S.I. No. 173/2002 - Extradition Act 1965 (Application of Part II) (Amendment) Order 2002

“1. Austria will establish its jurisdiction in accordance with article 5 of the Convention irrespective of the laws applying to the place where the offence occurred, but in respect of paragraph 1 (c) only if prosecution by a State having jurisdiction under paragraph 1 (a) or paragraph 1 (b) is not to be expected.

“2. Austria regards article 15 as the legal basis for the inadmissibility provided for therein of the use of statements which are established to have been made as a result of torture.”

Bahrain:

The State of Bahrain does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 30 of the Convention.

Bangladesh:

Declaration:

“The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh will apply article 14 para 1 in consonance with the existing laws and legislation in the country.”

Botswana:

Reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

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

Republic of Botswana.”

Chile:

Upon signature:

The Government of Chile does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 30, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

The Government of Chile reserve the right to formulate, upon ratifying the Convention, any declarations or reservations it may deem necessary in the light of its domestic law.

Upon ratification:

The Government of Chile declares that in its relations with American States that are Parties to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, it will apply that Convention in cases where its provisions are incompatible with those of the present Convention.

China:

Reservations made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

• “(1) The Chinese Government does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture as provided for in article 20 of the Convention.

• “(2) The Chinese Government does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 30 of the Convention.”

Cuba:

Declarations:

The Government of the Republic of Cuba deplores the fact that even after the adoption of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) containing the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples a provision such as paragraph 1 of article 2 was included in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Government of the Republic declares, in accordance with article 28 of the Convention, that the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of article 20 of the Convention will have to be invoked in strict compliance with the principle of the sovereignty of States and implemented with the prior consent of the States Parties.

In connection with the provisions of article 30 of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Cuba is of the view that any dispute between Parties should be settled by negotiation through the diplomatic channel.

Ecuador:

Reservation:

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

France:

Reservation:

The Government of France declares in accordance with article 30, paragraph 2 of the Convention, that it shall not be bound by the provisions of paragraph 2 of [article 30].

Ghana:

Declaration:

“[The Government of Ghana declares] in accordance with Article 30 (2) of the said Convention that the submission under Article 30 (1) to arbitration or the International Court of Justice of disputes between State Parties relating to the interpretationor application of the said Convention shall be by the consent of ALL the Parties concerned and not by one or more of the Parties concerned.”

Germany:

Upon signature:

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany reserves the right to communicate, upon ratification, such reservations or declarations of interpretation as are deemed necessary especially with respect to the applicability of article 3.

Upon ratification:

Article 3

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

Indonesia:

Declaration:

“The Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of article 20 of the Convention will have to be implemented in strict compliance with the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States.

Reservation:

The Government of the Republic of Indonesia does not consider itself bound by the provision of article 30, paragraph 1, and takes the position that disputes relating to the interpretation and application of the Convention which cannot be settled through the channel provided for in paragraph 1 of the said article may be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of all parties to the disputes.”

Israel:

Reservations:

“1. In accordance with article 28 of the Convention, the State of Israel hereby declares that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20.

“2. In accordance with paragraph 2 of article 30, the State of Israel hereby declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of that article.”

Kuwait:

Reservation:

“With reservations as to article (20) and the provision of paragraph (1) from article (30) of the Convention.”

Luxembourg:

Interpretative declaration:

Article 1

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg hereby declares that the only “lawful sanctions” that it recognizes within the meaning of article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention are those which are accepted by both national law and international law.

Monaco:

Reservation:

In accordance with paragraph 2 of article 30 of the Convention, the Principality of Monaco declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of that article.

Morocco:

Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

Declaration:

The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20.

The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the same article.

Netherlands:

Interpretative declaration with respect to article 1 :

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

New Zealand:

Reservation:

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

Panama:

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

Poland:

Upon signature:

Under article 28, the Polish People's Republic does not consider itself bound by article 20 of the Convention.

Furthermore, the Polish People's Republic does not consider itself bound by article 30, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Qatar:

Reservations:

- (a) Any interpretation of the provisions of the Convention that is incompatible with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic religion;

  and

- (b) The competence of the Committee as indicated in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.

  **Saudi Arabia:**

  Reservations:

  The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not recognize the jurisdiction of the Committee as provided for in article 20 of this Convention.

  The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shall not be bound by the provisions of paragraph (1) of article 30 of this Convention.

  **South Africa:**

  Declaration:

  “[The Republic of South Africa declares that] it recognises, for the purposes of article 30 of the Convention, the competence of the International Court of Justice to settle a dispute between two or more State Parties regarding the interpretation or application of the Convention, respectively.”

  **Togo:**

  Upon signature:

  The Government of the Togolese Republic reserves the right to formulate upon ratifying the Convention, any reservations or declarations which it might consider necessary.

  **Tunisia:**

  Upon signature:

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

  Upon ratification:

  [The Government of Tunisia] confirms that the reservations made at the time of signature of the Convention on Tunisia's behalf on 26 August 1987 have been completely withdrawn.

  **Turkey:**

  Reservation:

  “The Government of Turkey declares in accordance with article 30, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that it does not consideritself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.”

  **United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:**

  Upon signature:

  “The United Kingdom reserves the right to formulate, upon ratifying the Convention, any reservations or interpretative declarations which it might consider necessary.”

  **United States of America:**

  Upon signature :

  Declaration:

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

  Upon ratification :

  Reservations:

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

• (1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ only insofar as the term ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

• (2) That pursuant to article 30 (2) the United States declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 30 (1), but reserves the right specifically to agree to follow this or any other procedure for arbitration in a particular case.

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

• (1)

  • (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

  • (b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender's custody or physical control.

  • (c) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that ‘sanctions’ includes judicially-imposed sanctions and other enforcement actions authorized by United States law or by judicial interpretation of such law. Nonetheless, the United States understands that a State Party could not through its domestic sanctions defeat the object and purpose of the Convention to prohibit torture.

  • (d) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that the term ‘acquiescence’ requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.

  • (e) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the Unites States understands that noncompliance with applicable legal procedural standards does not per se constitute torture.

• (2) That the United States understands the phrase, ‘where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,’ as used in article 3 of the Convention, to mean ‘if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.’

• (3) That it is the understanding of the United States that article 14 requires a State Party to provide a private right of action for damages only for acts of torture committed in territory under the jurisdiction of that State Party.

• (4) That the United States understands that international law does not prohibit the death penalty, and does not consider this Convention to restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with the Fifth Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including any constitutional period of confinement prior to the imposition of the death penalty.

• (5) That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by the United States Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered by the Convention and otherwise by the state and local governments. Accordingly, in implementing articles 10-14 and 16, the United States Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units of the United States of America may take appropriate measures for the fulfilment of the Convention.

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

• (1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing.

Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture under articles 21 and 22

(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon ratification, accession or succession.)

Algeria:

Article 21

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

Article 22

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

Argentina:

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

Australia:

28 January 1993

“The Government of Australia hereby declares that it recognises, for and on behalf of Australia, the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the aforesaid Convention; and The Government of Australia hereby declares that it recognises, for and on behalf of Australia, the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to Australia's jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the aforesaid Convention.”

Austria:

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

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

Belgium:

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

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

Bulgaria:

12 May 1993

“The Republic of Bulgaria declares that in accordance with article 21 (2) of the Convention it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.”

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

Cameroon:

12 October 2000

[The Republic of Cameroon declares], that [it] recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from a State Party claiming that the Republic of Cameroon is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. However, such communications will not be receivable unless they refer to situations and facts subsequent to this

declaration and emanate from a State Party which has made a similar declaration indicating its reciprocal acceptance of the competence of the Committee with regard to itself at least twelve (12) months before submitting its communication. [The Republic of Cameroon also declares] that it recognizes, in the case of situations and facts subsequent to this declaration, the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

Canada:

13 November 1989

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

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

Croatia:

“[The] Republic of Croatia ... accepts the competence of the Committee in accordance with articles 21 and 22 of the said Convention.”

Cyprus:

8 April 1993

“The Republic of Cyprus recognizes the competence of the Committee established under article 17 of the Convention [...]:

I. to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention (article 21), and

II. to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention (Article 22).”

Czech Republic:

3 September 1996

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

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

Denmark:

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

“The Government of Denmark [...] recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.”

Ecuador:

6 September 1988

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

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

Finland:

“Finland declares that it recognizes fully the competence of the Committee against Torture as specified in article 21, paragraph 1 and article 22, paragraph 1 of the Convention.”

France:

23 June 1988

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

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

Germany:

19 October 2001

In accordance with article 21 (1) of the Convention, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. In accordance with article 22 (1) of the Convention, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the Federal Republic of Germany of the provisions of the Convention.

Ghana:

“The Government of the Republic of Ghana recognises the competence of the Committee Against Torture to consider complaints brought by or against the Republic in respect of another State Party which has made a Declaration recognising the competence of the Committee as well as individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic who claim to be victims of any violations by the Republic of the provsions of the said Convention.

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

Greece:

Article 21

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

Article 22

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

Hungary:

13 September 1989

[The Government of Hungary] recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture provided for in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.

Iceland:

23 October 1996

“[The Government of Iceland declares], pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the [said] Convention, that Iceland recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention and, pursuant to article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that Iceland recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.”

Italy:

10 October 1989

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

“Article 22: Italy hereby declares, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of violations by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.”

Japan:

“The Government of Japan declares under article 21 of the Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.”

Liechtenstein:

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

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

Luxembourg:

Article 21

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

Article 22

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

Malta:

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

Monaco:

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

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

Netherlands:

“With respect to article 21:

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

“With respect to article 22:

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

New Zealand:

“1. In accordance with article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, [the Government of New Zealand declares] that it recognises the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention; and

“2. In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, [the Government of New Zealand] recognises the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.”

Norway:

“Norway recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

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

Poland:

12 May 1993

“The Government of the Republic of Poland, in accordance with articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that the Republic of Poland is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention or communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of Poland of the provisions of the Convention.”

Portugal:

“Article 21

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

“Article 22

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

Russian Federation:

1 October 1991

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

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

Senegal:

16 October 1996

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

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

Seychelles:

6 August 2001

Article 22:

“The Republic of Seychelles accepts without reservations the competence of the Committee Against Torture.”

Slovakia:

17 March 1995

“The Slovak Republic, pursuant to article 21 of the [said Convention] recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.”

“The Slovak Republic further declares, pursuant to article 22 of the Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention.”

Slovenia:

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

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

South Africa:

“The Republic of South Africa declares that:

- (a) it recognises, for the purposes of article 21 of the Convention, the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention;

- (b) it recognises, for the purposes of article 22 of the Convention, the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals who claim to be victims of torture by a State Party.

  **Spain:**

  Spain declares that, pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that the Spanish State is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. It is Spain's understanding that, pursuant to the above-mentioned article, such communications shall be accepted and processed only if they come from a State Party which has made a similar declaration.

  Spain declares that, pursuant to article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications sent by, or on behalf of, persons subject to Spanish jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the Spanish State of the provisions of the Convention. Such communications must be consistent with the provisions of the above-mentioned article and, in particular, of its paragraph 5.

  **Sweden:**

  “Sweden recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

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

  **Switzerland:**

- (a) Pursuant to the Federal Decree of 6 October 1986 on the approval of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Federal Council declares, in accordance with article 21 paragraph 1, of the Convention, that Switzerland recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that Switzerland is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.

- (b) Pursuant to the above-mentioned Federal Decree, the Federal Council declares, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that Switzerland recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by Switzerland of the provisions of the Convention.

  **Togo:**

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

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

  **Tunisia:**

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

  **Turkey:**

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

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

  **United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:**

  “The Government of the United Kingdom declares under article 21 of the said Convention that it recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications submitted by another State Party provided that such other State Party has, not less than twelve months prior to the submission by it of a communication in regard to the United

  Kingdom, made a declaration under article 21 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications in regard to itself.”

  **United States of America**

  “The United States declares, pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. It is the understanding of the United States that, pursuant to the above-mentioned article such communications shall be accepted and processed only if they come from a State Party which has made a similar declaration.”

  **Uruguay:**

  27 July 1988

  The Government of Uruguay recognizes the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider communications referring to the said articles [21 and 22].

  **Venezuela:**

  26 April 1994

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

  **Yugoslavia:**

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

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

SCHEDULE 3

“SCHEDULE 7B

Part A CONVENTION ON THE SAFETY OF UNITED NATIONS AND ASSOCIATED PERSONNEL

The States Parties to this Convention,

Deeply concerned over the growing number of deaths and injuries resulting from deliberate attacks against United Nations and associated personnel,

Bearing in mind that attacks against, or other mistreatment of, personnel who act on behalf of the United Nations are unjustifiable and unacceptable, by whomsoever committed,

Recognising that United Nations operations are conducted in the common interest of the international community and in accordance with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,

Acknowledging the important contribution that United Nations and associated personnel make in respect of United Nations efforts in the fields of preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping, peace-building and humanitarian and other operations,

Conscious of the existing arrangements for ensuring the safety of United Nations and associated personnel, including the steps taken by the principal organs of the United Nations, in this regard,

Recognizing none the less that existing measures of protection for United Nations and associated personnel are inadequate,

Acknowledging that the effectiveness and safety of United Nations operations are enhanced where such operations are conducted with the consent and cooperation of the host State,

Appealing to all States in which United Nations and associated personnel are deployed and to all others on whom such personnel may rely, to provide comprehensive support aimed at facilitating the conduct and fulfilling the mandate of United Nations operations,

Convinced that there is an urgent need to adopt appropriate and effective measures for the prevention of attacks committed against United Nations and associated personnel and for the punishment of those who have committed such attacks,

Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE 1

Definitions

For the purposes of this Convention:

• (a) “United Nations personnel” means:

• (i) Persons engaged or deployed by the Secretary General of the United Nations as members of the military, police or civilian components of a United Nations operation;

• (ii) Other officials and experts on mission of the United Nations or its specialized agencies or the International Atomic Energy Agency who are present in an official capacity in the area where a United Nations

operation is being conducted;

• (b) “Associated personnel” means:

• (i) Persons assigned by a Government or an intergovernmental organization with the agreement of the competent organ of the United Nations;

• (ii) Persons engaged by the Secretary-General of the United Nations or by a specialized agency or by the International Atomic Energy Agency;

• (iii) Persons deployed by a humanitarian non-governmental organization or agency under an agreement with the Secretary-General of the United Nations or with a specialized agency or with the International Atomic Energy Agency to carry out activities in support of the fulfilment of the mandate of a United Nations operation:

• (c) “United Nations operation” means an operation established by the competent organ of the United Nations in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and conducted under United Nations authority and control:

• (i) Where the operation is for the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security; or

• (ii) Where the Security Council or the General Assembly has declared, for the purposes of this Convention, that there exists an exceptional risk to the safety of the personnel participating in the operation;

• (d) “Host State” means a State in whose territory a United Nations operation is conducted;

• (e) “Transit State” means a State, other than the host State, in whose territory United Nations and associated personnel or their equipment are in transit or temporarily present in connection with a United Nations operation.

ARTICLE 2

Scope of application

ARTICLE 3

Identification

ARTICLE 4

Agreements on the status of the operation

The host State and the United Nations shall conclude as soon as possible an agreement on the status of the United Nations operation and all personnel engaged in the operation including, inter alia, provisions on privileges and immunities for military and police components of the operation.

ARTICLE 5

Transit

A transit State shall facilitate the unimpeded transit of United Nations and associated personnel and their equipment to and from the host State.

ARTICLE 6

Respect for laws and regulations

• (a) Respect the laws and regulations of the host State and the transit State; and

• (b) Refrain from any action or activity incompatible with the impartial and international nature of their duties.

ARTICLE 7

Duty to ensure the safety and security of United Nations and associated personnel

ARTICLE 8

Duty to release or return United Nations and associated personnel captured or detained

Except as otherwise provided in an applicable status-of-forces agreement, if United Nations or associated personnel are captured or detained in the course of the performance of their duties and their identification has been established, they shall not be subjected to interrogation and they shall be promptly released and returned to United Nations or other appropriate authorities. Pending their release such personnel shall be treated in accordance with universally recognized standards of human rights and the principles and spirit of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

ARTICLE 9

Crimes against United Nations and associated personnel

• (a) A murder, kidnapping or other attack upon the person or liberty of any United Nations or associated personnel;

• (b) A violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodation or the means of transportation of any United Nations or associated personnel likely to endanger his or her person or liberty;

• (c) A threat to commit any such attack with the objective of compelling a physical or juridical person to do or to refrain from doing any act;

• (d) An attempt to commit any such attack; and

• (e) An act constituting participation as an accomplice in any such attack or in an attempt to commit such attack, or in organizing or ordering others to commit such attack,

shall be made by each State Party a crime under its national law.

ARTICLE 10

Establishment of jurisdiction

• (a) When the crime is committed in the territory of that State or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;

• (b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State.

• (a) By a stateless person whose habitual residence is in that State; or

• (b) With respect to a national of that State; or

• (c) In an attempt to compel that State to do or to abstain from doing any act.

ARTICLE 11

Prevention of crimes against United Nations and associated personnel

States Parties shall cooperate in the prevention of the crimes set out in article 9, particularly by:

• (a) Taking all practicable measures to prevent preparations in their respective territories for the commission of those crimes within or outside their territories; and

• (b) Exchanging information in accordance with their national law and coordinating the taking of administrative and other measures as appropriate to prevent the commission of those crimes.

ARTICLE 12

Communication of information

ARTICLE 13

Measures to ensure prosecution or extradition

• (a) The State where the crime was committed;

• (b) The State or States of which the alleged offender is a national or, if such person is a stateless person, in whose territory that person has his or her habitual residence;

• (c) The State or States of which the victim is a national; and

• (d) Other interested States.

ARTICLE 14

Prosecution of alleged offenders

The State Party in whose territory the alleged offender is present shall, if it does not extradite that person, submit, without exception whatsoever and without undue delay, the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, through proceedings in accordance with the law of that State. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of an ordinary offence of a grave nature under the law of that State.

ARTICLE 15

Extradition of alleged offenders

ARTICLE 16

Mutual assistance in criminal matters

ARTICLE 17

Fair treatment

• (a) To communicate without delay with the nearest appropriate representative of the State or States of which such person is a national or which is otherwise entitled to protect that person's rights or, if such person is a stateless person, of the State which at that person's request, is willing to protect that person's rights; and

• (b) To be visited by a representative of that State or those States.

ARTICLE 18

Notification of outcome of proceedings

The State Party where an alleged offender is prosecuted shall communicate the final outcome of the proceedings to the Secretary- General of the United Nations, who shall transmit the information to other States Parties.

ARTICLE 19

Dissemination

The States Parties undertake to disseminate this Convention as widely as possible and, in particular, to include the study thereof, as well as relevant provisions of international humanitarian law, in their programmes of military instruction.

ARTICLE 20

Savings clauses

Nothing in this Convention shall affect:

• (a) The applicability of international humanitarian law and universally recognised standards of human rights as contained in international instruments in relation to the protection of United Nations operations and United Nations and associated personnel or the responsibility of such personnel to respect such law and standards;

• (b) The rights and obligations of States, consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, regarding the consent to entry of persons into their territories;

• (c) The obligation of United Nations and associated personnel to act in accordance with the terms of the mandate of a United Nations operation;

• (d) The right of States which voluntarily contribute personnel to a United Nations operation to withdraw their personnel from participation in such operation; or

• (e) The entitlement to appropriate compensation payable in the event of death, disability, injury or illness attributable to peace-keeping service by persons voluntarily contributed by States to United Nations

operations.

ARTICLE 21

Right of self-defence

Nothing in this Convention shall be construed so as to derogate from the right to act in self-defence.

ARTICLE 22

Dispute settlement

ARTICLE 23

Review meetings

At the request of one or more States Parties, and if approved by a majority of States Parties, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene a meeting of the States Parties to review the implementation of the Convention and any problems encountered with regard to its application.

ARTICLE 24

Signature

This Convention shall be open for signature by all States, until 31 December 1995, at United Nations Headquarters in New York.

ARTICLE 25

Ratification, acceptance or approval

This Convention is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval. Instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

ARTICLE 26

Accession

This Convention shall be open for accession by any State. The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary- General of the United Nations.

ARTICLE 27

Entry into force

ARTICLE 28

Denunciation

ARTICLE 29

Authentic texts

The original of this Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send certified copies thereof to all States.

Part B

Reservations and Declarations to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel

(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon ratification, acceptance or accession.)

Belgium:

Interpretative declaration:

The Belgian Government declares the following: article 9, paragraph 1 (c) only covers cases where the threat is credible.

Costa Rica:

Reservation:

The Government of the Republic enters a reservation to article 2, paragraph 2 of the Convention, to the effect that limiting the scope of application of the Convention is contrary to the pacifist thinking of our country and, accordingly that, in the event of conflicts with the application of the Convention, Costa Rica will, where necessary, give precedence to humanitarian law.

Germany:

Declaration:

In accordance with German law, the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany will communicate information on alleged offenders, victims and circumstances of the crime (personal data) directly to the states concerned and in parallel with this, will inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations that such information has been communicated.

Nepal:

Declaration:

“[The Government of Nepal] avails itself of the provisions of article 22 paragraph 22, and declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of the said article under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice, and states that in each individual case, prior consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for the submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.”

Netherlands:

Declaration:

“The Kingdom of the Netherlands understands Article 14 of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel states that the competent national authorities must decide on a case submitted to them in accordance with national law and in the same manner as they would decide on ordinary offences of a grave nature. Consequently, the Kingdom of the Netherlands understands this provision to include the right of its competent judicial authorities to decide not to prosecute a person alleged to have committed a crime as referred to in Article 9, paragraph 1, if, in the opinion of the competent judicial authorities, grave considerations of procedural law indicate that effective prosecution would be possible.”

Tunisia:

Reservation:

The Tunisian Republic declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention and that disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention may be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice only with the prior consent of all the parties concerned.

Slovakia:

Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

“If a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention is not settled by negotiation, the Slovak Republic prefers its submission to the International Court of Justice in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1 of the Convention. Therefore a dispute, to which the Slovak Republic might be a Party can be submitted to arbitration only with the explicit consent of the Slovak Republic.””

SCHEDULE 4 TABLE