S.I. No. 374/2005 - Extradition Act 1965 (Application of Part II) (Amendment) Order 2005

“[W]ith the stated reservations...[:]

1) The Republic of Turkey declares that Articles (9) and (12) should not be interpreted in such a way that offenders of these crimes are neither tried nor prosecuted.

2) The Republic of Turkey declares its understanding that the term international humanitarian law referred to in Article (19) of the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings shall be interpreted as comprising the relevant international rules excluding the provisions of Additional Protocols to Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, to which Turkey is not a Party. The first part of the second paragraph of the said article should not be interpreted as giving a different status to the armed forces and groups other than the armed forces of a state as currently understood and applied in international law and thereby as creating new obligations for Turkey.

3) Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article (20) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the Republic of Turkey declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article (20) of the said Convention.

Ukraine

Reservation:

The provisions of article 19, paragraph 2, do not preclude Ukraine from exercising its jurisdiction over the members of military forces of a state and their prosecution, should their actions be illegal. The Convention will be applied to the extent that such activities are not governed by other rules of international law.

United States of America

Reservation:

• (a) pursuant to article 20 (2) of the Convention, the United States of America declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 20 (1) of the Convention; and

• (b) the United States of America reserves the right specifically to agree in a particular case to follow the procedure in Article 20 (1) of the Convention or any other procedure for arbitration.

Understandings:

• (1) EXCLUSION FROM COVERAGE OF TERM “ARMED CONFLICT”. The United States of America understands that the term “armed conflict” in Article 19 (2) of the Convention does not include internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature.

• (2) MEANING OF TERM “INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW”. The United States of America understands that the term “international humanitarian law” in Article 19 of the Convention has the same substantive meaning as the law of war.

• (3) EXCLUSION FROM COVERAGE OF ACTIVITIES BY MILITARY FORCES. The United States understands that, under Article 19 and Article 1 (4), the Convention does not apply to:

  • (A) the military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties;

  • (B) civilians who direct or organize the official activities of military forces of a state; or

    • (C) civilians acting in support of the official activities of the military forces of a state, if the civilians are under the formal command, control, and responsibility of those forces.

    Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

    Reservation:

    The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, pursuant to the provisions of article 20, paragraph 2, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, formulates an express reservation regarding the stipulation in paragraph 1 of that article. Accordingly, it does not consider itself bound to resort to arbitration as a means of dispute settlement, and does not recognize the binding jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

    Objections

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

    Austria

    14 April 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Government of Austria has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings.

    The Government of Austria considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its objective and purpose which is the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.

    The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention (...) are under no circumstance justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.

    The Government of Austria 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 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 Austria therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings.

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

    Australia

    25 July 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Government of Australia has examined the Declaration made by the Government of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1997. The Government of Australia considers the declaration made by Pakistan to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.

    The Government of Australia further considers the Declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention ... are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.

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

    The Government of Australia objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Australia and Pakistan.

    Canada

    18 July 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Government of Canada has examined the Declaration made by Pakistan at the time of its accession to the Convention and considers that the Declaration is, in fact, a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention which is the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.

    The Government of Canada considers the Declaration to be, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.

    The Government of Canada considers that the above Declaration constitutes a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

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

    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 Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

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

    Denmark

    18 March 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark considers that the declaration made by Pakistan is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its objective and purpose, which is the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.

    The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention (...) are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.

    The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark recalls that, according to Article 19 C of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

    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 Government of the Kingdom of Denmark therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Denmark and Pakistan.

    Finland

    17 June 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

    The Government of Finland is of the view that the declaration amounts to a reservation as its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention. The Government of Finland further considers the declaration to be in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of terrorist bombings wherever and by whomever carried out.

    The declaration is, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to adopt measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.

    The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to the 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.

    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 above-mentioned interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Convention.

    This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Islamic Republic of Pakistan benefiting from its declaration.

    France

    3 February 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Government of the French Republic has considered the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in ratifying the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings of 15 December 1997, that ‘nothing in this Convention shall be applicable to struggles, including armed struggle, for the realization of self-determination launched against any alien or foreign occupation or domination, in accordance with international law’. The aim of the Convention is to suppress all terrorist bombings, and article 5 states that ‘each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary ( ... ) to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention ( ... ) are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature’. The Government of the French Republic considers that the above declaration constitutes a reservation, to which it objects.

    Germany

    3 November 2004

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the “declaration” to the International Convention of the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the Convention.

    The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the declaration made by Pakistan is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its objective and purpose, which is the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.

    The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention, in particular where they are intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of political philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.

    The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

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

    3 November 2004

    With regard to the declaration made by Malaysia upon accession:

    The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the declaration relating to the Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings made by the Government of Malaysia at the time of its accession to the Convention.

    The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that in making the interpretation and application of Article 8 of the Convention subject to the national legislation of Malaysia, the Government of Malaysia introduces a general and indefinite reservation that makes it impossible to clearly identify in which way the Government of Malaysia intends to change the obligations arising from the Convention.

    Therefore the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany hereby objects to this declaration which is considered to be a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Malaysia.

    India

    3 April 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Government of the Republic of India have examined the Declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1997.

    The Government of the Republic of India consider that the Declaration made by Pakistan is, in fact, a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and it is, therefore, incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention which is the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.

    The Government of India consider the Declaration to be, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention ... are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of their political, philosophical ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.

    The Government of India consider that the above Declaration constitutes a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

    The Government of India 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 Convention shall not be permitted.

    The Government of India therefore object to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

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

    Israel

    28 May 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Permanent Mission of the State of Israel to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to the declaration of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, 1997.

    The Government of the State of Israel considers that declaration to be, in fact, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, as expressed in Article 5 thereof.

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

    The Government of the State of Israel therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan.

    Italy

    3 June 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Government of Italy has examined the “declaration” to the International Convention of the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the Convention.

    The Government of Italy considers that the declaration made by Pakistan is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its objective and purpose, which is the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.

    The declaration is furthermore contrary to the term of Article 5 of the Convention according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention, in particular where they are intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of political philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.

    The Government of Italy therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

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

    Japan

    4 August 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    [The Permanent Mission of Japan] has the honour to make the following declaration on behalf of the Government of Japan.

    When depositing its Instrument of Accession, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan made a declaration which reads as follows:

    The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that nothing in this Convention shall be applicable to struggles, including armed struggle, for the realization of right of self-determination launched against any alien or foreign occupation or domination, in accordance with the rules of international law. This interpretation is consistent with Article53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 which provides that an agreement or treaty concluded in conflict with an existing jus cogen or preemptory norm of international law is void and, the right of self-determination is universally recognized as a jus cogen.

    In this connection, the Government of Japan draws attention to the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention, in particular where they are intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.

    The Government of Japan considers that the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeks to exclude struggles, including armed struggle, for the realization of right of self-determination launched against any alien or foreign occupation or domination from the application of the Convention and that such declaration constitutes a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of Japan therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

    Netherlands

    20 February 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings.

    The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made by Pakistan is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose, which is the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.

    The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.

    The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be 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 therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Pakistan.

    2 November 2004

    With regard to the declaration made by Malaysia upon accession:

    The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the declaration relating to the International Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings made by the Government of Malaysia at the time of its accession to the Convention.

    The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that in making the interpretation and application of Article 8 of the Convention subject to the national legislation of Malaysia, the Government of Malaysia is formulating a general and indefinite reservation that makes it impossible to identify the changes to the obligations arising from the Convention that it is intended to introduce. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore considers that a reservation formulated in this way is likely to contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.

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

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

    New Zealand

    12 August 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Government f New Zealand has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1997.

    The Government of New Zealand considers the declaration made by Pakistan to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of terrorist bombings irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.

    The Government of New Zealand further considers the declaration to be contrary to the terms of article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention...are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.

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

    The Government of New Zealand therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1997. This objection does not, however, preclude the entry into force of the Convention between New Zealand and Pakistan.

    Norway

    5 September 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Government of Norway has examined the declaration made by the Government of Pakistan upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

    The Government of Norway considers the declaration to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.

    The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to adopt measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent wit their grave nature.

    The Government of Norway recalls that, according to customary international law, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

    The Government of Norway therefore objects to the aforesaid declaration made by the Government of Pakistan to the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and Pakistan.

    Spain

    23 January 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has considered the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in respect of the International Convention for the Prevention of Terrorist Bombings (New York, 15 December 1997) at the time of its ratification of the Convention.

    The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers this declaration to constitute a de facto reservation the aim of which is to limit unilaterally the scope of the Convention. This is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, which is the repression of terrorist bombings, by whomever and wherever they may be carried out.

    In particular, the declaration by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is incompatible with the spirit of article 5 of the Convention, which establishes the obligation for all States Parties to adopt “such measures as may be necessary, including where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention [ ... ] are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.”

    The Government of the Kingdom of Spain wishes to point out that, under customary international law, as codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of treaties are not permitted.

    Consequently, the Government of Spain objects to the aforementioned declaration by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Prevention of Terrorist Bombings.

    This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the aforementioned Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

    Sweden

    3 June 2003

    With regard to the reservation made by Turkey upon ratification:

    The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by Turkey to article 19 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, whereby Turkey intends to exclude the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions from the term international humanitarian law. It is the view of the Government of Sweden that the majority of the provisions of those Additional Protocols constitute customary international law, by which Turkey is bound.

    In the absence of further clarification, Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation by Turkey to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

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

    4 June 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Government of Sweden has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon acceding to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (the Convention).

    The Government of Sweden recalls that 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. The Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by Pakistan to the Convention in substance constitutes a reservation.

    The Government of Sweden notes that the Convention is being made subject to a general reservation. This reservation does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the Convention and it raises serious doubts as to the commitment of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Convention.

    The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of article 5 of the Convention according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention (...) are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.

    The Government of Sweden 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 Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

    This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Pakistan and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States without Pakistan benefiting from its reservation.

    30 January 2004

    With regard to the declaration made by Israel upon ratification:

    The Government of Sweden has examined the declaration made by Israel regarding article 19 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings whereby Israel intends to exclude the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions from the term international humanitarian law.

    The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by Israel in substance constitutes a reservation.

    It is the view of the Government of Sweden that the majority of the provisions of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions constitute customary international law by which Israel is bound. In the absence of further clarification, Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation by Israel to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

    This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Israel and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States without Israel benefiting from this reservation.

    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

    28 March 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have examined the Declaration made by the Government of Pakistan at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1997. The Government of the United Kingdom consider the declaration made by Pakistan to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.

    The Government of the United Kingdom further consider the Declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention...are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.

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

    The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Pakistan to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom and Pakistan.

    United States of America

    5 June 2003

    With regard to the declaration made by Pakistan upon accession:

    The Government of the United States of America, after careful review, considers the declaration made by Pakistan to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis. The declaration is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely, the suppression of terrorist bombings, irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.

    The Government of the United States also considers the declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, which provides: ‘Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention ... are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.’

    The Government of the United States notes that, under established principles of international treaty law, as reflected in Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.

    The Government of the United States therefore objects to the declaration made by the Government of Pakistan upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. This objection does not, however, preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United States and Pakistan.

    Notifications under article 6 (3)

    (Unless otherwise indicated, the notifications were made upon ratification acceptance, approval or accession.)

    Andorra

    In accordance with article 6, paragraph 3, of the Convention, Andorra establishes its competence regarding the offences described in article 2, for all the cases covered by article 6, paragraph 2, b), c) and d).

    Australia

    18 October 2002

    [I]n accordance with article 6 (3) of the Convention, Australia has chosen to establish jurisdiction in all the circumstances provided for by Article 6 (2), and has provided for such jurisdiction in domestic legislation which took effect on 8 September 2002.

    Bolivia

    By virtue of the provisions of article 6, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the Republic of Bolivia states that it establishes its jurisdiction in accordance with its domestic law in respect of offences committed in the situations and conditions provided for under article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

    Brazil

    The Federative Republic of Brazil declares that, in accordance with the provisions of article 6, paragraph 3, of the said Convention, it will exercise jurisdiction over the offences within the meaning of article 2, in the cases set forth in article 6, paragraph 2 subparagraphs (a), (b) and (e) of the Convention.

    Chile

    In accordance with article 6, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the Government of Chile declares that, in accordance with article 6, paragraph 8, of the Courts Organization Code of the Republic of Chile crimes and ordinary offences committed outside the territory of the Republic which are covered in treaties concluded with other Powers remain under Chilean jurisdiction.

    Cyprus

    In accordance with article 6, paragraph 3 of the Convention, the Republic of Cyprus establishes its jurisdiction over the offences specified in article 2 in all the cases provided for in article 6, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4.

    Denmark

    Pursuant to article 6 (3) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, Denmark provides the following information on Danish criminal jurisdiction: Rules on Danish criminal jurisdiction are laid down in Section 6 to 12 in the Danish Criminal Code. The provisions have the following wording:

    Section 6

    Acts committed

    1) within the territory of the Danish state; or

    2) on board a Danish ship or aircraft, being outside the territory recognized by international law as belonging to any state; or

    3) on board a Danish ship or aircraft, being within the territory recognized by international law as belonging to a foreign state, if committed by persons employed on the ship or aircraft or by passengers travelling on board the ship or aircraft, shall be subject to Danish criminal jurisdiction.

    Section 7

• (1) Acts committed outside the territory of the Danish state by a Danish national or by a person resident in the Danish state shall also be subject to Danish criminal jurisdiction in the following circumstances, namely;

1) where the act was committed outside the territory recognized by international law as belonging to any state, provided acts of the kind in question are punishable with a sentence more severe than imprisonment for four months; or

2) where the act was committed within the territory of a foreign state, provided that it is also punishable under the law in force in that territory.

• (2) The provisions in Subsection (1) above shall similarly apply to acts committed by a person who is a national of, or who is resident in Finland, Iceland, Norway or Sweden and who is present in Denmark.

Section 8

The following acts committed outside the territory of the Danish state, shall also come within Danish criminal jurisdiction, irrespective of the nationality of the perpetrator.

1) where the act violates the independence, security, Constitution of public authorities of the Danish state, official duties toward the state or such interests, the legal protection of which depends on a personal connection with the Danish state; or

2) where the act violates an obligation which the perpetrator is required by law to observe abroad or prejudices the performance of an official duty incumbent on him with regard to a Danish ship or aircraft; or

3) where an act committed outside the territory recognized by international law as belonging to any state violates a Danish national or a person resident in the Danish state provided acts of the kind in question are punishable with a sentence more severe than imprisonment for four months; or

4) where the act comes within the provisions of Section 183 a of this Act. The prosecution may also include breaches of Sections 237 and 244-248 of this Act, when committed in conjunction with the breach of Section 183 a; or

5) where the act is covered by an international convention in pursuance of which Denmark is under an obligation to start legal proceedings; or

6) where transfer of the accused for legal proceedings in another country is rejected, and the act, provided it is committed within the territory recognized by international law as belonging to a foreign state, is punishable according to the law of this state, and provided that according to Danish law the act is punishable with a sentence more severe than one year of imprisonment.

Section 9

Where the punishable nature of an act depends on or is influenced by an actual or intended consequence, the act shall also be deemed to have been committed where the consequence has taken effect or has been intended to take effect.

Section 10

• (1) Where prosecution takes place in this country under the foregoing provisions, the decision concerning the punishment or other legal consequences of the act shall be made under Danish law.

• (2) In the circumstances referred to in Section 7 of this Act, if the act was committed within the territory recognized by international law as belonging to a foreign state, the punishment may not be more severe than that provided for by the law of that state.

Section 10 a

• (1) A person who has been convicted by a criminal court in the state where the act was committed or who has received a sentence which is covered by the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments, or by the Act governing the Transfer of Legal Proceedings to another country, shall not be prosecuted in this country for the same act, if,

1) he is finally acquitted; or

2) the penalty imposed has been served, is being served or has been remitted according to the law of the state in which the court is situated; or

3) he is convicted, but no penalty is imposed.

• (2) The provisions contained in Subsection (1) above shall not apply to a) acts which fall within Section 6 (1) of this Act; or b) the acts referred to in Section 8 (1) 1) above, unless the prosecution in the state in which the court was situated was at the request of the Danish Prosecuting Authority.

Section 10 b

Where any person is prosecuted and punishment has already been imposed on him for the same act in another country, the penalty imposed in this country shall be reduced according to the extent to which the foreign punishment has been served.

Section 11

If a Danish national or a person resident in the Danish state has been punished in a foreign country for an act which under Danish law may entail loss or forfeiture of an office or profession or of any other right, such a deprivation may be sought in a public action in this country.

Section 12

The application of the provisions of Section 6-8 of this Act shall be subject to the applicable rules of international law.

El Salvador

With regard to article 6, paragraph 3, the Government of the Republic of El Salvador gives notification that it has established its jurisdiction under its domestic law in respect of the offences committed in the situations and under the conditions mentioned in article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention;...

Estonia

Pursuant to article 6, paragraph 3 of the Convention, the Republic of Estonia declares that in its domestic law it shall apply the jurisdiction set forth in article 6 paragraph 2 over offences set forth in article 2.

Finland

Pursuant to article 6 (3) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the Republic of Finland establishes its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 in all the cases provided for in article 6, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4.

Hungary

The Government of the Republic of Hungary declares that, in relation to Article 6 paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings the Republic of Hungary, pursuant to its Criminal Code, has jurisdiction over the crimes set out in Article 2 of the Convention in the cases provided for in Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Convention.

Iceland

Declaration:

Pursuant to article 6, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, Iceland declares that it has established its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 of the Convention in all the cases provided for in article 6 paragraph 2, of the Convention.

Israel

Pursuant to Article 6 paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the Government of the State of Israel hereby notifies the Secretary-General of the United Nations that it has established jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Article 2 in all the cases detailed in Article 6 paragraph 2.

Latvia

In accordance with Article 6, paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, opened for signature at New York on the 12th day of January 1998, the Republic of Latvia declares that it has established jurisdiction in all cases listed in Article 6, paragraph 2.

Lithuania

The Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania declares that the Republic of Lithuania establishes the jurisdiction for the offences provided in Article 2 of the Convention in all cases described in paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the said Convention.

Malaysia

In accordance with Article 6 (3) of the Convention, the Government of Malaysia declares that it has established jurisdiction in accordance with its domestic laws over the offences set forth in Article 2 of the Convention in all the cases provided for in Article 6 (1) and 6 (2).

Mexico

24 February 2003

In accordance with article 6, paragraph 3, of the Convention, Mexico exercises jurisdiction over the offences defined in the Convention where:

- (a) They are committed against Mexicans in the territory of another State party, provided that the accused is in Mexico and has not been tried in the country in which the offence was committed. Where it is a question of offences defined in the Convention but committed in the territory of a non-party State, the offence shall also be defined as such in the place where it was committed (art. 6, para. 2 (a));

- (b) They are committed in Mexican embassies and on diplomatic or consular premises (art. 6, para. 2 (b));

- (c) They are committed abroad but produce effects or are claimed to produce effects in the national territory (art. 6, para. (d)).

  **Monaco**

  The Principality declares that, in accordance with the provisions of article 6, paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, it establishes its jurisdiction over the acts recognized as offences within the meaning of article 2 of the Convention, in the cases set forth in article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention.

  **Paraguay**

  By virtue of the provisions of article 6, paragraph 3, of the aforementioned Convention the Republic of Paraguay has established its jurisdiction in accordance with its domestic legislation, under article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

  **Portugal**

  16 January 2002

  Pursuant to article 6 (3) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, Portugal declares that in accordance with article 5 (1) (a) of the Penal Code Portuguese courts will have jurisdiction against the crimes of terrorism and of terrorist organisations, set forth respectively in article 300 and 301 of the same Code, wherever the place they have been committed, thus covering, in connection with the said crimes the cases set forth in article 6 (2) of the Convention.

  **Republic of Korea**

  7 July 2004

  Pursuant to Article 6, Paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings,

  The Republic of Korea provides the following information on its criminal jurisdiction.

  Principles on the criminal jurisdiction are set out in the Chapter I of Part I of the Korean Penal Code. The provisions have the following wording:

  Article 2 (Domestic Crimes)

  This Code shall apply to anyone, whether Korean or alien, who commits a crime within the territorial boundary of the Republic of Korea.

  Article 3 (Crimes by Koreans outside Korea)

  This Code shall apply to a Korean national who commits a crime outside the territorial boundary of the Republic of Korea.

  Article 4 (Crimes by Aliens on board Korean Vessel, etc., outside Korea)

  This Code shall apply to an alien who commits a crime on board a Korean vessel or a Korean aircraft outside the territorial boundary of the Republic of Korea.

  Article 5 (Crimes by Aliens outside Korea)

  This Code shall apply to an alien who commits any of the following crimes outside the territorial boundary of the Republic of Korea:

  1. Crimes concerning insurrection;

  2. Crimes concerning treason;

  3. Crimes concerning the national flag;

  4. Crimes concerning currency;

  5. Crimes concerning securities, postage and revenue stamps;

  6. Crimes specified in Articles 225 through 230 among crimes concerning documents; and

  7. Crimes specified in Article 238 among crimes concerning seal.

  Article 6 (Foreign Crimes against the Republic of Korea and Koreans outside Korea)

  This Code shall apply to an alien who commits a crime, other than those specified in the preceding Article, against the Republic of Korea or its national outside the territorial boundary of the Republic of Korea, unless such act does not constitute a crime, or it is exempt from prosecution or execution of punishment under the *lex loci delictus*.

  Article 8 (Application of General Provisions)

  The provisions of the preceding Articles shall also apply to such crimes as are provided by other statutes unless provided otherwise by such statutes.

  **Republic of Moldova**

  Pursuant to article 6, paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the Republic of Moldova establishes its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 in cases provided for in article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2.

  **Romania**

  In accordance with Article 6, paragraph 3 of the Convention, Romania declares that it has established its jurisdiction for the offences set forth in Article 2, in all cases stipulated by Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, in conformity with relevant provisions of its domestic law.

  **Russian Federation**

  The Russian Federation declares that in accordance with paragraph 3 of article 6 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (hereinafter - the Convention) it has established its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 of the Convention in cases envisaged in paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 6 of the Convention.

  **Sudan**

  The Republic of the Sudan declares hereby that it has established its jurisdiction over crimes set out in article 2 of the Convention in accordance with situations and conditions as stipulated in article 6, paragraph 2.

  **Sweden**

  5 November 2002

  Pursuant to article 6 (3) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, Sweden provides the following information on Swedish criminal jurisdiction. Rules on Swedish criminal jurisdiction are laid down in Chapter 2 Section 1-5 in the Swedish Penal Code. The provisions have the following wording:

  Section 1

  Crimes committed in this Realm shall be adjudged in accordance with Swedish law and by a Swedish court. The same applies when it is uncertain where the crime was committed but grounds exist for assuming that it was committed within the Realm.

  Section 2

  Crimes committed outside the Realm shall be adjudged according to Swedish law and by a Swedish court when the crime has been committed:

  1. By a Swedish citizen or an alien domiciled in Sweden,

  2. By an alien not domiciled in Sweden who, after having committed the crime, has become a Swedish citizen or has acquired domicile in the Realm or who is a Danish Finnish, Icelandic or Norwegian citizen and is present in the Realm, or

  3. By any other alien, who is present in the Realm, and the crime under Swedish law can result in imprisonment for more than six months.

  The first paragraph shall not apply if the act is not subject to criminal responsibility under the law of the place where it was committed or if it was committed within an area not belonging to any state and, under Swedish law, the punishment for the act cannot be more severe than a fine.

  In cases mentioned in this Section, a sanction may not be imposed which is more severe than the most severe punishment provided for the crime under the law in the place where it was committed.

  Section 3

  Even in cases other than those listed in Section 2, crimes committed outside the Realm shall be adjudged according to Swedish law and by a Swedish court:

  1. if the crime was committed on board a Swedish vessel or aircraft, or was committed in the course of duty by the officer in charge or by a member of its crew,

  2. if the crime was committed by a member of the armed force in an area in which a detachment of the armed forces was present, or if it was committed by some other person in such an area and the detachment was present for a purpose other than exercise,

  3. if the crime was committed in the course of duty outside the Realm by a person employed in a foreign contingent of the Swedish armed forces,

  3a. if the crime was committed in the course of duty outside the Realm by a policeman custom officer or official employed at the coast guard, who performs boundless assignments according to an international agreement that Sweden has ratified,

  4. if the crime committed was a crime against the Swedish nation, a Swedish municipal authority or other assembly, or against a Swedish public institution,

  5. If the crime was committed in an area not belonging to any state and was directed against a Swedish citizen, a Swedish association or private institution, or against an alien domiciled in Sweden,

  6. if the crime is hijacking, maritime or aircraft sabotage, airport sabotage, counterfeiting currency, an attempt to commit such crimes, a crime against international law, unlawful dealings with chemical weapons, unlawful dealings with mines or false or careless statement before an international court, or

  7. if the least severe punishment prescribed for the crime in Swedish law is imprisonment for four years or more.

  Section 3 a

  Besides the cases described in Sections 1-3, crimes shall be adjudged according to Swedish law by a Swedish court in accordance with the provisions of the Act on International Collaboration concerning Proceedings in Criminal matters.

  Section 4

  A crime is deemed to have been committed where the criminal act was perpetrated and also where the crime was completed or in the case of an attempt, where the intended crime would have been completed.

  Section 5

  Prosecution for a crime committed within the Realm on a foreign vessel or aircraft by an alien, who was the officer in charge or member of its crew or otherwise travelled in it against another alien or a foreign interest shall not be instituted without the authority of the Government or a person designated by the Government.

  1. on a Swedish vessel or aircraft or by the officer in charge or some member of its crew in the course of duty,

  2. by a member of the armed forces in an area in which a detachment of the armed forces was present,

  3. in the course of duty outside the Realm by a person employed by a foreign contingent of the Swedish armed forces,

  4. In the course of duty outside the Realm by a policeman, custom officer or official employed at the coast guard, who performs boundless assignments according to an international agreement that Sweden has ratified,

  5. In Denmark, Finland, Iceland or Norway or on a vessel or aircraft in regular commerce between places situated in Sweden or one of the said states, or

  6. By a Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Icelandic or Norwegian citizen against a Swedish interest.

  **Switzerland**

  Pursuant to article 6, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, Switzerland establishes its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 in all the cases provided for in article 6, paragraph 2.

  **Ukraine**

  21 May 2002

  Ukraine excercises its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 of the Convention in cases provided for in paragraph 2 article 6 of the Convention.

  **Uruguay**

  Notifies, by virtue of article 6, paragraph 3, of the Convention, that the authorities of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay exercise jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 to which reference is made in article 6, paragraph 2. With regard to article 6, paragraph 2 subparagraphs (a) and (b), that jurisdiction is established in article 10 of the Penal Code (Act 9.155 of 4 December 1933) and, with regard to article 6, paragraph 2, subparagraph (e), in article 4 of the Aeronautical Code (Decree-Law 14.305 of 29 November 1974).

  **Uzbekistan**

  15 May 2000

  The Republic of Uzbekistan has established its jurisdiction over the crimes set out in article 2 under all the conditions stipulated in article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

  **Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)**

  Moreover, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, having regard for article 6, paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, declares that it has established jurisdiction under its domestic law over the offences committed in the situations and under the conditions envisaged in article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention.”

SCHEDULE 4

“SCHEDULE 7J

PART A INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM

Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 9^th day of December 1999

THE STATES PARTIES TO THIS CONVENTION,

BEARING IN MIND the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the maintenance of international peace and security and the promotion of good-neighbourliness and friendly relations and cooperation among States,

DEEPLY CONCERNED about the worldwide escalation of acts of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations,

RECALLING the Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, contained in General Assembly resolution 50/6 of 24 October 1995,

RECALLING ALSO all the relevant General Assembly resolutions on the matter including resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994 and its annex on the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, in which the States Members of the United Nations solemnly reaffirmed their unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomever committed, including those which jeopardize the friendly relations among States and peoples and threaten the territorial integrity and security of States,

NOTING that the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism also encouraged States to review urgently the scope of the existing international legal provisions on the prevention, repression and elimination of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, with the aim of ensuring that there is a comprehensive legal framework covering all aspects of the matter,

RECALLING General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996, paragraph 3 subparagraph (f), in which the Assembly called upon all States to take steps to prevent and counteract, through appropriate domestic measures, the financing of terrorists and terrorist organizations, whether such financing is direct or indirect through organizations which also have or claim to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which are also engaged in unlawful activities such as illicit arms trafficking, drug dealing and racketeering, including the exploitation of persons for purposes of funding terrorist activities, and in particular to consider, where appropriate, adopting regulatory measures to prevent and counteract movements of funds suspected to be intended for terrorist purposes without impeding in any way the freedom of legitimate capital movements and to intensify the exchange of information concerning international movements of such funds,

RECALLING ALSO General Assembly resolution 52/165 of 15 December 1997, in which the Assembly called upon States to consider, in particular, the implementation of the measures set out in paragraphs 3(a) to (f) of its resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996,

RECALLING FURTHER General Assembly resolution 53/108 of 8 December 1998, in which the Assembly decided that the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 should elaborate a draft international convention for the suppression of terrorist financing to supplement related existing international instruments,