S.I. No. 9/2009 - Extradition Act 1965 (Application of Part II) (Amendment) Order 2009

“Switzerland

Reservation concerning article 3, paragraph 2:

Switzerland does not consider itself bound by article 3, paragraph 2, concerning the maintenance or adoption of criminal offences under legislation on narcotic drugs.

Reservation concerning article 3, paragraphs 6, 7 and 8:

Switzerland considers the provisions of article 3, paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 as binding only to the extent that they are compatible with Swiss criminal legislation and Swiss policy on criminal matters.

Notifications under article 6, 7 and 17

Barbados

23 June 1993

The Attorney-General has been designated as the authority for the purposes of articles 7 (8) and 17 (7) of the above-mentioned Convention and that English is the acceptable language for the purposes of paragraph 9 of said article 7.

Brunei Darussalam

19 June 2007

The competent authority under article 7 (8) is the following:

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Jalan Subok Bandar Seri Begawan BD 2710 Brunei Darussalam

Telephone: (673) 226 1177 Fax: (673) 226 1709 Email: mfa@gov.bn

Cook Islands

24 March 2005

• (a) Article 6: Extradition

The Cook Islands Extradition Act 2003 provides for the extradition of persons to and from the Cook Islands.

The objects of the Act are to—

• (a) codify the law relating to the extradition of persons from the Cook Islands; and

• (b) facilitate the making of requests for extradition by the Cook Islands to other countries, and

• (c) enable the Cook Islands to carry out its obligations under extradition treaties.

An offense under the Act is an extradition offence if—

1. (a) it is an offence against a law of the requesting country punishable by death or imprisonment for not less than 12 months or the imposition of a fine of more than $5,000; and

2. (b) the conduct that constitutes an offence (however described) in the Cook Islands punishable by death or imprisonment for not less than 12 months or the imposition of a fine of more than $5,000.

3. In determining whether conduct constitutes an offence, regard may be had to only some of the acts and omissions that make up the conduct.

4. In determining the maximum penalty for an offence for which no statutory penalty is imposed, regard must be had to the level of penalty that can be imposed by any court in the requesting country for the offence.

5. An offence may be an extradition offence although:

6. (a) it is an offence against a law of the requesting country relating to taxation, customs duties or other revenue matters, or relating to foreign exchange controls; and

7. (b) the Cook Islands does not impose a duty, tax, impost or control of that kind.

8. (b) Article 7: Mutual Legal Assistance:

The authority in the Cook Islands with the responsibility and power to execute requests for mutual legal assistance is as follows:

Solicitor General, Crown Law Office, PO Box 494, Avarua, Rarotonga, Cook Islands. Tel: (682) 29 337; Fax: (682 20 839.

• (c) Article 17: Illicit Traffic at Sea The authority in the Cook Islands with the responsibility for responding to requests for information on vessels flying the Cook Islands flag is as follows:

Secretary, Ministry of Transport, PO Box 61, Avarua, Rarotonga, Cook Islands. Tel: (682) 28 810; Fax: (682) 28 816.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

31 May 2007

The Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has designated the following authorities under the provisions of article 7 (8) and 17 (7), respectively.

Ministry of People’s Security

Wasan-dong,

Sosong District

Pyongyang, DPR Korea.

Fax: + 850-2-381-5833

Tel.: + 850-2-381-5833

Maritime Administration

Tonghun-dong

Central District

Pyongang, DPR Korea.

Fax: + 850-2-381-4410

Tel.: + 850-2-18111 ext 8059

E-mail: Mab@silibank.com

On the same date, the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea notified the Secretary-General that English has been chosen as its language for the purpose of article 7 (9) of the Convention.

Ireland

1 February 2006

The authority now designated by Ireland under Article 17 (7) of the Convention is as follows:

Head of Unit

Liaison & Joint Operations

Customs Drugs Law Enforcement

Revenue Investigations & Prosecutions Division

Ashtown Gate

Dublin 15

Ireland

Telephone No. (office hours): + 353 1 827 7512

24 Hour Telephone No. (outside office hours):

• 353 87 254 8201 Fax: + 353 1 827 7680

E-mail address: antidrugs@revenue.ie

Office Hours: 0800 — 1800 (Monday-Friday)

Languages of incoming requests accepted: English

Time zone: GMT +/- 0

Nicaragua

31 July 2006

The Government of the Republic of Nicaragua has designated the Attorney General of the Republic as the Central Authority in charge of fulfilling that which is stipulated in the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, done at Vienna on 20 December 1988.”

PART F

“Iceland

Declaration contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Iceland, dated 2 February 2006, registered at the Secretariat General on 7 February 2006.

Iceland declares that the appointed central authority to carry out the functions of the Convention is:

The Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs

Skuggasund

150 Reykjavik

Iceland

tel.: +354 545 9000

fax.: +354 552 7340.

Monaco

Reservation contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 18 September 2007.

The Principality of Monaco declares that it reserves itself the right to refuse extradition in conformity with the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Montenegro

Reservation contained in the instrument of ratification deposited by the state union of Serbia and Montenegro, on 15 May 2003.

Pursuant to Article 13 of the Convention, Serbia and Montenegro reserves the right to refuse to extradite a person because of any criminal offence mentioned in Article 1 which it considers a political criminal offence, as well as a criminal offence in connection with a political criminal offence or a criminal offence inspired by political motivation.

Netherlands

Declaration and reservation contained in a letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, dated 25 January 2006, registered at the Secretariat General on 10 February 2006.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the Convention for Aruba with the following reservation: “With due observance of Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, Aruba reserves the right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence mentioned in Article 1 of the Convention including the attempt to commit or participation in one of these offences, which it considers to be a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence.”

Declaration contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of the Netherlands, dated 8 February 2006, registered at the Secretariat General on 10 February 2006.

On 13 June 2002, the Council of the European Union adopted a framework decision (2002/584/JHA) on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (”the framework decision”). Article 31 of the framework decision states that, from 1 January 2004, the provisions of the framework decision shall replace the corresponding provisions of the conventions pertaining to extradition that apply in relations between the Member States of the European Union.

The Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore has the honour to confirm to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that the provisions of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism (”the Convention”) regarding extradition, in view of the above, are no longer applied in relations between the part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands situated in Europe and the Member States of the European Union that are Parties to the Convention.

The Permanent Representation would emphasise that the above in no way alters the application of the Convention in relations between:

— the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba and the Parties to the Convention, or

— the part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands situated in Europe and the Parties to the Convention that are not Member States of the European Union.

[Note by the Secretariat: By Note of 31 August 2005, the Permanent Representation of the Netherlands informed the Secretary General that the European Convention on Extradition, done at Paris on 13 December 1957 (”the Convention”), would no longer be applied in relations between the part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands situated in Europe and the Member States of the European Union that are Parties to the Convention.]”

PART G

“Morocco

On 19 October 2006, the Government of Morocco notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation made regarding article 20, made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification. The reservation reads as follows:

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

Thailand

Interpretative declaration:

1. With respect to the term “torture” under Article 1 of the Convention, although there is neither a specific definition nor particular offence under the current Thai Penal Code corresponding to the term, there are comparable provisions under the aforesaid Thai Penal Code applicable to acts under Article 1 of the Convention. The term “torture” under Article 1 of the Convention shall accordingly be interpreted in conformity with the current Thai Penal Code.

The Kingdom of Thailand shall revise its domestic law to be more consistent with Article 1 of the Convention at the earliest opportunity.

1. For the same reason as stipulated in the preceding paragraph, Article 4 of the Convention which stipulates: ‘Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture,’ shall be interpreted in conformity with the current Thai Penal Code.

The Kingdom of Thailand shall revise its domestic law to be more consistent with Article 4 of the Convention at the earliest opportunity.

1. Article 5 of the Convention which provides: ‘Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Article 4.....” is interpreted by the Kingdom of Thailand to mean that the jurisdiction referred to in Article 5 shall be established in accordance with the current Thai Penal Code.

The Kingdom of Thailand shall revise its domestic law to be more consistent with Article 5 of the Convention at the earliest opportunity.

Reservation:

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

Declarations made under articles 21 and 22

(Declarations recognizing the Competence of the Committee against Torture)

Andorra

22 November 2006

Bolivia

14 February 2006

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

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

Brazil

26 June 2006

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

Georgia

30 June 2005

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

In accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York on December 10, 1984 Georgia hereby declares that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture under the conditions laid down in article 22, to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by Georgia of the provisions of the Convention.

Guatemala

25 September 2003

In accordance with article 22 of the Convention, the Republic of Guatemala 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 of the provisions of the Convention in respect of acts, omissions, situations or events occurring after the date of the present declaration.

Kazakhstan

21 February 2008

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

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

Montenegro

Confirmed upon succession:

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

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

Morocco

19 October 2006

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

Republic of Korea

9 November 2007

The Republic of Korea 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 and also recognizes the competence of the said Committee, 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.

Serbia

Confirmed upon succession:

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

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

Ukraine

12 September 2003

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

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

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

PART H

“Estonia

Declaration:

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention the Republic of Estonia establishes her jurisdiction over any such crime when it is committed with respect to a national of Estonia.

Objections

Greece

21 July 2005

With regard to the declarations made by Turkey upon ratification:

The Government of the Hellenic Republic has examined the declarations made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel.

In the view of the Government of the Hellenic Republic, paragraph 1 of these declarations amounts to a reservation which raises concerns as to the commitment of Turkey to implement core provisions of the Convention and in particular those pertaining to the prevention and suppression of crimes against United Nations and Associated Personnel. The reservation may also lead to a discriminatory application of the Convention.

In connection with paragraph II of the declarations, the Government of the Hellenic Republic is of the view that it also amounts to a reservation as it raises the same concerns as above. Furthermore, it raises doubts as to whether Turkey fully undertakes the obligations incumbent upon it by virtue of Article 10 of the Convention. The Government of the Hellenic Republic, therefore, considers that the above reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

Regarding the reservation made by the Republic of Turkey in connection with Article 20 par. 1 of the Convention, the Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that, in so far as the instruments referred to in the reservation are reflective of customary international law, they are universally binding and cannot be exempted from by a reservation.

For these reasons, the Government of the Hellenic Republic objects to the above reservations made by the Republic of Turkey to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Turkey. The Convention, therefore, enters into force between the two States without taking into account the abovementioned reservations.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

16 August 2005

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

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has examined the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is concerned that paragraph 1 of the declaration may amount to a reservation of indeterminate scope. Diplomatic relations between Turkey and other States are capable of being established and terminated at will, and without the other State Parties to the Convention knowing of their status. It would offend the legal certainty of treaty relations to attempt to make these contingent upon the existence of diplomatic relations.

As regards paragraph II of the declaration, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is of the view that it raises doubts as to whether Turkey fully undertakes the obligations incumbent upon it by virtue of Article 10 of the Convention. As well as providing that a State Party shall establish its jurisdiction over crimes committed within its national territory, or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State, Article 10 also provides that a State shall take measures to assume jurisdiction where the alleged offender is a national of that State. Paragraph II, in attempting to ratify the Convention solely with regard to the national territory of Turkey, appears to be contrary to Article 10 (1) (b).

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, therefore, considers that the above paragraphs of the declaration constitute reservations which are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

Regarding the reservation made by the Republic of Turkey in connection with Article 20 (1) of the Convention, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland considers that, in so far as the instruments referred to in the reservation are reflective of customary international law, they are universally binding and cannot be derogated from.

For these reasons, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland objects to the above reservations made by the Republic of Turkey to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Turkey. The Convention, therefore, enters into force between the two States without taking into account the above-mentioned reservations.

Notifications made under article 10(2)

China

27 July 2007

Pursuant to article 10, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China has established its jurisdiction referred to in article 10, paragraph 2 (a) of the Convention over the crimes set out in article 9 of the Convention.”

PART I

“Andorra

Reservation contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 6 May 2008:

In accordance with Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Convention, Andorra reserves its right to apply Articles 6 and 10 to the members of foreign public Assemblies and to the members of international parliamentary Assemblies.

Reservation contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 6 May 2008:

In accordance with Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Convention, Andorra declares that it will establish as a criminal offence the conduct referred to in Articles 7 and 8, in accordance with its domestic law, only when it will be qualified as such by the Criminal Code of the Principality of Andorra.

Reservation contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 6 May 2008:

In accordance with Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Convention, Andorra reserves its right not to establish as a criminal offence the conduct referred to in Article 12, when it is only an attempt in accordance with its domestic law.

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 6 May 2008:

In accordance with Article 29, paragraph 2, of the Convention, Andorra declares that it designates as central authority, in accordance with Article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention:

Ministeri de Justícia i Interior

(Ministry of Justice and Interior)

Edifici administratiu de l’Obac

AD700 Escaldes-Engordany

Principat d’Andorra

Armenia

Reservations contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 9 January 2006.

Pursuant to Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Republic of Armenia reserves its right not to establish as a criminal offence under its domestic law the conduct referred to in Article 12.

Pursuant to Article 37, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the Republic of Armenia declares that it may refuse mutual legal assistance under Article 26, paragraph 1, if the request concerns an offence which it considers a political offence.

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 9 January 2006.

Pursuant to Article 29 of the Convention, the Republic of Armenia declares that it designates the following central authorities, which shall be responsible for co-operation under Chapter IV of the Convention:

a. The General Prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Armenia (5, Vazgen SARGSYAN Street, 375010 YEREVAN) for the criminal offences at the pre-trial stage;

b. The Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia (3, Vazgen SARGSYAN Street, 375010 YEREVAN) for the criminal offences at the trial stage.

Belarus

Declaration contained in a Note Verbale from the Embassy of Belarus in France appended to the instrument of ratification deposited on 6 November 2007.

According to the provisions of Article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Belarus is designated as a central authority for the purposes of Chapter IV of the Convention. The contact information are the following:

General Prosecutor’s Office

of the Republic of Belarus

22, Internacionalnaya str.

220050 MINSK

Republic of Belarus

Tel.: (+375-17)227-31

Fax: (+375-17)226-42-52

Belgium

Declaration contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Belgium, dated 27 May 2004, registered at the Secretariat General on 28 May 2004.

According to Article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium designates the “Service Public Fédéral Justice, Direction Générale de la Législation et des Libertés et Droits fondamentaux” as the central authority which shall be responsible for receiving the requests for mutual legal assistance and, either for executing or for transmitting them to the authorities competent for their execution. The address of this central authority is the following: 115 Boulevard de Waterloo, 1000 Bruxelles — Tel. 00.32.2.542.67.30 — Fax: 00.32.2.538.83.75 — Email: http://www.just.fgov.be

France

Reservation contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 25 April 2008:

In accordance with Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the French Republic reserves the right not to establish as a criminal offence the conduct of trading in influence defined in Article 12 of the Convention, in order to exert an influence, as defined by the said Article, over the decision-making of a foreign public official or a member of a foreign public assembly, referred to in Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.

Reservation contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 25 April 2008:

In accordance with Articles 17, paragraph 2, and 37, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the French Republic declares that it reserves the right to establish its jurisdiction as regards Article 17, paragraph 1.b, of the Convention, only when the offender is one of its nationals and the offences are punishable under the legislation of the country where they have been committed, and that it reserves the right not to establish its jurisdiction regarding the situations referred to in Article 17, paragraph 1.c, of the Convention.

Georgia

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 10 January 2008.

Georgia declares that the Convention shall be applicable on the part of the territory of Georgia where Georgia exercises its full jurisdiction.

Declaration contained in a letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, dated 15 January 2008, registered at the Secretariat General on 15 January 2008.

In accordance with Article 29, paragraph 2, of the Convention, Georgia declares that it designates as central authorities pursuant to Article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention:

Ministry of Justice of Georgia

30 Rustaveli ave.

Tbilisi 0146

Georgia

Tel.+995-32-75-82-10/82-77/82-78

Fax.:+995-32-75-82-76/82-29

Email:Intlawdep@justice.gov.ge

and

Office of the Prosecutor General of Georgia

24 Gorgasali str.

Tbilisi 0133

Georgia

Tel./Fax: (+995 32) 40 51 42

Internet: http://www.psg.gov.ge

Greece

Reservation contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Greece deposited with the instrument of ratification, on 10 July 2007 completed by a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Greece, dated 1 February 2008, registered at the Secretariat General on 5 February 2008.

Pursuant to Article 37, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the Hellenic Republic is not bound by Article 26, paragraph 1, of the Convention and may refuse judicial assistance if the request of the contracting State concerns an offence, which is considered as a political one.

The Hellenic authorities consider that the two sentences which form the reservation of Greece to the Convention can only be read jointly in order to avoid any doubt with regard to the fact that the only case where the Hellenic Republic may refuse judicial assistance within Article 26, paragraph 1, of the said Convention, is when the offence concerned is qualified as a “political offence”.

Declaration contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Greece, dated 1 February 2008, registered at the Secretariat General on 5 February 2008.

In accordance with Article 29 of the Convention, the central authority for Greece is the:

Ministry of Justice

Direction d’Entraide Judiciaire Internationale et d’Accord de Grce

Service d’Affaires Pénales Spéciales et d’Entraide Judiciaire Internationale en matire pénale

96 Avenue Mesogeion

11527 Athnes

Greece

Tel.

030.210.77.67.310

Fax: 0030.210.77.67.478

Email: xpappa@justice.gov.gr

Latvia

Renewal of reservation contained in a Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia, dated 19 September 2007, registered at the Secretariat General on 2 October 2007.

With due regard to well-established principles of international law in the field of extradition, the Republic of Latvia declares that it renews its reservation regarding Article 26, paragraph 1, of the Convention, for the period set out in Article 38, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

The Republic of Latvia considers that the issue of mutual legal assistance, beyond all doubts, constitutes one of the fundamental elements of suppression of all means of crimes, inter alia, corruption. Nevertheless, the Republic of Latvia would like to stress, that in accordance with the principles of its legal order, observation of human rights and rule of law is the core element for providing mutual legal assistance to other States.

If there is sufficient ground to believe that offence to which the compliance for mutual legal assistance regards could be considered as political offence, the national authorities in charge are under an obligation to review the aforementioned compliance in the light of safeguards provided to any person in accordance with human rights.

Furthermore, the Republic of Latvia would like to emphasize that it has made similar reservations to all international instruments in the penal field, if this instrument contains clauses for extradition or mutual legal assistance.

Luxembourg

Reservation contained in a letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg, transmitted to the Secretariat General at the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification, on 13 July 2005.

In accordance with Article 17, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg declares that, except in cases covered by paragraph 1, subparagraph a of Article 17of this Convention, it will apply the jurisdiction rules laid down in Article 17, paragraph 1, subparagraphs b and c, only if the offender has the Luxembourgish nationality.

Declaration contained in a letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg, transmitted to the Secretariat General at the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification, on 13 July 2005.

The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg declares that the State Prosecutor General is designated to exercise in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg the function of central authority in the meaning of Article 29 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, without prejudice to the jurisdiction conferred by Law to other authorities. Where necessary, the State Prosecutor General will ensure the transmission of the request to the competent authority.

Monaco

Reservations contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 19 March 2007.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Principality of Monaco reserves its right not to establish as a criminal offence the passive bribery of foreign public officials and of members of foreign public assemblies referred to in Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Principality of Monaco reserves its right not to establish as a criminal offence, in whole or in part, the conduct of trading in influence referred to in Article 12 of the Convention.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Principality of Monaco reserves its right not to establish its jurisdiction when the offender is one of its nationals or one of its public officials and when the offences are not punished by the Law of the territory on which they have been committed. When the offence implies one of its public officials or a member of its public or national assemblies or any other person referred to in Articles 9 to 11 who is at the same time one of its nationals, the rules of jurisdiction set in paragraphs 1b and c of Article 17 apply without prejudice of the provisions of Articles 5 to 10 of Monaco’s Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the exercise of public action for crimes and offences committed outside of the Principality.

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 19 March 2007.

According to the provisions of Article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Principality of Monaco declares that the central authority is the “Direction des Services Judiciaires, Palais de Justice, BP 5132, 98015 Monaco Cedex, Tél. =377.98.98.81.28, Fax: +377.98.98.85.89 (*)”.

The specialised authority is the “Service d’Information et de Contrle des Circuits Financiers (SICCFIN)”.

[(*) Note by the Secretariat: Information updated by a letter from the Directorate of External Relations of Monaco, dated 13 April 2007, registered at the Secretariat General on 25 April 2007]

Montenegro

Declaration contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Serbia and Montenegro, dated 1 July 2004, registered at the Secretariat General on 5 July 2004 and updated by a letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro, dated 13 October 2006, registered at the Secretariat General on 19 October 2006.

In accordance with Article 29 of the Convention, the following institutions have been designated as central authority of the Republic of Montenegro responsible for sending and answering requests made under Chapter IV of the Convention, the execution of such requests or transmission of them to the authorities competent for the execution:

Agency for Anti-corruption Initiative of the Republic of Montenegro

Trg Vektra bb

81 000 Podgorica

Poland

Partial withdrawal of reservation contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Poland, dated 29 September 2006, registered at the Secretariat General on 29 September 2006.

In accordance with Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Republic of Poland reserves its right to apply Article 7 only in such case when the benefit or its promise is received by a person who has a leading position within an entity pursuing economic activity or by a person who, due to his/her position or function, has an actual influence on taking decisions connected with activity of such an entity, in exchange for acting or abandonment, which can cause damage to its property, or for inadmissible preferential act, or actions being unfair competition act.

Partial withdrawal of reservation contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Poland, dated 29 September 2006, registered at the Secretariat General on 29 September 2006.

In accordance with Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Republic of Poland reserves its right to apply Article 8 only in such case when the benefit or its promise is given to a person who has a leading position within an entity pursuing economic activity or by a person who, due to his/her position or function, has an actual influence on taking decisions connected with activity of such an entity, in exchange for acting or abandonment, which can cause damage to its property, or for inadmissible preferential act, or actions being unfair competition act.

Russia

Declaration contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Russia, dated 4 October 2006, deposited with the instrument of ratification on 4 October 2006.

According to Article 29 of the Convention, the Russian Federation will shortly designate a central authority for the purposes of the Convention. The name and address of this central authority will be communicated as soon as it is designated.

Switzerland

Reservations contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 31 March 2006.

Switzerland reserves its right to apply Article 12 of the Convention only if the conduct referred to constitutes an offence under the Swiss legislation.

Switzerland reserves its right to apply Article 17, paragraph 1, subparagraphs b and c, only if the conduct is also punishable where it has been committed and insofar as the author is in Switzerland and will not be extradited to a foreign State.

Declarations contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 31 March 2006.

Switzerland declares that it will punish the active and passive bribery in the meaning of Articles 5, 9 and 11 only if the conduct of the bribed person consists in performing or refraining from performing an act contrary to his/her duties or depending on his/her power of estimation.

The central authority designated by Switzerland pursuant to Article 29 is the “Office fédéral de la justice, CH-3003 Berne”.

United Kingdom

Renewal of reservations contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, dated 10 September 2007, registered at the Secretariat General on 11 September 2007.

In accordance with Article 38, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Government of the United Kingdom declares that it intends to uphold, wholly, the reservations made in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. These reservations concern Articles 7, 12 and 17 of the Convention.

With regards to Article 7, the existing provision in the law of the United Kingdom (section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906), whilst capturing most of the conduct referred to in Article 7, does not explicitly refer to the circumstance in which a bribe is not given directly to the individual who is being induced to act in a particular way but to a third party. It was previously explained that the Government was seeking, in the context of a wider reform, to amend this aspect of the law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure explicit coverage through a draft Corruption Bill published in 2003. However, in light of Parliamentary criticism that Bill was not formally introduced to Parliament and in December 2005 the Government issued a further consultation paper with the aim of establishing a consensus on an appropriate formulation. The consultation closed in March 2006 and the summary of responses was published in March this year. In light of this consultation the Government has asked the Law Commission to undertake, as a priority, a further fundamental review and to prepare a draft Bill. We intend that this new Bill will, along with a wider reform, amend this aspect of the law. Separate consideration is also being given to this issue in Scotland. Therefore, for the time being, the United Kingdom wishes to maintain its reservation to Article 7 which was made in accordance with Article 37, paragraph 1.

The United Kingdom also wishes to maintain its reservation made in accordance with Article 37, paragraph 1, not to establish as a criminal offence all of the conduct referred to in Article 12. The law of the United Kingdom covers much of the conduct referred to in Article 12 but only in so far as an agent relationship exists between the “influence seller” and the person influenced.

In respect of Article 17, section 109 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 [for Scotland section 69 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003], gave the United Kingdom courts jurisdiction over the common law offence of bribery, the section 1 offences of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, and the section 1 offences of the 1906 Act, when they are committed overseas by United Kingdom nationals and incorporated bodies. The United Kingdom courts therefore apply the jurisdictional rule laid down in Article 17, paragraph 1(b), except that jurisdiction is limited to United Kingdom nationals, and accordingly does not cover public officials or members of domestic public assemblies except where they are United Kingdom nationals. The law has not changed. The United Kingdom is therefore maintaining its reservation made in accordance with Article 17, paragraph 2, and Article 37, paragraph 2, to apply the jurisdictional rule laid down in Article 17, paragraph 1(b) only where the offender is a United Kingdom national. The United Kingdom is also maintaining its reservation made under Article 17, paragraph 2, and Article 37, paragraph 2, not to apply the jurisdictional rule laid down in Article 17, paragraph 1(c) at all.”

PART J

“Andorra

The instrument of accession of Andorra contained the following declaration:

Andorra is a landlocked State and, at the time of its accession to the Convention and the Protocol, has no official ships registered. However, in accordance with the Traffic Code of 10 June 1999, individuals of Andorran nationality and foreigners residing legally in the country may have their sports vessels entered in a register established by the Government of Andorra.

In this context, Andorra reserves the right recognized in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in particular article 125, to request transit States (the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of France) for right of access to and from the sea, and freedom of transit through their territories for that purpose.

We, the Co-princes, having read and considered the above-mentioned Convention and Protocol, hereby express the consent of the State to be bound by the provisions contained therein, and to that end we command issuance of this instrument of accession, signed by us and countersigned by the Head of the Government.

Armenia

The instrument of accession contained the following reservation:

The Republic of Armenia declares that it does not consider itself bound by the 2nd sentence of Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation.

Brazil

The instrument of accession contained the following reservation:

With reservation to article 6, paragraph 2; article 8’ and article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention and to article 3, paragraph 2 of the Protocol.

Iraq

Reservation upon signature:

This signature does not in any way imply recognition of Israel or entry into any relationship with it.

Moldova

The instrument of accession contained the following declaration:

Until the full re-establishment of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova, the provisions of the Convention shall be applied only on the territory controlled by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova.

The Republic of Moldova shall apply the provisions of article 8, paragraph 1 of the Convention as far as it will not infringe its own national legislation.

The Republic of Moldova declares that it shall establish its own jurisdiction over the offences specified in article 3 of the Convention, in cases provided in article 6, paragraph 2 of this Convention.

According to article 16, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Republic of Moldova does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Saudi Arabia

The instrument of accession was accompanied by the following reservation:

This document announces the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s accession to and approval of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, with full reservation as to Article 11 and Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

United Arab Emirates

The instrument of accession contained the following reservation:

The Government of the United Arab Emirates has taken cognizance of the provisions of the aforementioned Convention and Protocol and accedes to them with full reservation in respect of the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention, concerning the settlement of a dispute between States Parties to the Convention by arbitration or, if they are unable to agree on the organization of arbitration, by referral of the dispute to the International Court of Justice. It also enters a full reservation with respect to the provisions of article 1 of the Protocol, insofar as they refer to article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation.”

PART K

“Brazil

The instrument of accession contained the following reservation:

With reservation to article 6, paragraph 2; article 8 and article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention and to article 3, paragraph 2 of the Protocol.

Iraq

Reservation upon signature:

This signature does not in any way imply recognition of Israel or entry into any relationship with it.

Moldova

The instrument of accession contained the following declaration:

Until the full re-establishment of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova, the provisions of the Protocol shall be applied only on the territory controlled by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova.

The Republic of Moldova declares that it shall establish its own jurisdiction over the offences specified in article 2 of the Protocol, in cases provided in article 3, paragraph 2 of this Protocol.

United Arab Emirates

The instrument of accession contained the following reservation:

The Government of the United Arab Emirates has taken cognizance of the provisions of the aforementioned Convention and Protocol and accedes to them with full reservation in respect of the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention concerning the settlement of a dispute between States Parties to the Convention by arbitration or, if they are unable to agree on the organization of arbitration, by referral of the dispute to the International Court of Justice. It also enters a full reservation with respect to the provisions of article 1 of the Protocol insofar as they refer to article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation.

Attesting to this, I, Rashid Abdullah Al-Nuaimi, Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates, have signed this document on behalf of the Government of the United Arab Emirates and ordered that the official seal of the Foreign Ministry be affixed to it.”

PART L

“Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Reservation:

Pursuant to Article 16, paragraph 2 of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention regarding the reference of any dispute concerning the interpretation, or application of this Convention, which is not settled by negotiation to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.

Interpretative declaration:

The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran declares its categorical condemnation of each and every act of terrorism, including taking innocent civilians as hostages, which violates human rights and fundamental freedom of human kind, undermines the stability and security of human communities, and hinders countries from development and progress. The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that elimination of terrorism requires a comprehensive campaign by the international community to identify and eradicate political, economic, social and international root causes of the scourge.

The Islamic Republic of Iran further believes that fighting terrorism should not affect the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in a variety of international documents, including the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and Article 1 paragraph 4 of the Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts.

Israel

Upon signature:

1. It is the understanding of Israel that the Convention implements the principle that hostage taking is prohibited in all circumstances and that any person committing such an act shall be either prosecuted or extradited pursuant to article 8 of this Convention or the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 or their additional Protocols, without any exception whatsoever.

2. The Government of Israel declares that it reserves the right, when depositing the instrument of ratification, to make reservations and additional declarations and understandings.

Malaysia

Declarations and reservation:

1. The Government of Malaysia understands the phrase ‘preliminary inquiry into the facts’ in Article 6 (1) of the Convention to mean a reference to the criminal investigation by the relevant law enforcement authority before a decision is made whether to institute a prosecution against the alleged offender for the offences under the Convention. 2. The Government of Malaysia understands Article 8 (1) of the Convention to include the right of the competent authorities to decide not to submit any particular case for prosecution before the judicial authorities if the alleged offender is dealt with under national security and preventive detention laws. 3. (a) Pursuant to Article 16 (2) of the Convention, the Government of Malaysia declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 16 (1) of the Convention; and (b) The Government of Malaysia reserves the right specifically to agree in a particular case to follow the arbitration procedure set forth in Article 16 (1) of the Convention or any other procedure for arbitration.

Montenegro

Confirmed upon succession:

Declaration:

The [Government of Yugoslavia] herewith states that the provisions of Article 9 of the Convention should be interpreted and applied in practice in the way which would not bring into question the goals of the Convention, i.e. undertaking of efficient measures for the prevention of all acts of the taking of hostages as a phenomenon of international terrorism, as well as the prosecution, punishment and extradition of persons considered to have perpetrated this criminal offence.

Russian Federation

In a communication received on 1 May 2007, the Government of the Russian Federation informed the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the following reservation made by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics upon accession to the Convention:

“... does not consider itself bound by article 16, paragraph 1, of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and declares that, in order for any dispute between parties to the Convention concerning the interpretation or application thereof to be referred to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, the consent of all parties to the dispute must be secured in each individual case.”

Thailand

Reservation:

The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand does not consider itself bound by Article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Objections

Italy

27 March 2007

With regard to the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon accession:

The interpretative declaration made by Iran would limit the scope of application of the Convention to exclude acts that otherwise constitute the offence of “taking of hostages” under article 2, if they meet the test of “legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination”. The interpretative declaration does not limit the obligations of Iran under the Convention with regard to article 1.

Italy wishes to make clear that it opposes any and all interpretations of the Convention that would limit its scope of application, and does not consider the declaration made by Iran to have any effect on the Convention. Italy thus regards the Convention as entering into force between Italy and Iran without the interpretative declaration made by Iran.

Latvia

24 October 2007

With regard to the reservation and interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon accession:

The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservation regarding Article 16, paragraph 1 and declarations made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the International Convention against the Taking [of] Hostages.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the aim of the said International Convention is to prevent and suppress hostage taking by whomever it is committed, and the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation, as the said rights are recognized by Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 could not be deemed to be penalized under the International Convention against the [Taking of] Hostages. However, the Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that this explanatory declaration is in fact unilateral act that is deemed to limit the scope of the said International Convention and therefore should be regarded as reservation. Thus, this reservation named as an explanatory declaration contradicts the objectives and purposes of the International Convention against the [Taking of Hostages] to prevent hostage taking wherever and by whomever those might be committed. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that this reservation named as an interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran contradicts the object and purpose of the International Convention and in particular the obligation all States Parties to penalize the offences set forth within the said International Convention by appropriate penalty.

Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls Part VI, Article 28 of the

Convention setting out that reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention are not permitted. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to the aforesaid reservation named as an interpretative declaration regarding non-application of the said International Convention to the legitimate struggle by the peoples under colonial domination or foreign occupation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the International Convention against the Taking [of] Hostages.

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

Netherlands

10 December 2007.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that this interpretative declaration cannot limit the scope of the Convention; otherwise it would be a reservation contrary to its object and purpose, if purporting to exclude from the acts prohibited by the Convention acts committed in the struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation. Therefore, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not consider the declaration made by Iran to have any legal effect on the Convention.”

PART M

“Luxembourg

Declaration:

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

Romania

In a communication received on 19 September 2007, the Government of Romania notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification to the Convention. The text of the reservation read as follows:

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

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

Russian Federation

In a communication received on 1 May 2007, the Government of the Russian Federation informed the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the following reservation made by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics upon signature to the Convention and confirmed upon ratification thereof:

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

Singapore

Declaration:

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

Reservation:

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

Thailand

Reservations:

1. In applying the provision of article 8, paragraph 3 of the Convention, extraditable offences shall be restricted to offences which, under Thai law, are punishable with imprisonment of not less than one year and are subject to the procedural provisions and other conditions of the Thai legislation for extradition.

2. The Kingdom of Thailand does not consider itself bound by article 13, paragraph 1 of the Convention.”

PART N