 throughout the national territory.

16 October 2008

..., by Legislative Decree No. 3929 of 9 October 2008, a nationwide state of internal disturbance has been declared for 90 days.

31 August 2010

Pursuant to the provision of article 16 of Law No. 137 of 1994 and in keeping with article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I [...] inform you of the issuance of Decree No. 2799 of 2010, "which partially amends Decrees Nos. 2693 and 2694 of 2010".

By means of this measure, a special category of goods excluded from sales tax is temporarily created, with the aim of benefiting those people affected by the situation that led to teh declaration of a social emergency...

25 March 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Colombia a notification dated 25 March 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency throughout the territory of Colombia for a period of 30 days starting on 17 March 2020, by Decree No. 417 of 2020.

(See C.N.131.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 20 April 2020 for the text of the notification.)

20 April 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Colombia a notification dated 17 April 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the expiration of the state of emergency throughout the territory of Colombia for a period of 30 days starting on 17 March 2020, by Decree No. 417 of 2020.

(See C.N.141.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 20 April 2020 for the text of the notification.)

7 May 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Colombia a notification dated 7 May 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the state of emergency throughout the territory of Colombia for a period of 30 days in effect from 6 May to 4 June 2020, by Decree No. 637 of 2020.

(See C.N.163.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 15 May 2020 for the text of the notification.)

5 June 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Colombia a notification dated 5 June 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the end of the state of emergency on 4 June 2020, at the end of Decree No. 637 of 2020.

(See C.N.200.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 15 June 2020 for the text of the notification.)

Dominican Republic

25 June 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of the Dominican Republic a notification dated 25 June 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding a declaration of a state of emergency in its entire territory.

(See C.N.279.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 7 July 2020 for the text of the notification.)

31 July 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of the Dominican Republic a notification dated 28 July 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding a declaration of a state of emergency for a period of 45 days starting on 20 July 2020 in its entire territory.

(See C.N.327.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 3 August 2020 for the text of the notification.)

8 September 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of the Dominican Republic a notification dated 8 September 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of a state of emergency for a period for 25 days starting on 3 September 2020 in its entire territory.

(See C.N.384.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 9 September 2020 for the text of the notification.)

5 February 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of the Dominican Republic a notification dated 5 February 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of a state of emergency for a period of 45 days starting on 16 January 2021 in its entire territory.

(See C.N.63.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 16 February 2021 for the text of the notification.)

10 May 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of the Dominican Republic a notification dated 5 May 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of emergency for a period of 45 days starting on 16 April 2021 in its entire territory.

(See C.N.142.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 12 May 2021 for the text of the notification.)

9 June 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of the Dominican Republic a notification dated 9 June 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of emergency for a period of 45 days starting on 30 May 2021 in its entire territory.

(See C.N.167.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 10 June 2021 for the text of the notification.)

Ecuador

12 May 1983

The Government declared the extension of the state of emergency as from 20 to 25 October 1982 by Executive Decree No. 1252 of 20 October 1982 and derogation from article 12 (1) owing to serious disorders brought about by the suppression of subsidies, and termination of the state of emergency by Executive Decree No. 1274 of 27 October 1982.

20 March 1984

Derogation from articles 9 (1) and (2); 12 (1) and (3); 17; 19 (2) and 21 in the provinces of Napo and Esmeraldas by Executive Decree No. 2511 of 16 March 1984 owing to destruction and sabotage in these areas.

29 March 1984

Termination of the state of emergency by Executive Decree No. 2537 of 27 March 1984.

17 March 1986

(Dated 14 March 1986)

Declaration of the State of emergency in the provinces of Pichincha and Manabi due to the acts of subversion and armed uprising by a high-ranking officer no longer on active service, backed by extremist groups; thereby derogations from articles 12, 21 and 22, it being understood that no Ecuadorian may be exiled or deported outside the capitals of the provinces or to a region other than the one in which he lives.

19 March 1986

(Dated 18 March 1986)

End of State of emergency as from 17 March 1986.

29 October 1987

(Dated 28 October 1987)

Declaration of a state of national emergency throughout the national territory, effective as of 28 October 1987. [Derogation from articles 9 (1) and (2); 12 (1) and (2); 19 (2); and 21.]

The notification states that this measure was made necessary as a result of an illegal call for a national strike which would lead to acts of vandalism, offences against persons and property and would disrupt the peace of the State and the proper exercise of the civic rights of Ecuadorians.

30 October 1987

Termination of the state of emergency throughout the national territory as from 0 hour on 29 October 1987.

3 June 1988

(Dated 1 June 1988)

Declaration of a state of national emergency throughout the national territory, effective as of 9 p.m. on 31 May 1988. [Derogation from articles 9 (1) and (2); 12 (1) and (2); 19 (2); and 21.]

The notification states that this measure is the necessary legal response to the 24 hour strike called for by the United Workers Front, which would result in acts of vandalism, violation of the security of persons and attacks on public and private property.

(Dated 2 June 1988)

Termination of the state of emergency throughout the national territory as from 1 June 1988.

14 January 1999

(Dated 12 January 1999) Declaration of a state of emergency in Guayas province, indicating the measures were prompted by the serious internal disturbance resulting from the massive crime wave in Guayas Province. Subsequently, the Government of Ecuador specified that the provisions from which it has derogated are articles 12 (1) and 17 (1) of the Covenant.

16 March 1999

(Dated 15 March 1999)

Decree No. 681 by the President of the Republic dated 9 March 1999 by which a state of national emergency was declared and the entire territory of the Republic established as a security zone, as from 9 March 1999.

12 April 1999

(Dated 22 March 1999)

Decree No. 717 by the President of the Republic dated 18 March 1999 by which the state of national emergency declared by Decree No. 681 dated 9 March 1999, was lifted as from 18 March 1999.

10 September 1999

(Dated 27 August 1999)

Decree No. 1041 of 5 July 1999 by the President of the Republic, establishing a state of emergency in Ecuador in respect of public and private transport system throughout the country during the month of July 1999;

Decree No. 1070 of 13 July 1999 by the President of the Republic (following the revocation of Decree No. 1041 by the National Congress on 13 July 1999), declaring a state of national emergency and establishing the entire territory of the Republic as a secity zone; and

Decree No. 1088 of 17 July 1999 by the President of the Republic, lifting the state of national emergency and rescinding Decree No. 1070. Subsequently, the Government of Ecuador specified that the provisions from which it had derogated were articles 17 (1), 12 (1), 21 and 22 of the Covenant.

28 December 1999

(Dated 9 December 1999)

Establishment of the State of Emergency in the Guayas Province by Decree No. 1557 of 30 November 1999 by the President of the Republic indicating that the measure was taken in response to the serious internal disturbance which produced a massive crime wave that continues to affect that province. The Decree states that "since the state of emergency declared in the Guayas Province in January 1999 (see notification of 14 January 1999), was ended there has been an increase in criminal activity which as made it clear that extraordinary measures must once again be taken..., it is necessary to attenuate the serious repercussions of the ciminal activity in Guayas Province in order to prevent any change in the normal pattern of civil life...".

Subsequently, on 28 January 2000, the Government of Ecuador specified that the provisions from which it has derogated are articles 12 (1) and 17 (1) of the Covenant.

1 February 2000

(Dated 6 January 2000)

On 5 January 2000, by Executive Decree, the President declared a state of national emergency establishing the entire territory of the Republic as a security zone. This measure was motivated by the serious internal unrest caused by the economic crisis which Ecuador is experiencing.

The Government of Ecuador specifed that the provisions from which it has derogated are articles 12 (1), 17 (1), 21 and 22 (1).

On 21 February 2001, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 16 February 2001, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, transmitting the text of Executive Decree No. 1214 by the President of the dated 2 February 2001, by which a state of national emergency was declared and the entire territory of the Republic was established as a security zone, as from 2 February 2001. The said Decree stipulates that this measure was adopted to overcome the adverse consequences of the economic crisis affecting Ecuador which has created a situation of serious internal unrest.

The Government of Ecuador specified that the provisions from which it has derogated are articles 12, 17 and 21 of the Covenant.

On 21 February 2001, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 16 February 2001, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, transmitting the text of Executive Decree No. 1228 by the President of the Republic dated 9 February 2001, by which the state of national emergency, declared by Decree No. 1214 of 2 February 2001, was lifted as from 9 March 2001.

17 July 2002

Sir,

In accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which Ecuador is a State Party, and on behalf of the national Government, I am writing to notify you of the declarations of a state of national emergency this year declared by Dr. Gustavo Noboa Bejarano, President of the Republic, in accordance with the provisions of articles 180 and 181 of the Ecuadorian Constitution in force, and when they were lifted. The details of these declarations follow:

Executive Decree No. 2404 of 26 February 2002 (Official Register No. 525): A state of emergency is declared in Sucumbios and Orellana provinces. The reason for this measure is the serious situation arising out of problems of the Colombian conflict on the frontiers;

Executive Decree No. 2421 of 4 March 2002: The state of emergency in Sucumbios and Orellana provinces is declared over, and accordingly Executive Decree 2404 of 22 February 2002 is abrogated;

Executive Decree No. 2492 of 22 March 2002: State of emergency in Esmeraldas, Guayas Los Ríos , Manabí and El Oroovinces. The reason for this measure is the severe storm on the Ecuadorian coast. The state of emergency was lifted on 22 May pursuant to the legal provision embodied in article 182, paragraph 2, of the Ecuadorian Constitution to the effect that "a decree of a state of emergency shall remain in force for up to a maximum of 60 days";

Executive Decree No. 2625 of 7 May 2002 (Official Register No. 575 of 14 May 2002): State of national emergency in respect of land transport. (This state of emergency has not been lifted but, will last until 7 July, unless the President declares that it is lifted in advance.)

Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

(Signed) Dr. Heinz Moeller Freile

Minister for Foreign Affairs

18 August 2005

On 18 August 2005, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, notifying of the declaration of a state of emergency in Sucumbios and Orellana Provinces, decreed by the President of the Republic on 17 August 2005, in accordance with the provisions of articles 180 and 181 of the Ecuadorian Constitution in force.

The Government of Ecuador specified that this measure was motivated by the serious internal unrest caused by crime waves in the aforementioned provinces. The declaration of emergency was made by means of Executive Decree No. 426 of 17 August 2005. Moreover, the articles of the Covenant which were derogated from were not indicated.

22 August 2005

On 22 August 2005, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador notifications made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, notifying of the declaration of a state of emergency in the Canton of Chone, Manabi Province, decreed by the Constitutional President of the Republic on 19 August 2005, in accordance with articles 180 and 181 of the Political Constitution of Ecuador.

The Government of Ecuador specified that this measure was taken in response to serious internal unrest, which has led to a crime wave and to widespread looting in the aforementioned canton. The declaration of emergency was made by means of Executive Decree No. 430 of 19 August 2005. Moreover, the Government of Ecuador specified that during the state of emergency the rights established in article 23, paragraphs 9, 12, 13, 14 and 19, and article 23 of the Political Constitution of the Republic were suspended.

18 April 2006

Declaration of a state of emergency in a number of Ecuadorian provinces, issued on 21 March through Executive Decree No. 1269 which was suspended on 7 April 2006 through Executive Decree No. 1329.

6 June 2016

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 3 June 2016, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the provinces of Esmeraldas, Manabí , Santa Elena, Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas , Los Ríos and Guayas for a period of 60 days from 17 April 2016 by Executive Decree no. 1001.

(See C.N.455.2016.TREATIES-IV.4 of 11 January 2017 for the text of the notification.)

18 July 2016

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 11 July 2016 (and subsequently a notification dated 5 December 2016), made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of emergency in the provinces of Esmeraldas, Manabí , Santa Elena, Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas , Los Ríos and Guayas for a period of 30 days from 16 June 2016 by Executive Decree no. 1101.

(See C.N.981.2016.TREATIES-IV.4 of 11 January 2017 for the text of the notification.)

25 July 2016

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 25 July 2016 (and subsequently a notification dated 26 August 2016), made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of the state of emergency in the provinces of Esmeraldas and Manabí for a period of 60 days from 15 July 2016 by Executive Decree no. 1116.

(See C.N.982.2016.TREATIES-IV.4 of 16 January 2017 for the text of the notification.)

7 December 2016

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 5 December 2016, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the provinces of Esmeraldas and Manabí for a period of 60 days from 14 October 2016 by Executive Decree no. 1215.

(See C.N.983.2016.TREATIES-IV.4 of 16 January 2017 for the text of the notification.)

3 February 2017

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 17 January 2017 and subsequently a notification dated 3 February 2017, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the renewal of the state of emergency in the province of Morona Santiago for a period of thirty days, beginning 12 January 2017, by Executive Decree no. 1294.

(See C.N.63.2017.TREATIES-IV.4 of 2 March 2017 for the text of the notification.)

3 February 2017

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 21 December 2016 and subsequently a notification dated 3 February 2017, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the province of Morona Santiago for a period of thirty days, beginning 14 December 2016, by Executive Decree no. 1276.

(See C.N.988.2016.TREATIES-IV.4 of 2 March 2017 for the text of the notification.)

15 March 2017

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 20 January 2017 and subsequently a notification dated 15 March 2017, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the provinces of Manabí and Esmeraldas for a period of sixty days, beginning 12 January 2017, by Executive Decree no. 1295.

(See C.N.163.2017.TREATIES-IV.4 of 31 March 2017 for the text of the notification.)

1 June 2017

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 19 August 2015 and subsequently a notification dated 1 June 2017, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency throughout the national territory for as long as necessary to respond to the eruption of Mount Cotopaxi, but not longer than sixty days, beginning 15 August 2015, by Executive Decree no. 755.

(See C.N.315.2017.TREATIES-IV.4 of 15 June 2017 for the text of the notification.)

1 June 2017

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 15 March 2017 and subsequently a notification dated 1 June 2017, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of a state of emergency in the provinces of Manabí and Esmeraldas for a period of thirty days, beginning 13 March 2017, by Executive Decree no. 1338.

(See C.N.310.2017.TREATIES-IV.4 of 13 June 2017 for the text of the notification.)

1 June 2017

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 2 May 2017 and subsequently a notification dated 1 June 2017, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the provinces of Manabí and Esmeraldas for a period of sixty days, beginning 13 April 2017, by Executive Decree no. 1364.

(See C.N.313.2017.TREATIES-IV.4 of 13 June 2017 for the text of the notification.)

3 January 2018

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 29 December 2017 and subsequently a notification dated 3 January 2018, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in Zaruma Canton, El Oro Province for a period of sixty days, beginning 15 September 2017, by Executive Decree no. 158.

(See C.N.1.2018.TREATIES-IV.4 of 3 January 2018 for the text of the notification.)

5 February 2018

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 7 February 2018, made under article 4 (3) of the Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the cantons of San Lorenzo and Eloy Alfaro in the province of Esmeraldas by Executive Decree No. 296 of 27 January 2018 for a period of 60 days.

(See C.N.74.2018.TREATIES-IV-4 of 13 February 2018 for the text of the notification.)

3 April 2018

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 3 April 2018, made under article 4 (3) of the Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the cantons of San Lorenzo and Eloy Alfaro in the province of Esmeraldas by Executive Decree No. 349 of 29 March 2018 for a period of 30 days.

(See C.N.200.2018.TREATIES-IV-4 of 6 April 2018 for the text of the notification.)

30 April 2018

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 30 April 2018, made under article 4 (3) of the Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the canton of San Lorenzo, particularly in the localities of Mataje, El Pan and La Cadena, and in the canton of Eloy Alfaro in the province of Esmeraldas by Executive Decree No. 381 of 27 April 2018 for a period of 60 days.

(See C.N.224.2018.TREATIES-IV-4 of 30 April 2018 for the text of the notification.)

16 July 2019

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 16 July 2019, made under article 4 (3) of the Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the parish of Merced de Buenos Aires, canton of Urcuquí , province of Imbabura by Executive Decree No. 812 of 1 July 2019 for a period of 60 days.

(See C.N.315.2019.TREATIES-IV-4 of 19 July 2019 for the text of the notification.)

26 July 2019

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 18 July 2019, made under article 4 (3) of the Covenant, regarding the extension of a state of emergency throughout the national social rehabilitation system by Executive Decree No. 823 of 15 July 2019 for a period of 30 days.

(See C.N.404.2019.TREATIES-IV-4 of 30 August 2019 for the text of the notification.)

26 July 2019

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 26 July 2019, made under article 4 (3) of the Covenant, regarding the extension of a state of emergency throughout the national social rehabilitation system by Executive Decree No. 741 of 16 May 2019 for a period of 60 days.

(See C.N.403.2019.TREATIES-IV-4 of 30 August 2019 for the text of the notification.)

4 October 2019

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 8 October 2019, made under article 4 (3) of the Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency throughout throughout the national territory "because of the circumstances of serious domestic unrest, since the blockades in various parts of the country have disturbed public order and are impeding normal vehicular traffic, leading to outbreaks of violence that jeopardize the security and safety of individuals; as well as the warning that those actions may spread throughout the national territory, since the various groups are continuing to call for citizens' protests of indefinite duration. This situation requires urgent intervention in order to safeguard the security and rights of all individuals."

The state of emergency will remain in effect for 60 days following the signature of the Executive Decree No. 884, of 3 October 2019. The Executive Decree No. 884 has suspended the following rights set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: article 12, paragraphs 1 and 3 (liberty of movement), article 21 (right of assembly); and article 22, paragraphs 1 and 2 (freedom of association).

Subsequently, on 8 October 2019, the Permanent Mission of Ecuador notified the United Nations Secretariat, in its note verbale No. 4-2-182/2019, that [i]n this regard and to complement the above-mentioned note, [it] has the honour to transmit the opinion on the constitutionality of Executive Decree No. 884, issued by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, which recognizes that it is consistent with the Constitution and the domestic laws and rules of Ecuador. The opinion also establishes that the "declaration of the state of emergency shall only remain in effect for thirty days".

(See C.N.517.2019.TREATIES-IV-4 of 16 October 2019 for the text of the notification.)

10 October 2019

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 10 October 2019, made under article 4 (3) of the Covenant, transmitting the Executive Decree No. 888, dated 8 October 2019, by which the President of the Republic, inter alia, decrees the transfer of the seat of Government to the city of Guayaquil for the duration of the state of emergency ordered by the Constitutional Court. Furthermore, it is stipulated that restrictions shall apply to "freedom of movement and mobility in the following terms: there shall be no movement from the hours of 8 p.m. to 5 a.m., from Monday to Sunday, in areas around buildings and strategic facilities such as the headquarters of the branches of Government and others defined by the Joint Command of the Armed Forces, for the duration of the state of emergency, based on the requirements established by the Ministry of the Interior and the National Police, in order to maintain internal public order; passes and similar documents may be issued, where appropriate."

(See C.N.523.2019.TREATIES-IV-4 of 16 October 2019 for the text of the notification.)

24 March 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 18 March 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency throughout the national territory for a period of 60 days by Executive Decree No. 1017 of 16 March 2020.

(See C.N.119.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 31 March 2020 for the text of the notification.)

17 June 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 16 June 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency throughout the national territory for a period of 60 days by Executive Decree No. 1074 of 15 June 2020.

(See C.N.256.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 23 June 2020 for the text of the notification.)

19 August 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 13 August 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the state of emergency declared for a period of 60 days by Executive Decree No. 1125 of 11 August 2020.

(See C.N.379.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 4 September 2020 for the text of the notification.)

19 October 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 16 October 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension for 30 days of a state of emergency by Executive Decree No. 1169 of 10 October 2020.

(See C.N.462.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 21 October 2020 for the text of the notification.)

23 December 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 23 December 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency for 30 days by Executive Decree No. 1217 of 21 December 2020.

(See C.N.574.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 30 December 2020 for the text of the notification.)

19 January 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 19 January 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, informing that Executive Decree No. 1217 notified in depositary notification CN.574.2020 of 30 December 2020 has been repealed by Decision No. 7-20-EE/20 of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador.

(See C.N.16.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 26 January 2021 for the text of the notification.)

5 April 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 2 April 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency by Executive Decree No. 1282 of 1 April 2021.

(See depositary notification C.N.127.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 12 April 2021 for the text of the notification.)

23 April 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 23 April 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency by Executive Decree No. 1291 of 21 April 2021.

(See depositary notification C.N.140.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 6 May 2021 for the text of the notification.)

29 July 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 29 July 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration and prorogation of a state of emergency by Executive Decrees No. 116 of 14 July 2021 and No. 140 of 28 July 2021.

(See depositary notification C.N.248.2021.Reissued.29062022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 5 August 2021 for the text of the notification.)

18 June 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 18 June 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency by Executive Decree No. 455 of 17 June 2022.

(See depositary notification C.N.165.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 30 June 2022 for the text of the notification.)

21 June 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 21 June 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency by Executive Decree No. 459 of 20 June 2022.

(See depositary notification C.N.166.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 30 June 2022 for the text of the notification.)

27 June 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 27 June 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency by Executive Decree No. 461 of 26 June 2022.

(See depositary notification C.N.167.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 30 June 2022 for the text of the notification.)

30 June 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 30 June 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency by Executive Decree No. 463 of 29 June 2022.

(See depositary notification C.N.177.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 12 July 2022 for the text of the notification.)

5 July 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 5 July 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency by Executive Decree No. 469 of 1 July 2022.

(See depositary notification C.N.186.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 12 July 2022 for the text of the notification.)

17 August 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 17 August 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency by Executive Decree No. 527 of 14 August 2022.

(See depositary notification C.N.186.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 26 August 2022 for the text of the notification.)

23 September 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 22 September 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of emergency in the cantons of Guayaquil, Durán and Samborondón for an additional 30 days by Executive Decree No. 561.

(See depositary notification C.N.321.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 4 October 2022 for the text of the notification.)

3 November 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 3 November 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the Provinces of Guayas and Esmeraldas for a period of 45 days by Executive Decree No. 588.

(See depositary notification C.N.402.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 15 November 2022 for the text of the notification.)

8 November 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 8 November 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance of Executive Decree No. 589 extending the territorial scope of Executive Decree No. 588 to the Province of Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas as of 4 November 2022 for a period of 45 days.

(See depositary notification C.N.403.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 15 November 2022 for the text of the notification.)

9 March 2023

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 8 March 2023, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the province of Esmeraldas for a period of 60 days by Executive Decree No. 681 of 3 March 2023.

(See depositary notification C.N.73.2023.TREATIES-IV.4 of 15 March 2023 for the text of the notification.)

11 April 2023

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 10 April 2023, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency owing to serious internal unrest in the cantons of Guayaquil, Durán and Samborondón , which are in the province of Guayas, and in the provinces of Santa Elena and Los Ríos , for a period of 60 days by Executive Decree No. 706 of 1 April 2023.

(See depositary notification C.N.109.2023.TREATIES-IV.4 of 10 April 2023 for the text of the notification.)

27 July 2023

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 27 July 2023, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency owing to serious internal unrest in all the national social rehabilitation system's detention centres, without exception, for a period of 60 days by Executive Decree No. 823 of 24 July 2023.

(See depositary notification C.N.228.2023.TREATIES-IV.4 of 4 August 2023 for the text of the notification.)

27 July 2023

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 27 July 2023, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency owing to serious internal unrest in the canton of Durán , which is in the province of Guayas, and in the provinces of Manabí and Los Ríos , for a period of 60 days by Executive Decree No. 824 of 24 July 2023.

(See depositary notification C.N.229.2023.TREATIES-IV.4 of 4 August 2023 for the text of the notification.)

10 August 2023

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 10 August 2023, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency for a period of 60 days by Executive Decree No. 841 of 10 August 2023 owing to serious internal unrest across the country.

(See depositary notification C.N.236.2023.TREATIES-IV.4 of 17 August 2023 for the text of the notification.)

15 August 2023

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 14 August 2023, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding Executive Decree No. 843 of 10 August 2023.

(See depositary notification C.N.238.2023.TREATIES-IV.4 of 17 August 2023 for the text of the notification.)

9 January 2024

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 9 January 2024, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding Executive Decree No. 110 of 8 January 2024.

(See depositary notification C.N.38.2024.TREATIES-IV.4 of 15 January 2024 for the text of the notification.)

11 March 2024

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 11 March 2024, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of emergency throughout the national territory by Executive Decree No. 193 for an additional 30 days beginning on 7 March 2024.

(See depositary notification C.N.100.2024.TREATIES-IV.4 of 15 March 2024 for the text of the notification.)

2 May 2024

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 2 May 2024, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of the state of emergency by Executive Decree No. 250 for 60 days beginning on 30 April 2024.

(See depositary notification C.N.157.2024.TREATIES-IV.4 of 8 May 2024 for the text of the notification.)

23 May 2024

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 23 May 2024, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of the state of emergency by Executive Decree No. 275 for 60 days beginning on 22 May 2024.

(See depositary notification C.N.172.2024.TREATIES-IV.4 of 29 May 2024 for the text of the notification.)

3 July 2024

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 3 July 2024, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of the state of emergency by Executive Decree No. 318 for 60 days beginning on 2 July 2024.

(See depositary notification C.N.287.2024.TREATIES-IV.4 of 12 July 2024 for the text of the notification.)

12 August 2024

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 12 August 2024, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding additional restrictions by Executive Decree No. 351 of 8 August 2024 to the state of emergency declared by Executive Decree No. 318.

(See depositary notification C.N.323.2024.TREATIES-IV.4 of 16 August 2024 for the text of the notification.)

3 September 2024

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 3 September 2024, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of emergency by Executive Decree No. 377 for an additional 30 days beginning on 30 August 2024.

(See depositary notification C.N.350.2024.TREATIES-IV.4 of 11 September 2024 for the text of the notification.)

18 September 2024

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 18 September 2024, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 392 of 17 September 2024 suspending the right to liberty of movement from 10:00 p.m. on 18 September 2024 until 6:00 a.m. on 19 September 2024 in all cantons and parishes of the Provinces of Guayas, Los Ríos , Manabí , Orellana, Santa Elena, El Oro and in the Camilo Ponce Enríquez Canton of Azuay Province.

(See depositary notification C.N.359.2024.TREATIES-IV.4 of 23 September 2024 for the text of the notification.)

3 October 2024

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 3 October 2024, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 410 of 3 October 2024 declaring a state of emergency in the Provinces of Guayas, Los Ríos , Manabí , Orellana, Santa Elena and El Oro, as well as in the Metropolitan District of Quito in Pichincha Province and Camilo Ponce Enríquez Canton in Azuay Province, for a period of 60 days beginning on 3 October 2024.

(See depositary notification C.N.425.2024.TREATIES-IV.4 of 9 October 2024 for the text of the notification.)

7 January 2025

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 7 January 2025, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the Executive Decree No. 493 of 2 January 2025 declaring a state of emergency in the Provinces of Guayas, Los Ríos , Manabí , Orellana, Santa Elena, El Oro and Sucumbíos , the Metropolitan District of Quito in Pichincha Province, La Troncal Canton in Cañar Province and Camilo Ponce Enríquez Canton in Azuay Province, owing to serious internal unrest and internal armed conflict - the latter of which was addressed by Executive Decree No. 218 of 7 April 2024 - including in the detention centres of the National Social Rehabilitation System nationwide, for a period of 60 days beginning on 2 January 2025.

(See depositary notification C.N.28.2025.TREATIES-IV.4 of 10 January 2025 for the text of the notification.)

16 April 2025

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 16 April 2025, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the Executive Decree No. 599 of 12 April 2025 declaring a state of emergency, owing to the increase in rates of violence, the commission of crimes and the intensity of the unlawful acts perpetrated by organized armed groups, for a period of 60 days beginning on 12 April 2025.

(See depositary notification C.N.183.2025.TREATIES-IV.4 of 28 April 2025 2025 for the text of the notification.)

13 June 2025

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 13 June 2025, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 23 dated 10 June 2025 extending the state of emergency in the Provinces of Guayas, Los Ríos , Manabí , Orellana, Santa Elena, El Oro, Sucumbíos and in the Metropolitan District of Quito in Pichincha Province, for 30 additional days beginning on 10 June 2025.

(See depositary notification C.N.296.2025.TREATIES-IV.4 of 17 June 2025 for the text of the notification.)

8 August 2025

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 8 August 2025, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 76 dated 6 August 2025 on the declaration of a state of emergency in the Provinces of El Oro, Guayas, Los Ríos and Manabí for a period of 60 additional days beginning on 6 August 2025.

(See depositary notification C.N.410.2025.TREATIES-IV.4 of 13 August 2025 for the text of the notification.)

22 August 2025

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 22 August 2025, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 109 dated 20 August 2025 expanding the state of emergency declared through Executive Decree No. 76 to include La Maná Canton in the Province of Cotopaxi and Las Naves Canton and Echeandía Canton in the Province of Bolívar .

(See depositary notification C.N.426.2025.TREATIES-IV.4 of 29 August 2025 for the text of the notification.)

17 September 2025

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 17 September 2025, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 134 dated 16 September 2025 on the declaration of a state of emergency in the Provinces of Carchi, Imbabura, Pichincha, Azuay, Bolívar , Cotopaxi and Santo Domingo for a period of 60 additional days beginning on 16 September 2025.

(See depositary notification C.N.454.2025.TREATIES-IV.4 of 25 September 2025 for the text of the notification.)

19 September 2025

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 19 September 2025, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 146 dated 18 September 2025 by which the President of the Republic, Daniel Noboa Azín , amended Executive Decree No. 134 of 16 September 2025 and extended the state of emergency to the Province of Chimborazo. The decree also provides for the restriction of freedom of transit every day between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. in the Provinces of Imbabura, Chimborazo, Bolívar , Carchi and Cotopaxi.

The duration of the state of emergency continues to be that established in Executive Decree No. 134, namely, 60 days from 16 September 2025.

(See depositary notification C.N.493.2025.TREATIES-IV.4 of 26 September 2025 for the text of the notification.)

6 October 2025

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 6 October 2025, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, on the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 174 dated 4 October 2025 regarding the declaration of the state of emergency in the Provinces of Pichincha, Cotopaxi, Tungurahua, Chimborazo, Bolívar , Cañar , Azuay, Orellana, Sucumbíos and Pastaza for 60 days starting on 4 October 2025.

(See depositary notification C.N.545.2025.TREATIES-IV.4 of 14 October 2025 for the text of the notification.)

7 October 2025

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 7 October 2025, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 175 dated 5 October 2025 on the extension of the state of emergency in the Provinces of Guayas, El Oro, Los Ríos , Manabí , and Echeandía Canton in the Province of Bolívar for a an additional period of 30 days beginning on 5 October 2025.

(See depositary notification C.N.543.2025.TREATIES-IV.4 of 9 October 2025 for the text of the notification.)

5 November 2025

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 5 November 2025, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 202 dated 4 November 2025 on the extension of the state of emergency in the in the Provinces of Manabí , Guayas, Santa Elena, Los Ríos and El Oro, as well as in La Maná Canton (Cotopaxi Province) and Las Naves and Echeandía Cantons ( Bolívar Province), for an additional period of 60 days beginning on 4 November 2025.

(See depositary notification C.N.643.2025.TREATIES-IV.4 of 13 November 2025 for the text of the notification.)

7 January 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 6 January 2026, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 277 of 31 December 2025 on the declaration of the state of emergency in the Provinces of Guayas, Manabí , Santa Elena, Los Ríos , El Oro, Pichincha, Esmeraldas, Santo Domingo and Sucumbíos , as well as in La Maná Canton (Cotopaxi Province) and Las Naves and Echeandía Cantons ( Bolívar Province) for a period of 60 days beginning on 31 December 2025.

(See depositary notification C.N.2.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 8 January 2026 for the text of the notification.)

2 March 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 28 February 2026, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 311 of 28 February 2026 on the extension of the state of emergency in the Provinces of Guayas, Manabí , Santa Elena, Los Ríos , El Oro, Pichincha, Esmeraldas, Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas and Sucumbíos , and in La Maná Canton, Las Naves Canton and Echeandía Canton ( Bolívar Province) for a period of thirty (30) days beginning on 28 February 2026.

(See depositary notification C.N.115.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 24 March 2026 for the text of the notification.)

17 March 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 16 March 2026, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 329 of 13 March 2026 amending the state of emergency previously declared by Executive Decree No. 311 in the Provinces of Guayas, Los Ríos , El Oro and Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas which will take effect from 12 a.m. on 15 March 2026 and will remain in force for the duration of the previously declared state of emergency.

(See depositary notification C.N.116.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 24 March 2026 for the text of the notification.)

6 April 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 6 April 2026, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 353, dated 2 April 2026 in the Provinces of Guayas, Los Ríos , El Oro and Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas , and in the the cantons of La Maná (Cotopaxi), Las Naves and Echeandía ( Bolívar ), and La Troncal ( Cañar ), which will take effect on 2 April 2026 for a period of sixty (60) days.

(See depositary notification C.N.130.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 7 April 2026 for the text of the notification.)

17 June 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 17 June 2026, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 423 of 16 June 2026 on the declaration of a state of emergency in the provinces of Guayas, Manabí , Santa Elena, Los Ríos , El Oro, Pichincha, Esmeraldas, Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas , Sucumbíos and Azuay and in the cantons of La Maná (province of Cotopaxi), Las Naves (province of Bolívar ) and La Troncal (province of Cañar ). for a period of sixty (60) days beginning on 16 June 2026.

(See depositary notification C.N.245.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 17 June 2026 for the text of the notification.)

17 August 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 17 August 2026, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 472 of 14 August 2026 on the extension of a state of emergency in the provinces of Guayas, Manabí , Santa Elena, Los Ríos , El Oro, Pichincha, Esmeraldas, Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas , Sucumbíos and Azuay and in the cantons of La Maná (province of Cotopaxi), Las Naves (province of Bolívar ) and La Troncal (province of Cañar ), for a period of thirty (30) days beginning on 14 August 2026.

(See depositary notification C.N.335.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 28 August 2026 for the text of the notification.)

18 September 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ecuador a notification dated 17 September 2026, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the issuance and entry into force of Executive Decree No. 498 of 17 September 2026 on the declaration of a state of emergency in the provinces of El Oro, Esmeraldas, Guayas, Los Ríos , Manabí , Pichincha, Santa Elena andSanto Domingo de los Tsáchilas , the cantons of Camilo Ponce Enríquez in the province of Azuay, Las Naves in the province of Bolívar and La Maná in the Province of Cotopaxi (clarifying that the restriction on freedom of movement applies solely to the provinces of El Oro, Guayas, Los Ríos and Manabí ), for a period of sixty (60) days beginning on 15 September 2026.

(See depositary notification C.N.351.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 21 September 2026 for the text of the notification.)

El Salvador

14 November 1983

(Dated 3 November 1983)

The Government has declared an extension for a period of 30 days of the suspension of constitutional guarantees by Legislative Decree No. 329 dated 28 October 1983. The constitutional guarantees have been suspended in accordance with article 175 of the Political Constitution because of disruption of public order. In a complimentary notification dated 23 January 1984 and received on 24 January 1984, the Government of El Salvador specified the following:

1. The provisions of the Covenant from which it is derogated are articles 12 and 19 by Decree No. 329 of 28 August 1983, and article 17 (in respect of interference with correspondence);

2. The constitutional guarantees were first suspended by Decree No. 155 dated 6 March 1980, with further extensions of the suspension for a total of 24 months. Decree No. 155 was modified by Decree No. 999 dated 24 February 1982, which expired on 24 March 1982. By Decree No. 1089 dated 20 April 1982, the Revolutionary Government Junta again suspended the constitutional guarantees. By Legislative Decree No. 7 dated 20 May 1982, the Constituent Assembly extended the suspension for an additional period of 30 days. The said Legislative Decree No. 7 was itself extended several times until the adoption of the above-mentioned Decree No. 329 dated 28 October 1983, which took effect on that date.

3. The reasons for the adoption of the initial suspension decree (No. 155 of 6 March 1980) were the same as for the adoption of the subsequent decrees.

18 June 1984

(Dated 14 June 1984)

By Legislative Decree No. 28 of 27 January 1984, previous measures were amended to the effect that political parties would be permitted to conduct electoral campaigns, and were thus authorized to engage in partisan campaigning and electoral propaganda activities. The said Decree was extended for successive 30-day periods until the promulgation of Decree No. 97 of 17 May 1984, which rescinded the afore-mentioned change which had allowed political parties to conduct electoral campaigns.

The provisions of the Covenant from which it is derogated are articles 12, 19, 17 (in respect of interference with correspondence) and 21 and 22. As regards article 22, the suspension refers to the right of association in general, but does not affect the right to join professional associations (the right to form and join trade unions).

2 August 1985

(Dated 31 July 1985)

[...] the Government of El Salvador has for successive periods extended martial law by the following legislative decrees:

Decrees No. 127 of 21 June 1984, No. 146 of 19 July 1984, No. 175 of 24 August 1984, No. 210 of 18 September 1984, No. 234 of 21 October 1984, No. 261 of 20 November 1984, No. 277 of 14 December 1984, No. 322 of 18 January 1985, No. 335 of 21 February 1985, No. 351 of 14 March 1985, No. 386 of 18 April 1985, No. 10 of 21 May 1985, No. 38 of 13 June 1985, and the most recent, Decree No. 96 of 11 July 1985 which extended the martial law for an additional period of 30 days beyond that date.

The provisions of the Covenant that are thus suspended are those of articles 12, 17 (in respect of interference with correspondence) and 19 (2).

The notification specifies that the reasons for the suspension of constitutional guarantees continue to be those originally indicated, namely: the need to maintain a climate of peace and tranquility, which had been disturbed through the commission of acts designed to create a state of instability and social unrest which affected the economy and the public peace by persons seeking to obstruct the process of structural change, thus seriously disrupting public order.

19 December 1989

(Dated 13 November 1989)

Suspension for a period of 30 days as from 12 November 1990 of various constitutional guarantees. (Derogation from articles 12, 17, 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant.)

The notification indicates that this measure became necessary owing the use of terror and violence by the Frente Farabundo Marti to obtain the political authority, in complete disregard of previous elections.

14 April 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of El Salvador a notification dated 14 April 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a national state of emergency, public calamity and disaster for a period of 30 days effective from 14 March 2020, pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 593 of 14 March 2020.

(See C.N.134.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 22 April 2020 for the text of the notification.)

16 April 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of El Salvador a notification dated 16 April 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the national state of emergency, public calamity and natural disaster for a further duration of four days that will expire on 16 April 2020, pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 622 of 12 April 2020.

(See C.N.138.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 24 April 2020 for the text of the notification.)

17 April 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of El Salvador a notification dated 17 April 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the national state of emergency, public calamity and natural disaster for a further duration of fifteen days until 1 May 2020, pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 631 of 16 April 2020.

(See C.N.143.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 27 April 2020 for the text of the notification.)

7 May 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of El Salvador a notification dated 7 May 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the national state of emergency, public calamity and natural disaster from 2 to 16 May 2020 pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 634 of 30 April 2020.

(See C.N.161.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 14 May 2020 for the text of the notification.)

21 May 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of El Salvador a notification dated 21 May 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the national state of emergency, public calamity and natural disaster declared over its national territory from 19 May 2020 for up to fifteen days pursuant to Executive Decree No. 19 of 19 May 2020.

(See C.N.180.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 3 June 2020 for the text of the notification.)

24 May 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of El Salvador a notification dated 24 May 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, informing that by decision no. 63-2020 of 22 May 2020, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of El Salvador ordered the suspension of Executive Decree No. 19 of 19 May 2020 and the legal reviviscence of Legislative Decree No. 593 of 14 March 2020 which shall be in force until 29 May 2020, unless a new law is adopted before this date.

(See C.N.182.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 5 June 2020 for the text of the notification.)

27 March 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of El Salvador a notification dated 27 March 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of the state of national emergency by Decree No. 333 for a period of thirty (30) calendar days.

(See C.N.96.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 8 April 2022 for the text of the notification.)

29 April 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of El Salvador a notification dated 29 April 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of the state of national emergency by Decree No. 358 for a period of thirty (30) calendar days.

(See C.N.126.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 6 May 2022 for the text of the notification.)

13 June 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of El Salvador a notification dated 12 June 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of national emergency by Decree No. 396 for a period of thirty days.

(See C.N.151.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 17 June 2022 for the text of the notification.)

22 July 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of El Salvador a notification dated 22 July 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of national emergency by Decree No. 454 for a period of thirty days from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette on 21 July 2022.

(See C.N.263.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 28 July 2022 for the text of the notification.)

22 July 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of El Salvador a notification dated 21 July 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of national emergency by Decree No. 427 for a period of thirty days from 25 June 2022.

(See C.N.262.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 28 July 2022 for the text of the notification.)

23 November 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of El Salvador a notification dated 23 November 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding extensions of a state of national emergency by Decrees No. 454, 476, 503 and 530 for various periods until 17 November 2022.

(See C.N.414.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 30 November 2022 for the text of the notification.)

19 May 2023

The Secretary-General received from the Government of El Salvador a notification dated 19 May 2023, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extensions of the state of national emergency by Legislative Decrees No. 569 of 15 November 2022, No. 611 of 14 December 2022, No. 644 of 11 January 2023, No. 661 of 14 February 2023, No. 687 of 15 March 2023 and No. 719 of 13 April 2023, for a period of 30 days each.

(See C.N.137.2023.TREATIES-IV.4 of 22 May 2023 for the text of the notification.)

Estonia

20 March 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Estonia a notification dated 20 March 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the entire territory of Estonia from 12 March 2020 to 1 May 2020 by order No. 76 of the Government of Estonia dated 12 March 2020.

(See C.N.113.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 27 March 2020 for the text of the notification.)

18 May 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Estonia a notification dated 16 May 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the termination of the state of emergency in the entire territory of Estonia with effect on 18 May 2020.

(See C.N.177.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 29 May 2020 for the text of the notification.)

Ethiopia

9 June 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Ethiopia a notification dated 5 May 2020, and subsequently a notification dated 9 June 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a nationwide state of emergency effective from 8 April 2020 for a duration of five months, pursuant to Proclamation No. 3/2020, Proclamation No. 1189/2020 and Regulation No. 466/2020.

(See C.N.243.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 17 June 2020 for the text of the notification.)

France

15 November 2005

On 15 November 2005, the Secretary-General received from the Government of France a notification signed by the Permanent Representative dated 15 November 2005, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, declaring a state of emergency had been established pursuant to the Decree dated 8 November 2005.

12 January 2006

On 12 January 2006, the Secretary-General received from the Government of France a notification declaring the termination of the state of emergency established pursuant to the Decree dated 8 November 2005, with effect from 4 January 2006.

25 November 2015

On 25 November 2015, the Secretary-General received from the Government of France a notification signed by the Permanent Representative dated 23 November 2015, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, declaring a state of emergency had been established pursuant to Decree No. 2015-1475 of 14 November 2015:

New York, 23 November 2015

Your Excellency,

On 13 November 2015, large-scale terrorist attacks took place in the Paris region.

Taking into account to information from the intelligence services and the international context, the terrorist threat in France is of a lasting nature.

The French Government has decided, by Decree No. 2015-1475 of 14 November 2015, to apply Act No. 55-385 of 3 April 1955 on the state of emergency.

Decrees No. 2015-1475, No. 2015-1476 and No. 2015-1478 of 14 November 2015 and No. 2015-1493 and No. 2015-1494 of 18 November 2015 have defined a number of measures that may be taken by the administrative authorities.

The extension of the state of emergency for three months, with effect from 26 November 2015, was authorized by Act No. 2015-1501 of 20 November 2015. This Act also amends certain of the measures provided for by the Act of 3 April 1955 in order to adapt its content to the current context.

The texts of the decrees and acts mentioned above are attached to this letter.

Such measures appeared necessary to prevent the commission of further terrorist attacks.

Some of these measures, prescribed by the decrees of 14 November 2015 and 18 November 2015 and by the Act of 20 November 2015, may involve a derogation from the obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and particularly its articles 9, 12 and 17. I would therefore kindly request you to consider that this letter constitutes a notification for the purposes of article 4 of the Covenant.

Accept, Your Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

(Signed) François Delattre

(See C.N.703.2015.TREATIES-IV.4 of 31 December 2015 for the text of the above-mentioned notification.).

26 February 2016

On 26 February 2016, the Secretary-General received from the Government of France a notification signed by the Permanent Representative dated 25 February 2016, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, declaring the extension of the state of emergency pursuant to Decree No. 2016-162 of 19 February 2016.

(See C.N.538.2016.TREATIES-IV.4 of 29 July 2016 for the text of the above-mentioned notification.)

22 July 2016

On 22 July 2016, the Secretary-General received from the Government of France a notification signed by the Permanent Representative dated 22 July 2016, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, declaring the extension of the state of emergency pursuant to Decree No. 2016-987 of 21 July 2016.

(See C.N.565.2016.TREATIES-IV.4 of 1 August 2016 for the text of the notification.)

21 December 2016

On 21 December 2016, the Secretary-General received from the Government of France a notification signed by the Permanent Representative dated 21 December 2016, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, declaring the extension of the state of emergency pursuant to Decree No. 2016-1767 of 19 December 2016.

(See C.N.984.2016.TREATIES-IV.4 of 9 January 2017 for the text of the notification.)

14 July 2017

On 14 July 2017, the Secretary-General received from the Government of France a notification signed by the Permanent Representative dated 12 July 2017, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, declaring the extension of the state of emergency pursuant to Act No. 2017-1154 of of 11 July 2017.

(See C.N.408.2017.TREATIES-IV.4 of 21 July 2017 for the text of the notification.)

20 July 2018

On 20 July 2018, the Secretary-General received from the Government of France a notification signed by the Permanent Representative dated 20 July 2018, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, concerning the end of the state of emergency established through Act No. 2015-1475 of 14 November 2015.

(See C.N.337.2018.TREATIES-IV.4 of 20 July 2018 for the text of the notification.)

Georgia

7 March 2006

Excellency,

In conformity with Article 4 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 15 of the Law on the State of Emergency of Georgia, I have to inform you that the President of Georgia on February 26, 2006 has issued the Decree No. 173 on "State of Emergency in the Khelvachauri district" which has been approved by the Parliament of Georgia on February 28, 2006. The Decree is aimed at preventing further spread throughout Georgia of the H5N1 virus (bird flu) that has been recently detected in the district in question. The restrictions imposed upon by the Decree are fully in line with provisions of Article 21, paragraphs 2 and 3 (on the restrictions related to property rights) and Article 22, paragraph 3 (on the restrictions related to the freedom of movement) and Article 46 (on the restrictions related to constitutional rights and freedoms) of the Constitution of Georgia and respective provisions of the Law on the State of Georgia.

You will be informed in due course when the above Decree is abolished.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

(Signed) Gela Bezhuashvili

23 March 2006

(Dated 23 March 2006)

"In conformity with Article 4 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 15 of the Law of the State of Emergency of Georgia, I have to inform you that the President of Georgia on March 15, 2006 has issued the Decree No. 199 on "Abolishment of the State of Emergency in the Khelvachauri district", which has been approved by the Parliament of Georgia on March 16, 2006.

According to the above Decree, the Presidential Decree No. 173 of February 26, 2006 "On State of Emergency in the Khelvachauri district" has been declared null and void."

8 November 2007

In conformity with Article 4 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights I would like to inform you that the President of Georgia on November 7, 2007 has issued the Order #621 on "the Decration of the State of Emergency on the entire territory of Georgia" and Decree N. 1 "On the measures to be undertaken in connection with the declaration of the state of emergency on the entire territory of Georgia" which will be approved by the Parliament of Georgia within next 48 hours. Introduction of the state of emergency became necessary because of the extreme deterioration of the situation in Tbilisi as a result of the attempted coup d'état and massive disobedience and violent resistance to the law enforcement authorities. Due to the state of emergency, pursuant to Article 73, paragraph 1, subparagraph "h", and Article 46 paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Georgia and Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Law of Georgia on the State of Emergency, right to receive and disseminate information (Article 24 of the Constitution of Georgia), freedom to assembly and manifestation (Article 25) and right to strike (Article 33) are restricted for the duration of the state of emergency. You will be informed in due course when the above Order and Decree are abolished.

21 March 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Georgia a notification dated 21 March 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the entire territory of Georgia from 21 March 2020 to 21 April 2020 by Decree N1 of the President of Georgia dated 21 March 2020.

(See C.N.125.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 6 April 2020 for the text of the notification.)

22 April 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Georgia a notification dated 21 April 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the entire territory of Georgia from 22 April 2020 to 22 May 2020 (included) by Order N2 of the President of Georgia dated 21 April 2020.

(See C.N.142.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 27 April 2020 for the text of the notification.)

23 May 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Georgia a notification dated 23 May 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the prorogation of a state of emergency in the entire territory of Georgia 15 July 2020.

(See C.N.183.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 5 June 2020 for the text of the notification.)

15 July 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Georgia a notification dated 15 July 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the prorogation of a state of emergency in the entire territory of Georgia until 1 January 2021.

(See C.N.314.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 22 July 2020 for the text of the notification.)

31 December 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Georgia a notification dated 31 December 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the prorogation of a state of emergency in the entire territory of Georgia until 1 July 2021.

(See C.N.580.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 12 January 2020 for the text of the notification.)

30 June 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Georgia a notification dated 30 June 2021, under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the prolongation of the special emergency legislation in Georgia until 1 January 2022.

(See C.N.208.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 1 July 2021 for the text of the notification.)

30 December 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Georgia a notification dated 30 December 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the special emergency legislation in Georgia until 1 January 2023.

(See C.N.405.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 5 January 2022 for the text of the notification.)

Guatemala

23 November 1998

(Dated 20 November 1998)

By Decree No. 1-98 of 31 October 1998, declaration of the state of public disaster throughout the national territory for a period of thirty (30) days, in order to resolve the hazardous situation caused by Hurricane Mitch and to mitigate its effects.

26 July 2001

(Dated 26 July 2001)

By Government Decree No. 2-2001, extension of the state of emergency established by Government Decree No. 1-2001, for an additional 30 days throughout the national territory.

The Government Decree No. 1-2001 was not supplied to the Secretary-General. Moreover, the articles of the Covenant which were derogated from were not indicated.

2 August 2001

(Dated 2 August 2001)

By Government Decree No. 3-2001, establishment of a state of emergency for a period of 30 days in the Department of Totonicapán with immidiate effect. The articles of the Covenant which were derogated from were not indicated.

10 August 2001

(Dated 6 August 2001)

State of emergency declared by Decree No. 3-2001 has been rescinded by Government Decree No. 4-2001 with immediate effect.

14 October 2005

On 14 October 2005, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, notifying of a derogation from obligations under the Covenant.

The decision was adopted by the Congress of Guatemala on 6 October 2005 in Legislative Decree No. 70-2005, and it entered into force on 10 October 2005. The Decree recognizes a state of national disaster in the affected areas for a period of 30 days.

The Government of Guatemala specified that it has derogated from the provisions relating to the right of liberty of movement and the right of freedom of action, except for the right of persons not to be harassed for their opinions or for acts which do not violate the law. Moreover, the articles of the Covenant which were derogated from were not indicated.

5 September 2006

On 5 September 2006, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, notifying a declaration of a state of emergency in the municipalities of Concepción Tutuapa, Ixchiguán , San Miguel Ixtahuacán , Tajumulco and Tejuela, in the Department of San Marcos of the Republic of Guatemala.

The State of emergency was declared by Governmental Decree No. 1-2006 of 28 August 2006.

18 September 2006

On 18 September 2006, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a communication informing him of Government Decree No. 2-2006 of 31 August 2006, which repeals article 4, paragraph (d), of Government Decree No. 1-2006, which was sent earlier.

18 December 2006

...by Government Decrees Nos. 5-2006 and 6-2006, the President of the Republic declared a state of emergency in some municipalities in the Departments of San Marcos, Huehuetenango and Quetzaltenango. The state of emergency remained in effect for eight days from the date indicated in the decrees, i.e., 17 November 2006.

9 May 2008

(Dated 7 May 2008)

...by Government Decree No. 1-2008 of 7 May 2008, a state of emergency has been declared throughout the territory of the Republic of Guatemala.

Government Decree No. 1-2008, which entered into force immediately, will remain in effect for 15 days and will be applicable throughout the national territory. Accordingly, the exercise of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under articles 9, 19, 21, 22 (para. 1) and 22 (para. 2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been restricted.

12 May 2008

On 12 May 2008, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a letter dated 8 May 2008 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Guatemala providing information on the state of emergency declared in the Republic of Guatemala by Government Decree No. 1-2008.

27 May 2008

In compliance with article 4, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of Guatemala wishes to inform the Secretary-General that the state of emergency established by Government Decree No. 1-2008 expired on 22 May 2008. Accordingly, the rights and guarantees suspended by this Decree have been restored.

24 June 2008

...by Government Decree No. 3-2008 the President of the Republic has decreed a state of emergency in the municipality of San Juan Sacatepéquez in the Department of Guatemala. The state of emergency will remain in effect for a period of 15 days from 22 June 2008.

14 October 2008

On 14 October 2008, the Government of Guatemala notified the Secretary-General that by Decree No. 07-2008 various measures were adopted to suspend certain rights in the Municipality of Coatepeque in the Department of Quetzaltenango. The Decree remained in force for 15 days as of 5 October 2008.

27 April 2009

(Dated 24 April 2009)

...by Governmental Decree No. 5-2009, a state of emergency was declared in the municipality of Huehuetenango, Department of Huehuetenango, for a period of 15 days.

7 May 2009

On 25 April 2009, the President of the Republic of Guatemala repealed, by Government Decree 6-2009, the state of emergency in the Municipality of Huehuetenango, Department of Huehuetenango, that had been declared by Government Decree 5-2009.

20 May 2009

(Dated 6 May 2009)

...by Government Decree No. 7-2009, a public health emergency has been declared throughout the national territory, with a view to preventing and mitigating the effects of the influenza A (H1N1) epidemic.

Government Decree No. 7-2009, which was declared for a period of thirty (30) days, limits the rights and freedoms contained in articles 12, 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

On 12 May 2009, by Government Decree No. 8-2009, the President of the Republic repealed Government Decree No. 7-2009 dated 6 May 2009.

8 February 2010

...by Government Decree No. 14-2009 of 22 December 2009, the President of the Republic declared a state of emergency in the Department of San Marcos. The Decree entered into force immediately for a period of fifteen (15) days during which the exercise of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under articles 9, 12, 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been restricted.

8 February 2010

...by Government Decrees Nos. 01-2010 of 5 January 2010 and 02-2010 of 20 January 2010, the President of the Republic extended the state of emergency in the Department of San Marcos declared by Government Decree 14-2009 of 22 December 2009, each for a period of fifteen (15) days.

16 March 2010

...by Government Decree No. 08-2010 of 18 March 2010, the President of the Republic extended the state of emergency in the Department of San Marcos for a period of fifteen (15) days.

16 July 2010

...by Government Decree No. 4-2010 of 5 February 2010, the President of the Republic extended the state of emergency (Decree 14-2009 of 22 december 2009) in the Department of San Marcos for a period of fifteen (15) days.

26 February 2010

...by Government Decree No. 6-2010 of 19 February 2010, the President of the Republic extended the state of emergency (Decree 14-2009 of 22 december 2009) in the Department of San Marcos for a period of fifteen (15) days.

28 June 2010

...by Government Decrees No. 9-2010 of 7 April 2010 and No. 11-2010 of 16 April 2010, the President of the Republic extended the state of emergency (Decree 14-2009 of 22 december 2009) in the Department of San Marcos for a period of fifteen (15) days respectively.

23 April 2010

...by Government Decrees No. 09-2010 of 7 April 2010 and No. 11-2010 of 16 April 2010, the President of the Republic extended the state of emergency (Decree 08-2009 of 18 March 2010) in the Department of San Marcos for a period of fifteen (15) days respectively.

28 June 2010

...by Government Decree No. 13-2010 of 17 May 2010, the President of the Republic declared a state of emergency in the Department of San Marcos for a period of fifteen (15) days. The Decree restricted the exercise of the rights and freedoms referred to in articles 9, 12, 19 and 21 of the Covenant. The state of emergency concluded 15 days after it was declared.

31 May 2010

...by Government Decree No. 14-2010, owing to the eruption of the Pacaya volcano, the President of the Republic declared a disaster emergency in the territory of the Departments of Escuintla, Sacatepéquez and Guatemala for a period of 30 days, partially restricting the rights and freedoms referred to in articles 12 and 21 of the Covenant.

15 July 2010

...by Government Decree No. 15-2010 of 29 May 2010, owing to the natural disaster caused by tropical storm Agatha and the continuous rain affecting the country, the President of the Republic declared a national disaster emergency for a period of 30 days. On 25 June 2010, by Government Decree No. 16-2010, the disaster emergency was extended for a further 30 days in the Departments of Escuintla, Sacatepéquez and Guatemala owing to the continuance of the circumstances that led to the issuance of Government Decrees Nos. 14-2010 and 15-2010.

In each case, measures were adopted that partially restrict the content of articles 12 and 21 of the International Covenant.

2 August 2010

...by Government Decree 17-2010 of 22 July 2010, the President of the Republic extended for a further 30 days the disaster emergency proclamed by Government Decree 14-2010.

28 June 2010

...by Government Decree No. 6-2010 of 19 February 2010 extended the state of emergency in the Department of San Marcos, Guatemala.

The Government Decree entered into force immediately and has been issued for a period of fifteen (15) days in the Department of San Marcos, Guatemala. The exercise of the rights and freedoms established in articles 12, 19, paragraph 2 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been partially restricted.

28 June 2010

In a note received on 28 June 2010, the Government of Guatemala informed the Secretary-General that the State of public emergency declared by Government Decree 11-2010 of 16 April 2010 in the Department of San Marcos ended 15 days after its declaration.

28 December 2010

...by Government Decree No. 23-2010 of 19 December 2010, the President of the Republic of Guatemala declared a state of siege in the Department of Alta Verapaz for a period of 30 days from the entry into force of the Decree in response to the need to regain control of the region where drugs traffickers have a strong presence, and where a series of violent events have taken place. Measures were adopted restricting the full application of articles 9, 12 and 21 of the Covenant.

27 January 2011

...by Government Decree 01-2011, the state of siege is being extended because the conditions that led to the issuance of Government Decree No. 23-2010 [...] still persist.

25 May 2011

...by Government Decree No. 4-2011 in the Council of Ministers, the President of the Republic of guatemala declared a state of emergency in the Department of Petén for a period of thirty (30) days, beginning on the date of the entry into force of the aforesaid Decree. Accordingly, the exercise of the rights and freedoms established in articles 9, 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been restricted, as necessary.

21 June 2011

...by Government decree No. 5-2011, the state of emergency declared by by Government Decree 4-2011 is extended for an additional period of 30 days in the Department of Petén . Measures restricting the application of articles 9, 12 and 21 of the Covenant remain in effect.

21 July 2011

...by Government Decree No. 6-2011, the President of Guatemala extended for an additional 30 days the state of emergency in the Department of Petén declared by Government Decree No. 4-2011 and extended by Government Decree No. 5-2011. Measures restricting the application of articles 9, 12 and 21 of the Covenant remain in effect.

25 August 2011

...by Government Decree No. 7-2011, the President of the Republic of Guatemala, in the Council of Ministers, declared a state of emergency in the Department of Petén for 30 days as of 14 August 2011. The exercise of the rights and freedoms set out in articles 9, 12 and 21 of the Covenant have been restricted.

6 September 2011

In a note received on 6 September 2011, the Government of Guatemala informed the Secretary-General that the state of public emergency declared by Government Decree 6-2011, dated 14 July 2011, ended on 17 August 2011.

12 October 2011

...by Government Decree 9-2011, the Vice-President of the Republic of Guatemala, acting in the Council of Ministers and on the authority of the President of the Republic, declared a state of public emergency in the Department of Santa Rosa for a period of thirty (30) days as from the date of the entry into force of that Decree. In that connection, measures restricting the application of articles 9, 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were taken.

14 October 2011

...on 14 August 2011, the President of the Republic of Guatemala, in the Council of Ministers, through Government Decree No. 7-2011, declared a state of emergency in the Department of Petén , Guatemala, for a period of thirty (30) days.

Because of the continuation of the conditions that led to declare the above-mentioned state of emergency, by Government Decree No. 8-2011, dated 13 September, 2011, the President of the Republic of Guatemala again extended the state of emergency for an additional 30 days in the Department of Petén , Guatemala.

20 October 2011

On 15 October 2011, the President of the Republic of Guatemala declared in the Council of Ministers, by Government decree No. 10-2011, a state of emergency throughout the national territory, to run for thirty days starting from the date of entry into force of that decree. Measures have been adopted to derogate as necessary from the provisions of articles 9, 12 and 21 of the aforementioned International Covenant.

13 June 2012

[...] on 1 May 2012 the President of the Republic of Guatemala, in the Council of Ministers, declared a state of emergency in the town of Santa Cruz Barillas, Department of Huehuetenango, by Government Decree No. 1-2012.

Government Decree No. 1-2012 entered into force immediately for a period of thirty (30) days in the town of Santa Cruz Barillas, Department of Huehuetenango, Guatemala. It restricted the exercise of the rights referred to in articles 9, 12 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with regard to lawful detention, freedom of movement and the right of assembly and demonstration, as well as the right to bear arms.

However, as the circumstances that led to that decree no longer exist, on 18 May 2012 the state of emergency in the town of Santa Cruz Barillas, Department of Huehuetenango, was lifted by Government Decree No. 2-2012.

23 November 2012

On 7 November 2012, the President of the Republic of Guatemala, in the Council of Ministers, declared a state of disaster in the Guatemalan departments of Retalhuleu, Quetzaltenango, Sololá , Quiché , Totonicapán , San Marcos and Huehuetenango through Government Decree No. 3-2012. Subsequently, the President of the Republic, in the Council of Ministers, expanded the state of disaster declared through Government Decree No. 3-2012 to include the department of Suchitepéquez .

The relevant measures have been decreed for a period of fifteen (15) days and restrict the implementation of article 12 of the above-mentioned Covenant with regard to liberty of movement.

18 December 2012

On 7 November 2012, the President of the Republic of Guatemala, in the Council of Ministers, declared a state of disaster in the Guatemalan departments of Retalhuleu, Quetzaltenango, Sololá , Quiché , Totonicapán , San Marcos, Huehuetenango and Suchitepéquez through Government Decrees Nos. 3-2012 and 4-2012.

Because the conditions that gave rise to the aforementioned declaration of a state of disaster still persist, the President of the Republic of Guatemala has further extended, through Government Decree No. 5-2012 of 7 December 2012, the state of disaster in the Guatemalan departments of Retalhuleu, Quetzaltenango, Sololá , Quiché , Totonicapán , San Marcos, Huehuetenango and Suchitepéquez , for a period of thirty additional days.

15 January 2013

...on 7 November 2012, the President of the Republic of Guatemala, in the Council of Ministers, declared a state of disaster in the Guatemalan departments of Retalhuleu, Quetzaltenango, Sololá , Quiché , Totonicapán , San Marcos, Huehuetenango and Suchitepéquez through Government Decrees Nos. 3-2012 and 4-2012.

Subsequently, on 7 December 2012, the President of the Republic of Guatemala extended the state of disaster for an additional thirty days in the Guatemalan departments of Retalhuleu, Quetzaltenango, Sololá , Quiché , Totonicapán , San Marcos, Huehuetenango and Suchitepéquez , through Government Decree 5-2012.

Because the conditions that gave rise to the aforementioned declaration of a state of disaster still persist, the President of the Republic of Guatemala has further extended, through Government Decree No. 1-2013 of 7 January 2013, the state of disaster in the Guatemalan departments of Retalhuleu, Quetzaltenango, Sololá , Quiché , Totonicapán , San Marcos, Huehuetenango and Suchitepéquez , for a period of thirty additional days...

27 February 2013

...on 7 November 2012, the President of the Republic of Guatemala, in the Council of Ministers, declared a state of disaster in the Guatemalan departments of Retalhuleu, Quetzaltenango, Sololá , Quiché , Totonicapán , San Marcos, Huehuetenango and Suchitepéquez through Government Decrees Nos. 3-2012, 4-2012, 5-2012 and 1-2013.

Because the conditions that gave rise to the aforementioned declaration of a state of disaster still persist, the President of the Republic of Guatemala has further extended, through Government Decree No. 2-2013 of 31 January 2013, the state of disaster in the Guatemalan departments of Retalhuleu, Quetzaltenango, Sololá , Quiché , Totonicapán , San Marcos, Huehuetenango and Suchitepéquez , for a period of thirty additional days.

24 September 2014

...On 21 September 2014, the President of the Republic of Guatemala, in the Council of Ministers, declared a state of alert in the municipality of San Juan Sacatepéquez in the Department of Guatemala through Government Decree No. 6-2014.

The measures have been decreed for a period of fifteen (15) days and restrict the implementation of articles 12 and 21 of the aforementioned Covenant.

14 October 2014

...on 21 September 2014, the President of the Republic of Guatemala, in the Council of Ministers, declared a state of alert in the municipality of San Juan Sacatepéquez , Department of Guatemala, by Government Decree No. 6-2014.

As the conditions that gave rise to the declaration of this state of alert still prevail, the President of the Republic of Guatemala, by Government Decree No. 8-2014 of 2 October 2014, has extended the state of alert in the municipality of San Juan Sacatepéquez , Department of Guatemala, for an additional 15 days.

10 November 2014

...on 21 September 2014, the President of the Republic of Guatemala, in the Council of Ministers, declared a state of alert in the municipality of San Juan Sacatepéquez , Department of Guatemala, by Government Decree No. 6-2014.

As the conditions that gave rise to the declaration of the state of alert still prevailed, the President of the Republic of Guatemala, by Government Decrees Nos. 8-2014 of 2 October 2014 and 9-2014 of 16 October 2014, twice extended the state of alert in the municipality of San Juan Sacatepéquez , Department of Guatemala, for an additional 15 days.

I wish to inform you that the state of alert that was implemented in the territory of the municipality of San Juan Sacatepéquez , Department of Guatemala, was lifted by Government Decree No. 11-2014 of 31 October 2014.

2 August 2016

... pursuant to article 4(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

On 21 June 2016, as a result of landslides caused by heavy rainfall that damaged roads, housing, schools, health facilities and other infrastructure, Mr. Jimmy Morales Cabrera, President of the Republic of Guatemala, in concert with the Cabinet, issued Government Decree No. 2-2016 declaring a state of emergency in the municipality of Jerez, department of Jutiapa, for 30 days beginning from the date of entry into force of the decree.

On 18 July 2016, the President of the Republic, in concert with the Cabinet, issued Government Decree No. 3-2016 extending the state of emergency for another 30 days, since the circumstances that gave rise to Government Decree No. 2-2016 continued to exist...

See C.N.601.2016.TREATIES-IV.4 of 6 September 2016.

2 August 2016

... pursuant to article 4 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that on 21 June 2016, in concert with the Cabinet, Mr. Jimmy Morales Cabrera, President of the Republic of Guatemala, issued Government Decree No. 2-2016 declaring a state of emergency in the municipality of Jerez, Department of Jutiapa, for 30 days beginning from the date of entry into force of the decree.

The state of emergency was declared as a result of landslides caused by heavy rainfall in the municipality of Jerez, Department of Jutiapa, which damaged roads, housing, schools, health facilities and other infrastructure and impaired the provision of essential services, as well as affecting production activities and human development. Accordingly, the measure is aimed at mitigating the damage, repairing roads and buildings, restoring essential services and minimizing the impact, as well as enabling the necessary measures to be taken, in places where the circumstances so warrant, to avoid or reduce the impact of the disaster and, above all, to protect the life, physical integrity and safety of the affected or at-risk population and to safeguard their property.

In this connection, measures have been taken to restrict the application of article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with respect to liberty of movement...

See C.N.600.2016.TREATIES-IV.4 of 6 September 2016.

28 September 2016

...on 19 September 2016, by Government Decree No. 5-2016, published on 20 September 2016 in the Official Gazette, the Government of Guatemala declared a state of emergency throughout Guatemala because of the heavy and constant rainfall affecting the country.

Subsequently, by Government Decree No. 6-2016 of 21 September 2016, published on 22 September 2016, the Government of Guatemala repealed Government Decree No. 5-2016, because of the differing and widespread interpretations among the population about the purposes for which the Decree had been issued...

...further to Note No. J/1/1119 of 27 September 2016 concerning Decree No. 5-2016 published on 20 September 2016 and Decree No. 6-2016 published on 22 September 2016, whereby Guatemala declared and subsequently lifted the national state of emergency.

In this regard and in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I wish to inform you that the Government of Guatemala has decided to revoke the suspension of the following articles under Government Decree No. 6-2016:

1. Article 12: Movement

2. Article 19: Freedom of expression

3. Article 21: Peaceful assembly

4. Article 22: Association...

(See C.N.838.2016.TREATIES-IV.4 of 9 November 2016.)

3 October 2016

...on 22 September 2016, the Government of Guatemala, issued Government Decree No. 7-2016, published in the Official Gazette on 23 September 2016, declaring a state of emergency in the national territory for a period of thirty (30) days, beginning on the date of entry into force of the aforesaid Decree.

The purpose of this Decree is to prevent the population from remaining in, or having access to, certain areas classified as vulnerable or at risk; to take all appropriate measures to mitigate the damage caused or which may be caused by the continuous heavy rainfall in order to prevent further consequences; and, in places where circumstances so warrant, to take the necessary action to alleviate or reduce its impact, thereby protecting the lives, safety and physical integrity of the Guatemalan population...

...further to Note No. J/1/1132 of 30 September 2016 concerning Decree No. 7-2016 published on 23 September 2016, whereby Guatemala declared a national state of emergency.

In this regard and in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I wish to inform you that the Government of Guatemala has decided to take measures with regard to the provisions of article 12 of the Covenant... (See C.N.839.2016.TREATIES-IV.4 of 9 November 2016.)

19 May 2017

J/1/563

New York, 18 May 2017

Sir,

I have the honour to inform you that on 10 May 2017, the Government of Guatemala, through Government Decree No. 2-2017, published on 12 May 2017 in the Official Gazette, declared a state of emergency in the municipalities of Ixchiguán and Tajumulco in the department of San Marcos, for a period of thirty days from the publication of the Decree in the Official Journal.

The state of emergency was decreed because in recent days a number of serious events have occurred in those municipalities that jeopardize the constitutional order, governance and security of the State, affecting individuals and families and endangering the lives, liberty, security, peace and full development of the people.

As a result of the above declaration and for as long as it remains in effect, full exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of action, lawful arrest, interrogation of detainees or prisoners, freedom of movement, rights of assembly and demonstration and carrying of weapons, contained in articles 5, 6, 9, 26, 33 and paragraph two of article 38 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala, as well as articles 12, 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, shall be suspended.

In this regard, and based on the provisions of article 4, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I request your good offices to convey to States parties the notification and attached Government decree for the files of the depositary, as well as for consultation.

Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

(Signed) Omar Castañeda Solares

Deputy Permanent Representative/ Chargé d'affaires a.i.

(See C.N.290.2017.TREATIES-IV.4 of 24 May 2017)

12 June 2017

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 12 June 2017, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of emergency in the municipalities of Ixchiguán and Tajumulco in the Department of San Marcos, for a further thirty days by Government Decree No. 3-2017.

(See C.N.402.2017.TREATIES-IV.4 of 17 July 2017 for the text of the notification.)

6 September 2019

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 5 September 2019, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of siege on 4 September 2019 by Government Decree No. 1/2019 in the department of Izabal; in the municipalities of Tactic, Senahú , Tamahú , Tucurú , Panzós , Santa María Cahabón , Santa Catalina la Tinta, Chahal and Fray Bartolomé de las Casas in the department of Alta Verapaz; in the municipalities of Gualán , Río Hondo, Teculután and Usumatlán in the department of Zacapa; in the municipalities of San Agustín Acasaguastlán and San Cristóbal Acasaguastlán in the department of El Progreso; in the municipality of Purulhá in the department of Baja Verapaz; and in the municipality of San Luis in the department of Petén , for a period of thirty (30) days.

(See C.N.422.2019.TREATIES-IV.4 of 12 September 2019 for the text of the notification.)

21 January 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 20 January 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency on 16 January 2020 by Government Decree No. 1/2020 in the department of Izabal; in the municipalities of San Juan Sacatépequez and Mixco, both in the Department of Guatemala of the Republic of Guatemala, for a period of six (6) days.

(See C.N.37.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 24 January 2020 for the text of the notification.)

29 January 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 29 January 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency on 24 January 2020 by Government Decree No. 2/2020 in the municipality of Villa Nueva, in the Department of Guatemala of the Republic of Guatemala, for a period of six (6) days.

(See C.N.45.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 31 January 2020 for the text of the notification.)

7 February 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 7 February 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency on 4 February 2020 by Government Decree No. 3/2020 in the municipalities of Chimaltenango, El Tejar and San Andrés Itzapa in the Department de Chimaltenango of the Republic of Guatemala, for a period of six (6) days.

(See C.N.65.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 19 February 2020 for the text of the notification.)

17 February 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 17 February 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency on 11 February 2020 by Government Decree No. 4/2020 in the municipalities of Escuintla, Nueva Concepción , Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa, Tiquisate, San José and Palín in the Department of Escuintla of the Republic of Guatemala, for a period of six (6) days.

(See C.N.66.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 19 February 2020 for the text of the notification.)

9 March 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 9 March 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency throughout the national territory on 5 March 2020 by Government Decree No. 5/2020 for a period of thirty (30) days.

(See C.N.91.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 10 March 2020 for the text of the notification.)

23 march 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 23 March 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the entire territory of Guatemala from 22 March 2020 to 29 March 2020 by Governement Order No. 6 dated 21 March 2020.

(See C.N.117.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 31 March 2020 for the text of the notification.)

26 March 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 25 March 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of a state of emergency in the entire territory of Guatemala for an additional period of thirty days by Governement Order No. 7 dated 24 March 2020.

(See C.N.124.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 6 April 2020 for the text of the notification.)

30 April 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 29 April 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of a state of emergency in the entire territory of Guatemala for an additional period of thirty days by Governement Order No. 8 dated 20 April 2020.

(See C.N.155.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 7 May 2020 for the text of the notification.)

17 May 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 15 May 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the measures restricting the application of articles 12 and 21 in the entire territory of Guatemala from Friday, 15 May 2020, at midnight to Monday, 18 May 2020, at 5 a.m. by Presidential Regulations dated 14 May 2020.

(See C.N.174.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 28 May 2020 for the text of the notification.)

29 May 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 29 May 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the measures restricting the application of articles 12 and 21 in the entire territory of Guatemala from 5 p.m. on Friday, 22 May to 5 a.m. on Monday, 25 May and from 5 p.m. on Friday, 29 May to 5 a.m. on Monday, 1 June.

(See C.N.188.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 9 June 2020 for the text of the notification.)

2 June 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 1 June 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of national emergency for an additional period of thirty days.

(See C.N.191.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 11 June 2020 for the text of the notification.

3 June 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 1 June 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of siege throughout the territory of the municipalities of Nahualá , Santa Catarina Ixtahuacán and Santa Lucía Utatlán , in the Department of Sololá , Republic of Guatemala, by Government Decree No. 10-2020 of 29 May 2020 for a period of thirty days from the date of entry into force of the said Decree.

(See C.N.190.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 11 June 2020 for the text of the notification.)

6 July 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 1 July 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of siege throughout the territory of the municipalities of Nahualá , Santa Catarina Ixtahuacán and Santa LucíaUtatlán , in the Department of Sololá , Republic of Guatemala, by Government Decree No. 11-2020 of 23 June 2020 for a period of thirty days.

(See C.N.301.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 14 July 2020 for the text of the notification.)

6 July 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 1 July 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of public disaster throughout the national territory for an additional period of thirty days by Government Decree No. 12-2020 of 23 June 2020.

(See C.N.285.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 8 July 2020 for the text of the notification.)

24 July 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 22 July 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of siege throughout the territory of the municipalities of El Estor, Morales and Livingston, in the Department of Izabal, and in the municipalities of Panzós and Santa Catalina La Tinta, in the Department of Alta Verapaz, by Government Decree No. 13-2020 of 18 July 2020 for a period of thirty days from the date of entry into force of said Decree.

(See C.N.321.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 27 July 2020 for the text of the notification.)

3 August 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 29 July 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of public disaster throughout the national territory for an additional period of thirty days by Government Decree No. 15-2020 of 26 juillet 2020.

(See C.N.328.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 5 August 2020 for the text of the notification.)

20 August 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 18 August 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of alert throughout the territory of the municipalities of El Estor, Morales and Livingston, in the Department of Izabal, and in the municipalities of Panzós and Santa Catalina La Tinta, in the Department of Alta Verapaz, by Government Decree No. 16-2020 of 13 August 2020 for a period of fifteen days from the date of entry into force of said Decree.

(See C.N.352.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 25 August 2020 for the text of the notification.)

3 September 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 31 August 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of public disaster for thirty additional days by Government Decree No. 17-2020.

(See C.N.383.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 9 September 2020 for the text of the notification.)

17 November 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 16 November 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of state of emergency in some departments because of the Tropical Depression ETA, by Government Decrees No. 20-2020 and 21-2020 of 5 and 6 November 2020 for a period of thirty days from the date of entry into force of said Decrees.

(See C.N.534.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 23 November 2020 for the text of the notification.)

4 December 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 1 December 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the state of emergency declared by Government Decrees Nos. 20-2020 and 21-2020 and extended by Government Decree No. 22-2020 adopted on 30 November 2020 by thirty days.

(See C.N.547.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 9 December 2020 for the text of the notification.)

19 January 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 14 January 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the state of emergency declared through Government Decree No. 1-2021 in the Izabal, Zacapa, Chiquimula, Jutiapa, El Progreso, Pet n and Santa Rosa Departments for a period of 15 days from 14 January 2021.

(See C.N.47.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 29 January 2021 for the text of the notification.)

7 April 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 30 March 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the state of emergency declared through Government Decree No. 3-2021 in the Izabal, Zacapa, Chiquimula, El Progreso and Petén Departments for a period of 15 days from 29 March 2021.

(See C.N.123.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 8 April 2021 for the text of the notification.)

27 October 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 26 October 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the state of emergency declared through Government Decree No. 9-2021 in in the municipality of El Estor, Department of Izabal for a period of 30 days.

(See C.N.361.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 3 November 2021 for the text of the notification.)

29 November 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 24 November 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of prevention by Government Decree No. 10-2021 in in the municipality of El Estor, Department of Izabal for a period of 15 days.

(See C.N.385.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 7 December 2021 for the text of the notification.)

30 December 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 29 December 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of prevention by Government Decree No. 11-2021 in the in the municipalities of Nahualá and Santa Catarina Ixtahuacán , Department of Sololá for a period of 30 days.

(See C.N.406.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 11 January 2022 for the text of the notification.)

26 January 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 24 December 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the declaration of a state of prevention by Government Decree No. 1-2022 in the in the municipalities of Nahualá and Santa Catarina Ixtahuacán , Department of Sololá for a period of 30 days.

(See C.N.41.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 28 January 2022 for the text of the notification.)

9 June 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 8 June 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of siege by Government Decree No. 2-2022 in the municipalities of Ixchiguán and Tajumulco, Department of San Marcos for a period of 30 days.

(See C.N.147.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 16 June 2022 for the text of the notification.)

24 June 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 23 June 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of emergency by Decree No. 3-2022 for a period of thirty days.

(See C.N.176.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 12 July 2022 for the text of the notification.)

11 July 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 7 July 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of siege in the municipalities of Ixchiguán and Tajumulco (Department of San Marcos) for a period of thirty days by Government Decree No. 4-2022.

(See C.N.183.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 20 July 2022 for the text of the notification.)

13 October 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 11 October 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of the state of public disaster throughout the Republic of Guatemala, owing to the effects of the rainy season and tropical cyclone Julia, for a period of thirty days by Government Decree No. 5-2022.

(See C.N.384.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 2 November 2022 for the text of the notification.)

19 January 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 19 January 2026, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of the state of siege throughout the Republic of Guatemala for a period of thirty (30) days by Government Decree No. 1-2026.

(See C.N.62.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 23 January 2026 for the text of the notification.)

17 February 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 17 February 2026, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of the state of alert throughout the Republic of Guatemala for a period of fifteen (15) days by Government Decree No. 2-2026.

(See C.N.97.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 25 February 2026 for the text of the notification.)

5 March 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 5 March 2026, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of the state of emergency throughout the Republic of Guatemala for a period of fifteen (15) days by Government Decree No. 3-2026.

(See C.N.105.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 5 March 2026 for the text of the notification.)

23 March 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 23 March 2026, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of the state of emergency, on 19 March 2026, in the departments of Guatemala, Petén , Escuintla, Izabal, San Marcos and Huehuetenango for a period of fifteen (15) days by Government Decree No. 4-2026.

(See C.N.117.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 24 March 2026 for the text of the notification.)

8 April 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 8 April 2026, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of the state of emergency, on 7 April 2026, in the departments of Guatemala, Sacatepéquez , Petén , Escuintla, Izabal, San Marcos and Huehuetenango for a period of fifteen (15) days by Government Decree No. 5-2026.

(See C.N.134.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 9 April 2026 for the text of the notification.)

21 April 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 21 April 2026, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of the state of emergency, on 21 April 2026, in the departments of Guatemala, Escuintla, Izabal, San Marcos and Huehuetenango of the Republic of Guatemala for a period of fifteen (15) days by Government Decree No. 6-2026.

(See C.N.147.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 22 April 2026 for the text of the notification.)

6 May 2026

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Guatemala a notification dated 6 May 2026, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of the state of emergency, on 6 May 2026, in the departments of Guatemala, Escuintla, Izabal, San Marcos and Huehuetenango of the Republic of Guatemala for a period of fifteen (15) days by Government Decree No. 7-2026.

(See C.N.158.2026.TREATIES-IV.4 of 7 May 2026 for the text of the notification.)

Israel

3 October 1991

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

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

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

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

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

Jamaica

28 September 2004

On 28 September 2004, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Jamaica a notification dated 28 September 2004, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, transmitting a Proclamation declaring a state of emergency in the island. The proclamation shall remain in effect for an initial period of 30 days, unless the Governor-General is advised to repeal it or an extension is granted by the House of Representatives.

22 October 2004

In a note received on 22 October 2004, the Government of Jamaica informed the Secretary-General that during the state of emergency, the provisions from which it may derogate are articles 12, 19, 21 and 22 (2) of the Covenant.

27 October 2004

On 27 October 2004, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Jamaica a notification, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, transmitting text of sections 26 (4) - (7) of the Constitution by which the proclamation of a state of public emergency issued by the Governor-General on 10 September 2004 terminated on 8 October 2004.

Furthermore, the Government of Jamaica informed the Secretary-General that the possible derogation from the rights guaranteed by Articles 12, 19, 21 and 22 (2) by Jamiaca ceased on 8 October 2004.

24 August 2007

On 24 August 2007, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Jamaica a notification dated 23 August 2007, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, transmitting a proclamation declaring a State of Public Emergency in the Island issued by the Governor on 19 August 2007. The proclamation shall remain in effect for an initial period of 30 days, unless the Governor-General is advised to repeal it.

27 August 2007

In a note received on 27 August 2007, the Government of Jamaica informed the Secretary-General that the State of public emergency issued by the Governor on 19 August 2007 has since been lifted effective Friday 24 August.

1 June 2010

"[...] in accordance with Article 4 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has the honour to inform that on 23rd May 2010, the Governor-General of Jamaica issued a proclamation declaring a State of Public Emergency in the island.

The State of Public Emergency has been imposed in the parishes of Kingston and St. Andrew as a result of a threat to public safety and shall exist for a period of one month unless extended by the House of Representatives or terminated at an earlier time.

The Proclamation issued by the Governor-General is in strict compliance with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and with the Constitution of Jamaica. There may be derogation from the rights guaranteed by Articles 12, 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [...]

The Government of Jamaica hereby requests that the Secretary-General in his capacity as depository of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights inform all Parties to the Covenant on the provision from which it may derogate and the reason for possible derogation.

The Permanent of Jamaica has the further honour to advise that the Government of Jamaica will inform the Secretary-General of measures taken by the authorities aimed at the termination of the State of Public of Emergency. [...]."

30 June 2010

"...The Permanent Mission [of Jamaica to the United Nations] wishes to advise that, upon the decision of the House of Representatives for Jamaica, the State of Emergency [declared on 23 May 2010] has been extended by the Government of Jamaica, in accordance with Section 26 (4) - (7) of the Constitution, for a further period of twenty-eight (28) days from the date of June 23, 2010 for the parishes of Kingston, St. Andrew, as well as St. Catherine.

During the period of public emergency the Government may derogate from the provisions of Articles 9, 12, 17, 19 and 21 of the Covenant under regulations made pursuant to Emergency Powers Act..."

23 January 2018

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Jamaica a notification dated 22 January 2018, made under article 4 (3) of the Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the Parish of St. James for a period of 14 Days.

(See C.N.51.2018.TREATIES-IV-4 of 24 January 2018 for the text of the notification.)

Kyrgyzstan

31 March 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Kyrgyzstan a notification dated 30 March 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the cities of Bishkek, Osh and Jalal-Abad and the Nookat and Kara-Suu districts of the Osh region and in the Suzak district of the Jalal-Abad region from 8.00 a.m. of March 25, 2020 until 8.00 a.m. of April 15, 2020.

(See C.N.129.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 14 April 2020 for the text of the notification.)

30 April 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Kyrgyzstan a notification dated 29 April 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of emergency in the cities of Bishkek, Osh and Jalal-Abad as well as in the At-Bashinsky district of the Naryn region of the Kyrgyz Republic until 11:59 p.m. on 10 May 2020 by Presidential Decree of 28 April 2020.(See C.N.160.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 14 May 2020 for the text of the notification.)

Latvia

16 March 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Latvia a notification dated 16 March 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a state of emergency in the entire territory of Latvia from 13 March 2020 to 14 April 2020 by order No. 103 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 12 March 2020.

(See C.N.105.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 19 March 2020 for the text of the notification.)

16 April 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Latvia a notification dated 15 April 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension on 7 April 2020 of the state of emergency in the entire territory of Latvia until 12 May 2020.

(See C.N.135.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 21 April 2020 for the text of the notification.)

13 May 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Latvia a notification dated 13 May 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension on 7 May 2020 of the state of emergency in the entire territory of Latvia until 9 June 2020.

(See C.N.171.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 21 May 2020 for the text of the notification.)

9 June 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Latvia a notification dated 9 June 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the termination of the state of emergency in the entire territory of Latvia with effect on 10 June 2020.

(See C.N.204.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 18 June 2020 for the text of the notification.)

30 December 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Latvia a notification dated 30 December 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the state of emergency in the entire territory of Latvia with effect until 7 February 2021.

(See C.N.579.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 8 January 2021 for the text of the notification.)

8 February 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Latvia a notification dated 8 February 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the extension of the emergency situation in the entire territory of Latvia on 5 February 2021 until 6 April 2021.

(See C.N.60.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 11 February 2021 for the text of the notification.)

6 April 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Latvia a notification dated 6 April 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the termination of the state of emergency in the entire territory of Latvia with effect on 6 April 2021.

(See C.N.122.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 7 April 2021 for the text of the notification.)

21 October 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Latvia a notification dated 21 October 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of an emergency situation in the entire territory of Latvia as of 11 October 2021 until 11 January 2022 by Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of 9 October 2021 no. 720.

(See C.N.355.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 29 October 2021 for the text of the notification.)

15 November 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Latvia a notification dated 15 November 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, notifying that it withdraws its derogation from Article 21 of the Covenant.

(See C.N.378.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 22 November 2021 for the text of the notification.)

Namibia

6 August 1999

(Dated 5 August 1999)

Proclamation No. 23 by the President of the Republic of Namibia, establishing a state of emergency in the Caprivi region for an initial period of thirty (30) days, indicating that the measures were prompted by circumstances arisen in this region causing a public emergency threatening the life of the nation and the constitutional order;

Proclamation No. 24 by the President of the Republic of Namibia, setting out the emergency regulations to the Caprivi region.

14 September 1999

Derogation from articles 9 (2) and 9 (3) of the Covenant.

14 September 1999

(Dated 10 September 1999)

Proclamation No. 27 by the President of the Republic, revoking the declaration of state of emergency and emergency regulations in the Caprivi region promulgated by Proclamations No. 23 of 2 August 1999 and No. 24 of 3 August 1999.

6 July 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Namibia a notification dated 16 June 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration on 18 March 2020 of a state of emergency throughout the country for a period of 21 days, which was subsequently approved by the National Assembly for a period not exceeding six months.

(See C.N.303.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 15 July 2020 for the text of the notification.)

Nepal

8 March 2002

"...in view of the serious situation arising out of terrorist attacks perpetrated by the Maoists in various districts, killing several security and civilian personnel and attacking the government installations, a state of emergency has been declared in the entire Kingdom effective from 26 November 2001, in accordance with the Article 115 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 2047 (BS). Accordingly, His Majesty the King, on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, has suspended the right to freedom of opinion and expression (Article 12.2a), freedom to assemble peacefully without arms (12.2b) and to move throughout the Kingdom (12.2d). Press and publication right (13.1), right against preventive detention (Article 15), right to information (Article 16), right to property (Article 17), right to privacy (Article 22) and right to constitutional remedy (Article 23) have also been suspended. However, the right to the remedy of habeas corpus has not been suspended.

The Permanent Representative also would like to inform the Secretary-General that, while suspending the rights and freedoms, His Majesty's Government has fully observed the provision of Article 4, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the above mentioned Covenant. Accordingly, the rights and freedoms as contained in Articles 6, 7, 8 (1), 11, 15, 16 and 18 of the Covenant, which are also guaranteed by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, remain in effect."

31 May 2002

"...following the dissolution of the Parliament, which was done in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal - 2047, His Majesty's Government of Nepal has decided to hold the general elections on November 13, 2002 in a free and fair manner. In view of the current security situation in the country prompted by the Maoist insurgency, the Government has also extended the state of emergency by three more months. The Government, however, is committed to liftig the emergency as soon as there is an improvement in the security situation to facilitate free and peaceful general elections.

...in spite of these steps, the Government will stay the course in respect to development programs and socio-economic reforms."

21 November 2002

(Dated 19 November 2002)

"...With reference to [...] note 0076/2002 dated 22 February 2002 and pursuant to clause 3 of Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966,... [the Government of Nepal] lifted the state of emergency in the country, effective from 20 August 2002."

16 February 2005

"The Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of Nepal to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and, pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), has the honour to inform him that in view of a grave emergency threatening the sovereignty, integrity and security of the Kingdom of Nepal, His Majesty the King has, in accordance with clause (1) of Article 115 (1) of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990 (2047), issued an order of a State of Emergency in respect of the whole of the Kingdom of Nepal on 1 February 2005 with immediate effect. As the situation in the country had reached a point where the survival of multiparty democracy and the nation's sovereignty had been seriously threatened and the people of Nepal had to go through a miserable period of time due to untold sufferings brought about by the rise in terrorist activities throughout the country, and as the governments formed during the past few years had not been serious enough about initiating a dialogue with terrorists, His Majesty as the protector of the Constitution and the symbol of national unity, had no alternative but to declare a state of emergency to meet the exigencies in exercise of His State authority and in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution of the Kingdom of, 1990 and taking into account Article 27 (3) of the Constitution, to protect and preserve the sovereignty of the Nation. His Majesty the King has also, in accordance with clause (8) of Article 115 of the Constitution, suspended sub-clauses (a) freedom of thought and expression, (b) freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms, and (d) freedom to move and reside in any part of Nepal, of clause (2) of Article 12; clause (1) of Article 13 press and publication right which provides that no news item, article or any other reading material shall be censored; and Article 15: right against private detention; Article 16: right to information; Article 17: right to property; Article 22: right to privacy; and Article 23: and the right to constitutional remedy (with the exception of the right to the remedy of habeus corpus) of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990 (2047).

The Permanent Mission would further like to inform the Secretary-General that such measures are not inconsistent with Nepal's other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

The Permanent Mission would also like to inform the Secretary-General that the non-derogable rights as set forth in Articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which are guaranteed by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990, have been kept intact."

29 March 2005

"...following the declaration of a State of Emergency throughout the Kingdom of Nepal on 1 February 2005, [the Government of Nepal] has derogated itself from the obligations under the articles, mentioned below, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) for a period of the State of Emergency in the country. 1. Derogation from Article 19 of the ICCPR following the suspension of sub-clause (a) of Clause 2 of Article 12, Clause (1) of Article 1 and Article 16 of the Constitution (freedom of opinion and expression, right to press and publication and right to information respectively). 2. Derogation from Articles 12.1 and 12.2 of the ICCPR following the suspension of sub-clause (d) of Clause 2 of Article 12 of the Constitution (freedom to move and reside in any part of the Kingdom of Nepal). 3. Derogation from Article 17 of the ICCPR following the suspension of Article 22 of the Constitution (right to privacy). 4. Derogation from Article 2.3 of the ICCPR following the suspension of Article 23 of the Constitution (right to constitutional remedy except the writ of habeas corpus)."

5 May 2005

On 5 May 2005, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Nepal a notification, dated the same, informing him that, as required by Article 4 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, that His Majesty the King has, in accordance with clause (11) of Article 115 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990 (2047), revoked the Order of State of Emergency proclaimed on 1 February 2005 in respect to the whole of the Kingdom of Nepal.

Panama

21 June 1987

(Dated 11 June 1987)

Declaration of the State of emergency throughout the territory of the Republic of Panama. The notification specifies that the state of emergency was declared since, on 9 and 10 June 1987, there were outbreaks of violence, clashes between demonstrators and units of defence forces, and incitement to violence by individuals and political groups resulting in personal injury and considerable material damage. The measure was taken with a view to restoring law and order and safeguarding the life, the dignity and the property of Panamanian nationals and of foreigners living in Panama.

The articles of the Covenant being derogated from are articles 12, paragraph 1; 17, with regard to the inviolability of correspondence; 19 and 21.

1 July 1987

Termination of the State of emergency and reinstatement of all constitutional guarantees as at 30 June 1987.

Paraguay

27 April 2010

Through note DM/No. 105/2010, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Paraguay notified the Secretary-General that in response to criminal acts that are causing serious internal disturbances within the Republic and which pose an immediate threat to the proper functioning of constitutional bodies and to the lives, liberty, rights and property of the populations concerned, by act No. 3,994/10, a state of emergency was declared in the Departments of Concepción , San Pedro, Amambay, Alto Paraguay and Presidente Hayes for a period of 30 days as from 24 April 2010.

15 July 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Paraguay a notification dated 15 July 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the measures taken by the Paraguayan State in the framework of the declaration of health emergency.

(See C.N.318.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 24 July 2020 for the text of the notification.)

6 August 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Paraguay a notification dated 27 July 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the measures taken by the Paraguayan State in the framework of the declaration of health emergency.

(See depositary notification C.N.348.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 18 August 2020 for the text of the notification.)

7 September 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Paraguay a notification dated 4 September 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the measures taken by the Paraguayan State in the framework of the declaration of health emergency.

(See depositary notification C.N.393.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 15 September 2020 for the text of the notification.)

27 October 2020

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Paraguay a notification dated 27 October 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the measures taken by the State of Paraguay following the declaration of health emergency.

(See depositary notification C.N.512.2020.TREATIES-IV.4 of 4 November 2020 for the text of the notification.)

12 February 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Paraguay a notification dated 4 February 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the measures taken by the State of Paraguay following the declaration of health emergency.

(See depositary notification C.N.62.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 12 February 2021 for the text of the notification.)

21 October 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Paraguay a notification dated 29 June 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, concerning the notification of the measures taken by the Government of Paraguay following the declaration of a public health emergency to address the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19).

(See C.N.362.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 3 November 2021 for the text of the notification.)

21 October 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Paraguay a notification dated 21 October 2021, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, concerning the notification of the measures taken by the Government of Paraguay following the declaration of a public health emergency to address the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19).

(See C.N.363.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 4 November 2021 for the text of the notification.)

21 October 2021

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Paraguay a notification dated 1 June 2020, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the declaration of a public health emergency to address the spread of the virus.

(See C.N.360.2021.TREATIES-IV.4 of 2 November 2021 for the text of the notification.)

12 July 2022

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Paraguay a notification dated 11 July 2022, made under article 4 (3) of the above Covenant, regarding the measures taken by the Government of Paraguay following the declaration of a public health emergency to address the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the lifting of such measures by Decree No. 6939 of 18 April 2022.

(See C.N.256.2022.TREATIES-IV.4 of 22 July 2022 for the text of the notification.)

Peru

[For notifications made by Peru received by the Secretary-General between 22 March 1983 and 12 December 2006, see note 1 under "Peru" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.]

24 January 2007

...by Supreme Decree No. 005-2007-PCM, issued on 18 January 2007, a state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo, Andamarca district of the province of Concepción , and Santo Domingo de Acobamba district of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín , has been extended for 60 days from 25 January 2007.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended.

21 February 2007

...by Supreme Decree No. 011-2007-PCM issued on 15 February 2007 together with a corrigendum, the state of emergency in the provinces of Marañón , Huacaybamba, Leoncio Prado and Huamalíes , department of Huánuco , the province of Tocache, department of San Martín , and the province of Padre Abad, department of Ucayali, has been extended for a period of 60 days. A previous extension was communicated in our note No. 7-1-SG/044 dated 20 October 2006.

During the state of emergency, the rights recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru are suspended.

30 March 2007

...by Supreme Decree No. 026-2007-PCM, issued on 22 March 2007, the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, Department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, Department of Huancavelica; the province of La Convención , Department of Cusco; and the province of Satipo, the Andamarca district of the province of Concepción and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba district of the province of Huancayo, Department of Junín , has been extended for a period of 60 days as from 26 March 2007.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, liberty of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, which are recognized, respectively, in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are suspended.

...by Supreme Decree No. 016-2007-PCM, issued on 2 March 2007, a state of emergency was declared in the department of Arequipa, province of Islay, district of Cocachacra, for a period of 30 days.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, established in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru, and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

5 April 2007

...by Supreme Decree No. 030-2007-PCM, issued on 31 March 2007, the state of emergency in the department of Arequipa, province of Islay, district of Cocachacra, was extended for a period of 30 days from 1 April 2007.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, established in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru, and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

25 April 2007

...by Supreme Decree No. 039-2007-PCM issued on 18 April 2007, the state of emergency in the provinces of Marañón , Huacaybamba, Leoncio Prado and Huamalíes , department of Huánuco , the province of Tocache, department of San Martín , and the province of Padre Abad, department of Ucayali, has been extended for a period of 60 days. A previous extension was communicated in our note No. 7-1-SG/06 of 20 February 2007.

During the state of emergency, the rights to the inviolability of the home, freedom of movement and assembly, and liberty and security of person recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

6 June 2007

...by Supreme Decree No. 044-2007-PCM issued on 24 May 2007, a state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, Department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, Department of Huancavelica; the province of La Convención , Department of Cusco; and the province of Satipo, the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, Department of Junín has been extended for a period of 60 days as from 25 May 2007. A previous extension was communicated in Note 7-1-SG/009 of 28 March 2007.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, liberty of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, which are recognized, respectively, in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are suspended.

11 June 2007

...by Supreme Decree No. 045-2007-PCM issued on 25 May 2007, a state of emergency has been declared in the Santa Anita district of the province of Lima, Department of Lima, for a period of seven days.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, liberty of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, which are recognized, respectively, in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are suspended.

11 July 2007

...by Supreme Decree No. 056-2007-PCM issued on 2 July 2007, a state of emergency in the provinces of Marañón , Huacaybamba, Leoncio Prado and Huamalíes , department of Huánuco , the province of Tocache, department of San Martín , and the province of Padre Abad, department of Ucayali, has been extended for a period of 60 days. A previous extension was communicated in our note No. 7-1-SG/013 of 24 April 2007.

During the state of emergency, the rights to the inviolability of the home, freedom of movement and assembly, and liberty and security of person recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

26 July 2007

...by Supreme Decree No. 065-2007-PCM, issued on 21 July 2007, extended the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, Department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, Department of Huancavelica; the districts of Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabambaof the provinceof La Convención , Department of Cusco; and the province of Satipo, the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, Department of Junín , for a period of 60 days as from 24 July 2007. A previous extension was communicated in Note 7-1-SG/017 of 6 June 2007.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, liberty of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, which are recognized, respectively, in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are suspended.

13 September 2007

...by Supreme Decree No. 077-2007-PCM, issued on 30 August 2007, extended the state of emergency in the provinces of Marañón , Huacaybamba, Leoncio Prado and Huamalíes , department of Huánuco , the province of Tocache, department of San Martín , and the province of Padre Abad, department of Ucayali, has been extended for a period of 60 days as from 31 August 2007.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, liberty of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, which are recognized, respectively, in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are suspended.

7 January 2008

...by Supreme Decree No. 099-2007-PCM, issued on 28 December 2007, thestate of emergency in the Districts of San Buenaventura and Cholón , Province of Marañón , in the Province of Leoncio Prado and in the District of Monzón , Province of Huamalíes , Department of Huánuco ; in the Province of Tocache, Department of San Martín ; and in the Province of Padre Abad, Department of Ucayali, has been extended for 60 days as from 29 December 2007.

During the state of emergency the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

12 February 2008

...by Supreme Decree No. 005-2008-PCM, published on 19 January 2008, the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho, the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica, the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco, the province of Satipo, the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancaya, department of Junín , has been extended for sixty days, beginning 20 January 2008. A previous extension and declaration were communicated in Note 7-1-SG/009 of 28 March 2007.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of association and liberty and security of the person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shallbe suspended.

21 February 2008

...by Supreme Decree No. 012-2008-PCM, published on 18 February 2008, a state of emergency has been declared in the Provinces of Huaura, Huaral and Barranca, Department of Lima; in the Provinces of Huarmey, Casma and Santa, Department of Ancash; and in the Province of Virú , Department of La Libertad, for a period of seven days.

During the state of emergency the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

12 March 2008

...by Supreme Decree No. 019-2008-PCM, issued on 6 March 2008, a state of emergency has been declared in Cholón district of the province of Marañón , in Monzón district of the province of Huamalíes and in Leoncio Prado province, department of Huánuco ; in Tocache province, department of San Martín ; and Padre Abad province, department of Ucayali, for a period of 60 days.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended.

8 May 2008

...by Supreme Decree No. 019-2008-PCM, issued on 4 May 2008, the state of emergency in Cholón district of the Province of Marañón , in Monzón district of the Province of Huamalíes and in the Province of Leoncio Prado, Department of Huánuco ; the Province of Tocache, Department of San Martín ; and the Province of Padre Abad, Department of Ucayali, has been extended for a period of 60 days, beginning 6 May 2008. A previous extension was communicated in Note 7-1-SG/09 of 12 March 2008.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended.

9 July 2008

...by Supreme Decree No. 045-2008-PCM, published on 3 July 2008, the state of emergency in the Cholón district in Marañón province, the Monzón district in Huamalíes province, and Leoncio Prado province, all of which are located in the department of Huánuco ; Tocache province, department of San Martín ; and Padre Abad province, department of Ucayali, has been extended for 60 days from 5 July 2008.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

21 July 2008

...by Supreme Decree No. 046-2008-PCM, issued on 12 July 2008, the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción ; and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín has been extended for 60 days as from 18 July 2008.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

8 August 2008

...by Supreme Decree No. 045-2008-PCM, published on 3 July 2008, the state of emergency in the Cholón district in Marañón province, the Monzón district in Huamalíes province, and Leoncio Prado province, all of which are located in the department of Huánuco ; Tocache province, department of San Martín ; and Padre Abad province, department of Ucayali, has been extended for 60 days from 5 July 2008.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

8 August 2008

...by Supreme Decree No. 038-2008-PCM, issued on 15 May 2008, the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho, the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica, the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco, the province of Satipo, the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín , has been extended for sixty days, beginning 19 May 2008.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of association and liberty and security of the person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

22 August 2008

...by Supreme Decree No. 058-2008-PCM, issued on 18 August 2008, a state of emergency was declared in the Provinces of Bagua and Utcubamba, Department of Amazonas; the Province of Datem del Marañón , Department of Loreto; and the Echarate district of the Province of La Convención , Department of Cusco, for a period of thirty days as from 19 August 2008.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

2 September 2008

...by Supreme Decree No. 060-2008-PCM, issued on 28 August 2008, the state of emergency in the Cholón District in Marañón Province, the Monzón District in Huamalíes Province, and Leoncio Prado Province, all of which are located in the Department of Huánuco ; in Tocache Province, Department of San Martín ; and in Padre Abad Province, Department of Ucayali, has been extended for a period of 60 days from 3 September 2008.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person enshrined in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended.

2 September 2008

...by Supreme Decree No. 061-2008-PCM, which was issued on 28 August 2008, Supreme Decree No. 058-2008-PCM, which established a state of emergency in the Provinces of Bagua and Utcubamba in the Department of Amazonas; in the Province of Datem del Marañón in the Department of Loreto; and in the Echarate District of La Convención Province in the Department of Cusco, has been declared null and void.

18 September 2008

...by Supreme Decree No. 063-2008-PCM, issued on 12 September 2008, the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; in the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; in the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; in the province of Satipo; in the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción ; and in the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín , has been extended for 60 days, beginning 16 September 2008.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of the person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

12 November 2008

...by Supreme Decree No. 070-2008-PCM, issued on 4 November 2008, a state of emergency has been declared, as from 5 November 2008, in the provinces of Tacna, Jorge Basadre, Candarave and Tarata, department of Tacna.

During the state of emergency the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

18 November 2008

...by Supreme Decree No. 072-2008-PCM, published on 13 November 2008, the state of emergency has been extended for a period of 60 days, beginning 15 November 2008, in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; in the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; in the districts of Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba in the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; in the province of Satipo; in the districts of Andamarca and Comas in the province of Concepción and in the districts of Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca in the province of Huancayo, department of Junín .

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended.

16 December 2008

...by Supreme Decree No. 072-2008-PCM, published on 13 November 2008, the state of emergency has been extended for 60 days, beginning 15 November 2008, in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; in the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; in the districts of Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba in the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; in the province of Satipo; in the districts of Andamarca and Comas in the province of Concepción ; and in the districts of Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca in the province of Huancayo, department of Junín .

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

14 January 2009

...by Supreme Decree No. 001-2009-PCM, published on 10 January 2009, the state of emergency has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 14 January 2009, in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; in the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; in the districts of Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba in the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; in the province of Satipo; and in the districts of Andamarca and Comas in the province of Concepción and the districts of Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca in the province of Huancayo, department of Junín .

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

30 March 2009

...by Supreme Decree No. 015-2009-PCM, issued on 12 March 2009, the state of emergency has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 15 March 2009, in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; in the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; in the districts of Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba in the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; in the province of Satipo; and in the districts of Andamarca and Comas in the province of Concepción and the districts of Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca in the province of Huancayo, department of Junín .

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, liberty of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

27 April 2009

...by Supreme Decree No. 013-2009-PCM, issued on 26 February 2009, the state of emergency in the Cholón district of the province of Marañón , the Monzón district of the province of Huamalíes and the province of Leoncio Prado, department of Huánuco ; the province of Tocache, department of San Martín ; and the province of Padre Abad, department of Ucayali, has been extended for sixty days with effect from 2 March 2009.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

15 May 2009

...by Supreme Decree No. 027-2009-PCM, issued on 9 May 2009, a state of emergency was declared in the Echarate and Kimbiri districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cuzco; the Sepahua district of the province of Atalaya, department of Ucayali; the Napo district of the province of Maynas, department of Loreto; the Andoas, Pastaza, Morona and Manseriche districts of the province of Datem del Marañón , department of Loreto; and the Imaza district of the province of Bagua, department of Amazonas, for a period of 60 days, with effect from 10 May 2009.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

9 June 2009

...by Supreme Decree No. 035-2009-PCM issued on 5 June 2009, the state of emergency declared under Supreme Decree No. 027-2009-PCM has been extended throughout the department of Amazonas, Datem del Marañón province of the department of Loreto and Jaén and San Ignacio provinces of the department of Cajamarca.

During the state of emergency, the right to the inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of association and liberty and security of person, contained in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru, and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, have been suspended.

29 June 2009

...by Supreme Decree No. 028-2009-PCM, issued on 13 May 2009, the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín , has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 14 May 2009.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

29 June 2009

...by Supreme Decree No. 039-2009-PCM, issued on 22 June 2009, the state of emergency declared by Supreme Decree No. 027-2009-PCM, and extended by Supreme Decree No. 035-2009-PCM, in all the territorial areas covered by those legal provisions (the Echarate and Kimbiri districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the Sepahua district of the province of Atalaya, department of Ucayali; the Napo district of the province of Maynas, department of Loreto; the Andoas, Pastaza, Morona and Manseriche districts of the province of Datem del Marañón , department of Loreto; and the Imaza district of the province of Bagua, department of Amazonas) has been lifted.

It should be noted that the state of emergency in the Kimbiri district of the province of La Convención , departmentof Cusco, will remain in effect pursuant to Supreme Decree No. 028-2009-PCM.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

30 June 2009

...by Supreme Decree No. 041-2009-PCM, issued on 26 June 2009, the state of emergency in the Cholón district of the province of Marañón , the Monzón district of the province of Huamalíes and the province of Leoncio Prado, department of Huánuco ; the province of Tocache, department of San Martín ; and the province of Padre Abad, department of Ucayali, has been extended for sixty days with effect from 1 July 2009.

During the state of emergency, the rights of inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of the person recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12, and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

20 July 2009

...by Supreme Decree No. 043-2009-PCM, issued on 9 July 2009, a state of emergency has been declared in the department of Ica, the provinces of Cañete and Yauyos of the department of Lima; and the provinces of Castrovirreyna, Huaytará and the districts of Acobambilla and Manta of the province of Huancavelica, for a period of sixty days.

During the state of emergency, the rights of inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of the person recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12, and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

20 July 2009

...by Supreme Decree No. 044-2009-PCM, issued on 9 July 2009, the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín , has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 13 July 2009.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

10 September 2009

...by Supreme Decree No. 055-2009-PCM, issued on 3 September 2009, the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín , has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 11 September 2009.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

16 September 2009

...by Supreme Decree No. 060-2009-PCM, published on 10 September 2009, a state of emergency has been declared in the Cholón district of the province of Marañón , the Monzón district of the province of Huamalíes and the province of Leoncio Prado, all of which are located in the department of Huánuco ; the province of Tocache, department of San Martín ; and the province of Padre Abad, department of Ucayali, for a period of 60 days with effect from 11 September 2009.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended.

23 November 2009

...by Supreme Decree No. 068-2009-PCM, issued on 30 October 2009, the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín , has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 10 November 2009...

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

23 November 2009

...by Supreme Decree No. 070-2009-PCM, published on 5 November 2009, the state of emergency in the Cholón district of the province of Marañón , the Monzón district of the province of Huamalíes and the province of Leoncio Prado, all of which are located in the department of Huánuco ; the province of Tocache, department of San Martín ; and the province of Padre Abad, department of Ucayali, has been extended for 60 days with effect from 10 November 2009.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended.

6 January 2010

...by Supreme Decree No. 077-2009-PCM, published on 1 December 2009, a state of emergency was declared in the province of Abancay, department of Apurimac, for a period of 60 days as from 2 November 2009.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru, and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, have been suspended.

9 April 2010

...by Supreme Decree No. 042-2010-PCM, issued on 31 March 2010 [...], a state of emergency was declared in the provinces of Nazca, Palpa and San Juan de Marcona, department of Ica; the provinces Tambopata and Manú , department of Madre de Dios; and the provinces of Carevelí and Camaná , department of Arequipa, for a period of 60 days as from 1 April 2010.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru, and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

6 May 2010

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 049-2010-PCM, issued on 29 April 2010 (copy attached), the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín , has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 9 May 2010.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended.

[...]

21 May 2010

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 057-2010-PCM, issued on 18 May 2010, a state of emergency has been declared in the constitutional province of Callao for a period of 60 days, with effect from 19 May 2010.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, liberty of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

21 May 2010

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 055-2010-PCM of 15 May 2010, the public order having been disturbed in the provinces of Marañón , Leoncio Prado and Huamalíes , a state of emergency has been declared in the Cholón district of the province of Marañón , the Monzón district of the province of Huamalíes and the province of Leoncio Prado, all located in the department of Huánuco ; in the province of Tocache, department of San Martín ; and in the province of Padre Abad, department of Ucayali, for a period of 60 days with efect from 16 May 2010.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, liberty of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

11 August 2010

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 078-2010-PCM, published on 31 July 2010 [...], a state of emergency has been declared in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco, for a period of 60 days with effect from 1 August 2010.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended.

31 August 2010

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 087-2010-PCM, issued on 26 August 2010 [...], the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Concepción , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción ; and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín , has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 6 September 2010.

During the State of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended.

17 September 2010

[...] by Supreme decree No. 091-2010-PCM, issued on 11 September 2010 [...], the state of emergency in the Cholón district in Marañón province, the Monzón district in Huamalíes province, and Leoncio Prado province, all of which are located in the department of Huánuco ; Tocache province, department of San Martín ; and Padre Abad province departmetn of Ucayali, has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 12 September 2010.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended.

1 November 2010

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 091-2010-PCM, issued on 11 September 2010 [...], the State of emergency in the Cholón district in Marañón province, the Monzón district in Huamalíes province, and Leoncio Prado province, all of which are located in the department of Huánuco ; Tocache province, department of San Martín ; and Padre Abad province, department of Ucayali, has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 12 September 2010.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended.

7 December 2011

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 093-2011-PCM, issued on 4 December 2011, [...], a state of emergency was declared for a period of sixty days, starting on 5 December 2011, in Cajamarca, Celendín , Hualgayoc and Contumazá provinces in the administrative department of Cajamarca.

During the state of emergency, the President has suspended the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, under article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f) of the Political Constitution of Peru, and articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively.

23 December 2011

...by Supreme Decree No. 096-2011-PCM, issued on 15 December 2011, the state of emergency in the provinces of Cajamarca, Celendín , Hualgayoc and Contumazá in the department of Cajamarca, declared in Supreme Decree No. 093-2011-PCM, has been lifted.

24 May 2012

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 043-2012-PCM, issued on 10 April 2012, a state of emergency was declared for a period of 60 days, with effect from 11 April 2012, in the district of Echarate, province of La Convención , department of Cusco.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, under article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f) of the Political Constitution of Peru, and articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

24 May 2012

[...] in reference to Supreme Decree 085-2011-PCM (5 November 2011), by which a state of emergency was declared in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; in the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; in the districts of Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba, province of La Convención , department of Cusco; in the province of Satipo; in the districts of Andamarca and Comas, province of Concepción ; and in the districts of Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca, province of Huancayo, department of Junín . That state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decree 004-2012-PCM (4 January 2012).

In that regard, in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations informs the Secretariat of the United Nations that, by Supreme Decree 022-2012-PCM [...] the state of emergency was extended for 60 days, in effect from 6 March 2012.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, set out in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

24 May 2012

[...] reference is made to Supreme Decree 078-2011-PCM (12 September 2011) by which a state of emergency was declared in the district of Cholón , province of Marañón ; in the district of Monzón , province of Huamalíes ; and in the province of Leoncio Prado, all in the department of Huánuco ; in the province of Tocache, department of San Martín ; and in the province of Padre Abad, department of Ucayali. The above-mentioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decrees 087-2011-PCM (11 November 2011) and 002-2012-PCM (3 January 2012).

In that regard, in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations informs the Secretariat of the United Nations that, by Supreme Decree 023-2012-PCM, a copy of which is attached to the present note, the aforementioned state of emergency was extended for 60 days, in effect from 11 March 2012.

During the state of emergency, the rights of inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, set out in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

1 June 2012

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 056-2012-PCM, issued on 28 May 2012, a state of emergency was declared for a period of thirty (30) days, in effect from 29 May 2012, in the province of Espinar, department of Cusco, where the National Police of Peru shall maintain public order.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, set out in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

1 June 2012

[...] in reference to Supreme Decree 085-2011-PCM (5 November 2011), by which a state of emergency was declared in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, in the department of Ayacucho; in the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; in the districts of Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba, province of La Convención , in the department of Cusco; in the province of Satipo; in the districts of Andamarca and Comas, province of Concepción ; and in the districts of Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca province of Huancayo, department of Junín , the aforementioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decrees 004-2012-PCM (4 January 2012) and 022-2012-PCM (6 March 2012).

In that regard, in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by Supreme Decree 060-2012-PCM, the state of emergency was extended for 60 days, in effect from 4 June 2012.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, set out in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

10 July 2012

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 070-2012-PCM, promulgated on 3 July 2012, a state of emergency was declared for thirty (30) days in the provinces of Cajamarca, Celendín and Hualgayoc in the department of Cajamarca, with the National Police of Peru maintaining public order.

During the state of emergency, the right to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

17 July 2012

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 078-2011-PCM (12 September 2011) a state of emergency was declared in the Cholón district of the province of Marañón , the Monzón district of the province of Huamalíes and the province of Leoncio Prado, all located in the department of Huánuco ; the province of Tocache, department of San Martín ; and the province of Padre Abad, department of Ucayali. The aforementioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decrees Nos. 087-2011-PCM (11 November 2011), 002-2012-PCM (3 January 2012), 023-2012-PCM (10 March 2012) and 052-2012-PCM.

By Supreme Decree No. 073-2012-PCM, the aforementioned state of emergency was extended for 60 days, with effect from 9 July 2012.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

8 August 2012

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 070-2012-PCM, promulgated on 3 July 2012, a state of emergency was declared for thirty (30) days in the provinces of Cajamarca, Celendín and Hualgayoc, department of Cajamarca.

In this regard, and in compliance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by Supreme Decree No. 082-2012-PCM, the aforementioned state of emergency has been extended for a period of thirty days as from 3 August 2012.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

7 August 2012

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 085-2011-PCM (5 November 2011), a state of emergency was declared in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo, the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción , and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín . It should be pointed out that the aforementioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decrees Nos. 004-2012-PCM (4 January 2012), 022-2012-PCM (6 March 2012) and 060-2012-PCM (29 May 2012).

In this regard, and in compliance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by Supreme Decree No. 081-2012-PCM, the aforementioned state of emergency has been extended for a period of sixty days as from 3 August 2012.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

7 August 2012

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 061-2012-PCM (29 May 2012), a state of emergency was declared in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco.

In this regard, and in compliance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by Supreme Decree No. 080-2012-PCM, the aforementioned state of emergency has been extended for a period of sixty days as from 9 August 2012.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

4 October 2012

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 085-2011-PCM (5 November 2011) by which a state of emergency was declared in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción ; and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín . The above-mentioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decrees 004-2012-PCM (4 January 2012), 022-2012-PCM (6 March 2012), 060-2012-PCM (29 May 2012) and 081-2012-PCM (1 August 2012).

In that regard, and in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations hereby informs the Secretariat that, by Supreme Decree 098-2012-PCM, a copy of which is attached hereto, the aforementioned state of emergency has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 2 October 2012.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

4 October 2012

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 061-2012-PCM (29 May 2012) by which a state of emergency was declared in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco. The above-mentioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decree 080-2012-PCM (1 August 2012).

In that regard, and in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations hereby informs the Secretariat that, by Supreme Decree 099-2012-PCM, the aforementioned state of emergency has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 8 October 2012.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

12 December 2012

[...] by Supreme Decree 085-2011-PCM (5 November 2011) by which a state of emergency was declared in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción ; and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín . The abovementioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decrees 004-2012-PCM (4 January 2012), 022-2012-PCM (6 March 2012), 060-2012-PCM (29 May 2012), 081-2012-PCM (1 August 2012) and 098-2012-PCM (27 September 2012).

In that regard, and in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations hereby informs the Secretariat that, by Supreme Decree 115-2012-PCM, the aforementioned state of emergency has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 1 December 2012.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

12 December 2012

[...] by Supreme Decree 061-2012-PCM (29 May 2012) by which a state of emergency was declared in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco. The above-mentioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decree 080-2012-PCM (1 August 2012) and Supreme Decree 099-2012-PCM (27 September 2012).

In that regard, and in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations hereby informs the Secretariat that, by Supreme Decree 116-2012-PCM, the aforementioned state of emergency has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 7 December 2012.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

12 December 2012

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 078-2011-PCM (12 September 2011) by which a state of emergency was declared in the Cholón district of the province of Marañón , the Monzón district of the province of Huamalíes and the province of Leoncio Prado, all located in the department of Huánuco ; the province of Tocache, department of San Martín ; and the province of Padre Abad, department of Ucayali. The above-mentioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decrees Nos. 087-2011-PCM (11 November 2011), 002-2012-PCM (3 January 2012), 023-2012-PCM (10 March 2012), 052-2012-PCM (9 May 2012), 073-2012-PCM (7 July 2012), 092-2012-PCM (6 September 2012) and 108-2012-PCM (26 October 2012).

In that regard, in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations hereby informs the Secretariat of the United Nations that, by Supreme Decree No. 002-2013-PCM, the aforementioned state of emergency was extended for 60 days, with effect from 5 January 2013.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, set out in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12, and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

13 March 2013

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 078-2011-PCM (12 September 2011) by which a state of emergency was declared in the Cholón district of the province of Marañón , the Monzón district of the province of Huamalies and the province of Leoncio Prado, all located in the department of Huánuco ; the province of Tocache, department of San Martin; and the province of Padre Abad, department of Ucayali. The above-mentioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decrees Nos. 087-2011-PCM (11 November 2011), 002-2012-PCM (3 January 2012), 023-2012-PCM (10 March 2012), 052-2012-PCM, 073-2012-PCM (7 July 2012), 092-2012-PCM (6 September 2012) and 108-2012-PCM (26 October 2012) and 001-2013-PCM (3 January 2013).

In that regard, in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations hereby informs the Secretariat of the United Nations that, by Supreme Decree No. 022-2013-PCM, the aforementioned state of emergency was extended for 60 days, with effect from 6 March 2013.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of person, set out in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12, and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended.

13 March 2013

[...] by Supreme Decree 061-2012-PCM (29 May 2012) by which a state of emergency was declared in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco. The aforementioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decree 080-2012-PCM (1 August 2012), Supreme Decree 099-2012-PCM (27 September 2012) and Supreme Decree 116-2012-PCM (23 November 2012).

In that regard, and in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations hereby informs the Secretariat that, by Supreme Decree 011-2013-PCM, the aforementioned state of emergency has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 5 February 2013.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and liberty and security of the person, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

13 March 2013

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 085-2011-PCM, issued on 5 November 2011, by which a state of emergency was declared in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the districts of Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba, province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the districts of Andamarca and Comas, province of Concepción ; and the districts of Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca, province of Huancayo, department of Junín . This state of emergency was extended under Supreme Decree 004-2012-PCM, issued on 4 January 2012; Supreme Decree 022-2012-PCM, issued on 6 March 2012; Supreme Decree 060-2012-PCM, issued on 29 May 2012; Supreme Decree 081-2012-PCM, issued on 1 August 2012; Supreme Decree 098-2012-PCM, issued on 27 September 2012; and Supreme Decree 115-2012-PCM, issued on 23 November 2012.

In this regard, under article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations wishes to note that, pursuant to Supreme Decree 010-2013-PCM, the state of emergency has been extended for 60 days from 30 January 2013.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and freedom and security of person, which are recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended.

28 March 2013

[...] by Supreme Decree 085-2011-PCM (5 November 2011) by which a state of emergency was declared in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción , and Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín . The aforementioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decree 004-2012-PCM (4 January 2012), 022-2012-PCM (6 March 2012), 060-2012-PCM (29 May 2012), Supreme Decree 081-2012-PCM (1 August 2012), Supreme Decree 098-2012-PCM (27 September 2012), Supreme Decree 115-2012-PCM (23 November 2012) and Supreme Decree 010-2013-PCM (26 January 2013).

In that regard, and in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations hereby informs the Secretariat that, by Supreme Decree 028-2013-PCM, the aforementioned state of emergency has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 31 March 2013.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and of liberty and security of the person, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

28 March 2013

[...] by Supreme Decree 061-2012-PCM (29 May 2012) by which a state of emergency was declared in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco. The aforementioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decree 080-2012-PCM (1 August 2012), Supreme Decree 099-2012-PCM (27 September 2012), Supreme Decree 116-2012-PCM (23 November 2012) and Supreme Decree 011-2013-PCM (26 January 2013).

In that regard, and in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations hereby informs the Secretariat that, by Supreme Decree 029-2013-PCM, the aforementioned state of emergency has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 6 April 2013.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and of liberty and security of the person, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

9 May 2013

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 078-2011-PCM of 12 September 2011, whereby a state of emergency was declared in the District of Cholón , Province of Marañón ; in the District of Monzón , Province of Huamalíes ; and in the Province of Leoncio Prado, all in the Department of Huánuco ; in the Province of Tocache, Department of San Martín ; and in the Province of Padre Abad, Department of Ucayali. It should be noted that this state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decrees Nos. 087-2011-PCM of 11 November 2011, 002-2012-PCM of 3 January 2012, 023-2012-PCM of 10 March 2012, 052-2012-PCM, 073-2012-PCM of 7 July 2012, 092-2012-PCM of 6 September 2012, 108-2012-PCM of 26 October 2012, 001-2013-PCM of 3 January 2013 and 022-2013-PCM of 1 March 2013.

In that regard, in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations hereby informs the Secretariat that the state of emergency has been extended by a further 60 days, with effect from 5 May 2013, pursuant to Supreme Decree No. 049-2013-PCM.

The rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and liberty and security of person, as set out in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended during the state of emergency.

30 May 2013

[...] by Supreme Decree 061-2012-PCM (29 May 2012) by which a state of emergency was declared in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco. The aforementioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decree 080-2012-PCM (1 August 2012), Supreme Decree 099-2012-PCM (27 September 2012), Supreme Decree 116-2012-PCM (23 November 2012), Supreme Decree 011-2013-PCM (26 January 2013) and Supreme Decree 029-2013-PCM (26 March 2013).

In that regard, and in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations hereby informs the Secretariat that, by Supreme Decree 059-2013-PCM, the aforementioned state of emergency has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 5 June 2013.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and of liberty and security of the person, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

30 May 2013

[...] by Supreme Decree 085-2011-PCM (5 November 2011) by which a state of emergency was declared in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción , and Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín . The aforementioned state of emergency was extended by Supreme Decree 004-2012-PCM (4 January 2012), 022-2012-PCM (6 March 2012), 060-2012-PCM (29 May 2012), Supreme Decree 081-2012-PCM (1 August 2012), Supreme Decree 098-2012-PCM (27 September 2012), Supreme Decree 115-2012-PCM (23 November 2012), Supreme Decree 010-2013-PCM (26 January 2013) and Supreme Decree 028-2013-PCM (26 March 2013).

In that regard, and in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Permanent Mission of Peru to the United Nations hereby informs the Secretariat that, by Supreme Decree 058-2013-PCM, the aforementioned state of emergency has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 30 May 2013.

During the state of emergency, the rights to inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and of liberty and security of the person, provided for in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24(f), of the political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended.

31 July 2013

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 085-2013-PCM, issued on 28 July 2013, the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción ; and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín , has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 29 July 2013.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned places, the most recent communication being Note 7-1-SG/27 dated 29 May 2013.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to strengthen peacebuilding in the area and in the country.

31 July 2013

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 086-2013-PCM, issued on 28 July 2013, the state of emergency in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco, has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 4 August 2013.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned places, the most recent communication being Note 7-1-SG/26 dated 29 May 2013.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended in order to strengthen peacebuilding in the area and in the country.

11 October 2013

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 99-2013-PCM, issued on 30 August 2013, the state of emergency in the districts of Cholón of the province of Marañón and Monzón of the province of Huamalíes , and in the province of Leoncio Prado, all in the department of Huánuco ; in the province of Tocache, department of San Martín ; and in the province of Padre Abad, department of Ucayali, has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 1 September 2013.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned places, the most recent communication being Note 7-1-SG/21 dated 9 May 2013.

During the state of emergency, the right to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the national territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended in order to strengthen peacebuilding in the area and in the country.

11 October 2013

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 110-2013-PCM, issued on 21 September 2013, the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción ; and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín , has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 27 September 2013.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned places, the most recent communication being Note 7-1-SG/34 dated 31 July 2013.

During the state of emergency, the right to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the national territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to strengthen peacebuilding in the area and in the country.

11 October 2013

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 109-2013-PCM, issued on 21 September 2013, the state of emergency in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco, has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 3 October 2013.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned place, the most recent communication being Note 7-1-SG/35 dated 31 July 2013.

During the state of emergency, the right to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the national territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended in order to strengthen peacebuilding in the area and in the country.

5 December 2013

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 121-2013-PCM, issued on 26 November 2013, the state of emergency in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco, has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 2 December 2013.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned places, the most recent communication being Note 7-1-SG/45 dated 10 October 2013.

During the state of emergency, the right to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the national territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to strengthen peacebuilding in the area and in the country.

5 December 2013

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 122-2013-PCM, issued on 26 November 2013, the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción ; and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín , has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 26 November 2013.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned places, the most recent communication being Note 7-1-SG/44 dated 10 October 2013.

During the state of emergency, the right to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the national territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, are suspended in order to strengthen peacebuilding in the area and in the country.

28 January 2014

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 007-2014-PCM, issued on 23 January 2014, the state of emergency in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco, has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 31 January 2014.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned place, the most recent communication being Note 7-1-SG/57 dated 5 December 2013.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, resprespectively, will be suspended in order to strengthen peacebuilding in the area and in the country.

28 January 2014

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 008-2014-PCM, issued on 23 January 2014, the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; the province of Satipo; the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción ; and the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín , has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 25 January 2014.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned places, the most recent communication being Note 7-1-SG/56 dated 5 December 2013.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to strengthen peacebuilding in the area and in the country.

2 April 2014

[...] by Supreme Decrees Nos. 134-2013-PCM and 017-2014-PCM, issued on 28 December 2013 and 27 February 2014 respectively, the state of emergency in the district of Cholón of the province of Marañón , in the district of Monzón of the province of Huamalíes and in the province of Leoncio Prado, all in the department of Huánuco ; in the province of Tocache, department of San Martín ; and in the province of Padre Abad, department of Ucayali, was successively extended for 60 days, with effect from 30 December 2013 and 27 February 2014.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned places, the most recent communication being Note 7-1-SG/46 dated 10 October 2013.

During the state of emergency, the right to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the national territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, shall be suspended in order to strengthen peacebuilding in the area and in the country.

2 April 2014

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 021-2014-PCM, issued on 26 March 2014, the state of emergency in the Echarate district of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco, has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 1 April 2014.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned place, the most recent communication being Note 7-1-SG/7 dated 28 January 2013.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to strengthen peacebuilding in the area and in the country.

2 April 2014

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 020-2014-PCM, issued on 25 March 2014, the state of emergency in the provinces of Huanta and La Mar, department of Ayacucho; in the province of Tayacaja, department of Huancavelica; in the Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba districts of the province of La Convención , department of Cusco; in the province of Satipo; in the Andamarca and Comas districts of the province of Concepción ; and in the Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca districts of the province of Huancayo, department of Junín , has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 26 March 2014.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned places, the most recent communication being Note 7-1-SG/6 dated 28 January 2014.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f) of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to strengthen peacebuilding in the area and in the country.

27 June 2014

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 030-2014-PCM, issued on 28 April 2014, the state of emergency in the District of Cholón in the Province of Marañón , the District of Monzón in the Province of Huamalíes , and the Province of Leoncio Prado, Department of Huánuco ; in the Province of Tocache, Department of San Martín ; and in the Province of Padre Abad, Department of Ucayali, has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 29 April 2014.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned places, the most recent communication being note No. 7-1-SG/15 of 2 April 2014.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to consolidate peace in the area and in the country as a whole.

27 June 2014

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 035-2014-PCM, issued on 15 May 2014, the state of emergency in the Provinces of Huanta and La Mar, Department of Ayacucho; in the Province of Tayacaja, Department of Huancavelica; in the Districts of Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba in the Province of La Convención , Department of Cusco; and in the Province of Satipo, the Districts of Andamarca and Comas in the Province of Concepción , and the Districts of Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca in the Province of Huancayo, Department of Junín , has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 25 May 2014.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned places, the most recent communication being note No. 7-1-SG/13 of 2 April 2014.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to consolidate peace in the area and in the country as a whole.

27 June 2014

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 036-2014-PCM, issued on 15 May 2014, the state of emergency in the District of Echarate in the Province of La Convención , Department of Cusco, has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 31 May 2014.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned place, the most recent communication being note No. 7-1-SG/14 of 2 April 2014.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to consolidate peace in the area and in the country as a whole.

11 August 2014

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 045-2014-PCM, issued on 26 June 2014, the state of emergency in the District of Cholón in the Province of Marañón , the District of Monzón in the Province of Huamalíes , and the Province of Leoncio Prado, Department of Huánuco ; in the Province of Tocache, Department of San Martín ; and in the Province of Padre Abad, Department of Ucayali, has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 28 June 2014.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned places, the most recent communication being note No. 7-1-SG/26 of 23 June 2014.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to consolidate peace in the area and in the country as a whole.

11 August 2014

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 048-2014-PCM, issued on 23 July 2014, the state of emergency in the Provinces of Huanta and La Mar, Department of Ayacucho; in the Province of Tayacaja, Department of Huancavelica; in the Districts of Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba in the Province of La Convención , Department of Cusco; and in the Province of Satipo, the Districts of Andamarca and Comas in the Province of Concepción , and in the Districts of Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca in the province of Huancayo, Department of Junín , has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 24 July 2014.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned places, the most recent communication being note No. 7-1-SG/27 of 23 June 2014.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to consolidate peace in the area and in the country as a whole.

11 August 2014

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 049-2014-PCM, issued on 24 July 2014, the state of emergency in the District of Echarate in the province of La Convención , Department of Cusco, has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 30 July 2014.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned place, the most recent communication being Note 7-1-SG/25 dated 23 June 2014.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to consolidate peace in the area and in the country as a whole.

1 December 2014

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 060-2014-PCM, issued on 19 September 2014, the state of emergency declared in the District of Echarate in the Province of La Convención , Department of Cusco, has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 28 September 2014.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned place, the most recent communication being Note 7-1-SG/37 of 11 August 2014.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to consolidate peace in the area and in the country as a whole.

1 December 2014

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 059-2014-PCM, issued on 19 September 2014, the state of emergency declared in the Provinces of Huanta and La Mar, Department of Ayacucho; the Province of Tayacaja, Department of Huancavelica; in the Districts of Kimbiri, Pichari and Vilcabamba in the Province of La Convención , Department of Cusco; in the Province of Satipo, the Districts of Andamarca and Comas in the Province of Concepción , and in the Districts of Santo Domingo de Acobamba and Pariahuanca in the Province of Huancayo, Department of Junín , has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 22 September 2014.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned places, the most recent communication being note No. 7-1-SG/36 of 11 August 2014.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to consolidate peace in the area and in the country as a whole.

1 December 2014

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 065-2014-PCM, issued on 24 October 2014, the state of emergency declared in the District of Cholón in the Province of Marañón , the District of Monzón in the Province of Huamalíes , and the Province of Leoncio Prado, Department of Huánuco ; in the Province of Tocache, Department of San Martín ; and in the Province of Padre Abad, Department of Ucayali, has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 26 October 2014.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the forementioned places, the most recent communication being note No. 7-1-SG/38 of 11 August 2014.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to consolidate peace in the area and in the country as a whole.

18 February 2015

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 004-2015-PCM, issued on 22 January 2015, the state of emergency declared in the District of Echarate in the Province of La Convención , Department of Cusco, has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 26 January 2015.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned place, the most recent communication being Note 7-1-SG/010 of 13 February 2015.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to consolidate peace in the area and in the country as a whole.

18 February 2015

[...] by Supreme Decree No. 075-2014-PCM, issued on 24 December 2014, the state of emergency declared in the District of Cholón in the Province of Marañón , the District of Monzón in the Province of Huamalíes , and the Province of Leoncio Prado, Department of Huánuco ; in the Province of Tocache, Department of San Martín ; and in the Province of Padre Abad, Department of Ucayali, has been extended for 60 days, with effect from 25 December 2014.

The Permanent Mission has duly reported to the Secretariat previous extensions of the state of emergency in the aforementioned places, the most recent communication being note No. 7-1-SG/50 of 27 November 2014.

During the state of emergency, the rights relating to liberty and security of person, inviolability of the home, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement within the territory, recognized in article 2, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 24 (f), of the Political Constitution of Peru and in articles 17, 12, 21 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, will be suspended in order to consolidate peace in the area and in the country as a whole.