Status Report: OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

STATUS REPORT

OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

[[ICCPROP1]

(New York, 16/12/1966)

ENTRY INTO FORCE : 24-Mar-80

Depositary: Secretary-General of the United Nations

Last updated by PacLII: N/A

Parties	Date of Signature	Date of ratification / Other
Nauru	12 Nov 2001

Algeria		12 Sep 1989 a
Andorra	05 Aug 2002
Angola		10 Jan 1992 a
Argentina		08 Aug 1986 Rt
Armenia		23 Jun 1993 a
Australia		25 Sep 1991 a
Austria [#]	10 Dec 1973	10 Dec 1987 Rt
Azerbaijan		27 Nov 2001 a
Barbados		5 Jan 1973 a
Belarus		30 Sep 1992 a
Belgium		17 May 1994 a
Benin		12 Mar 1992 a
Bolivia		12 Aug 1982 a
Bosnia and Herzegovina	1 Mar 1995	1 Mar 1995 Rt
Bulgaria		26 Mar 1992 a
Burkina Faso		4 Jan 1999 a
Cameroon		27 Jun 1984 a
Canada		19 May 1976 a
Cape Verde		19 May 2000 a
Central African Republic		8 May 1981 a
Chad		9 Jun 1995 a
Chile [#]		27 May 1992 a
China
Colombia	21 Dec 1966	29 Oct 1969 Rt
Congo		5 Oct 1983 a
Costa Rica	19 Dec 1966	29 Nov 1968 Rt
Croatia [#]		12 Oct 1995 a
Cyprus	19 Dec 1966	15 Apr 1992 Rt
Czech Republic		22 Feb 1993 d
Cфte d'Ivoire		5 Mar 1997 a
DECLARATIONS
Democratic Republic of the Congo		1 Nov 1976 a
Denmark [#]	20 Mar 1968	6 Jan 1972 Rt
Djibouti		5 Nov 2002 a
Dominican Republic		4 Jan 1978 a
Ecuador	4 Apr 1968	6 Mar 1969 Rt
El Salvador [#]	21 Sep 1967	6 Jun 1995 Rt
Equatorial Guinea		25 Sep 1987 a
Estonia		21 Oct 1991 a
Finland	11 Dec 1967	19 Aug 1975 Rt
France [#]		17 Feb 1984 a
Gambia		9 Jun 1988 a
Georgia		3 May 1994 a
Germany [#]		25 Aug 1993 a
Ghana	7 Sep 2000	7 Sep 2000 Rt
Greece		5 May 1997 a
Guatemala [#]		28 Nov 2000 a
Guinea	19 Mar 1975	17 Jun 1993 Rt
Guinea-Bissau	12 Sep 2000
Guyana [#]		10 May 1993 a
Honduras	19 Dec 1966	7 Jun 2005 Rt
Hungary		7 Sep 1988 a
Iceland [#]		22 Aug 1979 a
Ireland [#]		8 Dec 1989 a
Italy [#]	30 Apr 1976	15 Sep 1978
Jamaica	[19 Dec 1966	3 Oct 1975
Kyrgyzstan		7 Oct 1994 a
Latvia		22 Jun 1994 a
Lesotho		6 Sep 2000 a
Liberia	22 Sep 2004
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya		16 May 1989 a
Liechtenstein		10 Dec 1998 a
Lithuania		20 Nov 1991 a
Luxembourg [#]		18 Aug 1983 a
Madagascar	17 Sep 1969	21 Jun 1971 Rt
Malawi		11 Jun 1996 a
Mali		24 Oct 2001 a
Malta [#]		13 Sep 1990 a
Mauritius		12 Dec 1973 a
Mexico		15 Mar 2002 a
Mongolia		16 Apr 1991 a
Namibia		28 Nov 1994 a
Nepal		14 May 1991 a
Netherlands [#]	25 Jun 1969	11 Dec 1978 Rt
New Zealand		26 May 1989 a
Nicaragua		12 Mar 1980 a
Niger		7 Mar 1986 a
Norway [#]	20 Mar 1968	13 Sep 1972 Rt
Panama	27 Jul 1976	8 Mar 1977 Rt
Paraguay		10 Jan 1995 a
Peru	11 Aug 1977	3 Oct 1980 Rt
Philippines	19 Dec 1966	22 Aug 1989 Rt
Poland [#]		7 Nov 1991 a
Portugal	1 Aug 1978	3 May 1983 Rt
Republic of Korea		10 Apr 1990 a
Republic of Moldova	16 Sep 2005
Romania [#]		20 Jul 1993 a
Russian Federation [#]		1 Oct 1991 a
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines		9 Nov 1981 a
San Marino		18 Oct 1985 a
Sao Tome and Principe	6 Sep 2000
Senegal	6 Jul 1970	13 Feb 1978 Rt
Serbia and Montenegro	12 Mar 2001 d	6 Sep 2001 Rt
Seychelles		5 May 1992 a
Sierra Leone		23 Aug 1996 a
Slovakia		28 May 1993 d
Slovenia [#]		16 Jul 1993 a
Somalia		24 Jan 1990 a
South Africa		28 Aug 2002 a
Spain [#]		25 Jan 1985 a
Sri Lanka [#]		3 Oct 1997 a
Suriname		28 Dec 1976 a
Sweden [#]	29 Sep 1967	6 Dec 1971 Rt
Tajikistan		4 Jan 1999 a
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	12 Dec 1994 d	12 Dec 1994 Rt
Togo		30 Mar 1988 a
Trinidad and Tobago [#]		[14 Nov 1980 a
Turkey	3 Feb 2004
Turkmenistan		1 May 1997 a
Uganda [#]		14 Nov 1995 a
Ukraine		25 Jul 1991 a
Uruguay	21 Feb 1967	1 Apr 1970 Rt
Uzbekistan		28 Sep 1995 a
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) [#]	15 Nov 1976	10 May 1978 Rt
Zambia		10 Apr 1984 a

Keys:

Accession (a)
Acceptance (A)
Approval (AA)
Definitive Signature (s)
Formal confirmation (c)

Participation (P)
Notification (of provisional application, of special undertaking, etc) (n)
Ratification (Rt)
Reservation (r)
Succession (d)

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

Austria [up]

On the understanding that, further to the provisions of article 5 (2) of the Protocol, the Committee provided for in Article 28 of the Covenant shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has been ascertained that the same matter has not been examined by the European Commission on Human Rights established by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Chile [up]

Declaration

In recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals, it is the understanding of the Government of Chile that this competence applies in respect of acts occurring after the entry into force for that State of the Optional Protocol or, in any event, to acts which began after 11 March 1990

Croatia [up]

Declaration

The Republic of Croatia interprets article 1 of this Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Croatia who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of any rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the Republic of Croatia.

With regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (a) of the Protocol, the Republic of Croatia specifies that the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter is being examined or has already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Denmark [up]

With reference to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), the Government of Denmark makes a reservation with respect to the Competence of the Committee to consider a communication from an individual if the matter has already been considered under other procedures of international investigation.

El Salvador [up]

Reservation

... That its provisions mean that the competence of the Human Rights Committee is recognized solely to receive and consider communications from individuals solely and exclusively in those situations, events, cases, omissions and legal occurrences or acts the execution of which began after the date of deposit of the instrument of ratification, that is, those which took place three months after the date of the deposit, pursuant to article 9, paragraph 2, of the Protocol; the Committee being also without competence to examine communications and/or complaints which have been submitted to other procedures of international investigation or settlement

France [up]

Declaration

France interprets article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the French Republic who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions, developments or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the Republic, or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events after that date. With regard to article 7, France's accession to the Optional Protocol should not be interpreted as implying any change in its position concerning the resolution referred to in that article

Reservation

France makes a reservation to article 5, paragraph 2(a), specifying that the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter is being examined or has already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement

Germany [up]

Reservation

The Federal Republic of Germany formulates a reservation concerning article 5 paragraph 2 (a) to the effect that the competence of the Committee shall not apply to communications

a) which have already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, or

b) by means of which a violation of rights is reprimanded having its origin in events occurring prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the Federal Republic of Germany

c) by means of which a violation of article 26 of the [said Covenant] is reprimanded, if and insofar as the reprimanded violation refers to rights other than those guaranteed under the aforementioned Covenant.

Guatemala [up]

Declaration

The Republic of Guatemala recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic who claim to be victims of a violation by Guatemala of any of the rights set forth in the International Covenant relating to acts, omissions, situations or events occurring after the date on which the Optional Protocol entered into force for the Republic of Guatemala or to decisions resulting from acts, omissions, situations or events after that date

Guyana [up]

Reservation

[...] Guyana re-accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with a Reservation to article 6 thereof with the result that the Human Rights Committee shall not be competent to receive and consider communications from any persons who is under sentence of death for the offences of murder and treason in respect of any matter relating to his prosecution, detention, trial, conviction, sentence or execution of the death sentence and any matter connected therewith

Accepting the principle that States cannot generally use the Optional Protocol as a vehicle to enter reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights itself, the Government of Guyana stresses that its Reservation to the Optional Protocol in no way detracts from its obligations and engagements under the Covenant, including its undertaking to respect and ensure to all individuals within the territory of Guyana and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the Covenant (in so far as not already reserved against) as set out in article 2 thereof, as well as its undertaking to report to the Human Rights Committee under the monitoring mechanism established by article 40 thereof.

Iceland [up]

Iceland ... accedes to the said Protocol subject to a reservation, with reference to article 5, paragraph 2, with respect to the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider a communication from an individual if the matter is being examined or has been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. Other provisions of the Covenant shall be inviolably observed

Ireland [up]

Article 5, paragraph 2

Ireland does not accept the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider a communication from an individual if the matter has already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement

Italy [up]

The Italian Republic ratifies the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it being understood that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Protocol mean that the Committee provided for in article 28 of the Covenant shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being and has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement

Luxembourg [up]

Declaration

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the understanding that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Protocol mean that the Committee established by article 28 of the Covenant shall not consider any communications from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined or has not already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Malta [up]

Declarations

1. Malta accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the understanding that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Protocol mean that the Committee established by article 28 of the Covenant, shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined or has not already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement

2. The Government of Malta interprets Article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of Malta who claim to be victims of a violation by Malta of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions, developments or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol enters into force for Malta, or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events after that date.

Norway [up]

Subject to the following reservation to article 5, paragraph 2: "... The Committee shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter has already been examined under other procedures of international investigation or settlement.

Poland [up]

Poland accedes to the Protocol while making a reservation that would exclude the procedure set out in article 5 (2) (a), in cases where the matter has already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement

Romania [up]

Declaration

Romania considers that, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2(a) of the Protocol, the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider communications from an individual if the matter is being or has already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement

Russian Federation [up]

Declaration

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, pursuant to article 1 of the Optional Protocol, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in respect of situations or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the USSR. The Soviet Union also proceeds from the understanding that the Committee shall not consider any communications unless it has been ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and that the individual in question has exhausted all available domestic remedies

Slovenia [up]

Declaration

The Republic of Slovenia interprets article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Slovenia who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts or omissions, developments or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the Republic of Slovenia, or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events after that date.

Reservation

With regard to article 5, paragraph 2(a) of the Optional Protocol, the Republic of Slovenia specifies that the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter is being examined or has already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Spain [up]

The Spanish Government accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the understanding that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of that Protocol mean that the Human Rights Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter has not been or is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement

Sri Lanka [up]

Declaration

The Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka pursuant to article (1) of the Optional Protocol recognises the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, who claim to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions, developments or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events after that date. The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka also proceeds on the understanding that the Committee shall not consider any communication from individuals unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined or has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Sweden [up]

On the understanding that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Protocol signify that the Human Rights Committee provided for in article 28 of the said Covenant shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined or has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement

Trinidad and Tobago [up]

Reservation

[...] Trinidad and Tobago re-accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with a Reservation to article 1 thereof to the effect that the Human Rights Committee shall not be competent to receive and consider communications relating to any prisoner who is under sentence of death in respect of any matter relating to his prosecution, his detention, his trial, his conviction, his sentence or the carrying out of the death sentence on him and any matter connected therewith

Accepting the principle that States cannot use the Optional Protocol as a vehicle to enter reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights itself, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago stresses that its Reservation to the Optional Protocol in no way detracts from its obligations and engagements under the Covenant, including its undertaking to respect and ensure to all individuals within the territory of Trinidad and Tobago and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the Covenant (in so far as not already reserved against) as set out in article 2 thereof, as well as its undertaking to report to the Human Rights Committee under the monitoring mechanism established by article 40 thereof.

Uganda [up]

Reservation

Article 5

The Republic of Uganda does not accept the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider a communication under the provisions of article 5 paragraph 2 from an individual if the matter in question has already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) [up]

[Same reservation as the one made by Venezuela in respect of article 14(3)(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: see chapter IV.4

Objections

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

Denmark [up]

6 August 1999

With regard to the reservation made by Trinidad and Tobago upon accession

The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark finds that the reservation made by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago at the time of its re-accession to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights raises doubts as to the commitment of Trinidad and Tobago to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol

The reservation seeks to limit the obligations of the reserving State towards individuals under sentence of death. The purpose of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is to strengthen the position of the individual under the Covenant. Denying the benefits of the Optional Protocol to a group of individuals under the most severe sentence is not in conformity with the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol

The procedure followed by Trinidad and Tobago, of denouncing the Optional Protocol followed by a re-accession with a reservation circumvents the rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the formulation of reservations after ratification. The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.

France [up]

28 January 2000

With regard to the reservation made by Guyana upon accession

... While article 12, paragraph 1, of the Protocol provides that any State Party may denounce the Protocol 'at any time', with the denunciation taking effect 'three months after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General', denunciation of the Protocol may not in any case be used by a State Party for the purpose of formulating reservations to the Covenant well after the party has signed, ratified or acceded thereto. Such a practice would call into question international commitments by a sort of abuse of process; it would be a clear violation of the principle of good faith that prevails in international law and would be incompatible with the rule of pacta sunt servanda. The means used (denunciation and accession on the same day to the same instrument but with a reservation) cannot but elicit a negative reaction

Consequently, the Government of the French Republic expresses its objection to the reservation made by Guyana

Germany [up]

26 August 1999

With regard to the reservation made by Guyana upon accession

The purpose of the Protocol is to strengthen the position of the individual under the Covenant. While the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany welcomes the decision of the Government of Guyana to reaccede to the Optional Protocol it holds the view that the benefits of the Optional Protocol should not be denied to individuals who are under the most severe sentence, the sentence of death. Furthermore, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the view that denunciation of an international human rights instrument followed by immediate reaccession under a far reaching reservation may set a bad precedent

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Federal Republic of Germany and Guyana

Netherlands [up]

22 October 1999

With regard to the reservation made by Guyana upon accession

2. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that this reservation, which seeks to limit the obligations of the reserving State towards individuals under sentence of death, raises doubts as to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol

3. The Government of the Netherlands considers that the purpose of the Optional Protocol [to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] is to strengthen the position of the individual under the Covenant. Denying the benefits of the Optional Protocol in relation to the Covenant to a group of individuals under the most severe sentence is fundamentally in conflict with the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol

4. Also the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the procedure followed by Guyana, of denouncing the Optional Protocol followed by a re-accession with reservations, as contrary to the rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the formulation of reservations after ratification. The procedure followed by Guyana circumvents such well-established rules

5. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Government of Guyana to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

6. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Guyana

Norway [up]

6 August 1999

With regard to the reservation made by Trinidad and Tobago upon accession

The Government of Norway considers that the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol is to contribute to securing the compliance with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by strengthening the position of the individual under the Covenant. Due to the universality of all Human Rights, the right to petition, which is enshrined in article 1 of the Optional Protocol, must apply to all individuals that are subject to the State Party's jurisdiction. Further, denying the benefits of the Optional Protocol in relation to the Covenant to a vulnerable group of individuals will contribute to further weakening of that group's position which the Government of Norway considers to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol

Further, the Government of Norway is concerned with regard to the procedure followed by Trinidad and Tobago. The Government of Norway considers the denunciation of the Optional Protocol followed by a re-accession upon which a reservation is entered, as a circumvention of established rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the submission of reservations after ratification

For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservation made by Trinidad and Tobago

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Kingdom of Norway and Trinidad and Tobago.

Spain [up]

1 Decmeber 1999

With regard to the reservation made by Guyana upon accession

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this reservation raises doubts about the commitment of the Republic of Guyana to the purpose and goal of the Optional Protocol, which is to strengthen the position of the individual with regard to the rights protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reservation, on the other hand, seeks to limit the international obligations of Guyana towards individuals who are under sentence of death

The Government of Spain also has doubts about the correctness of the procedure followed by the Government of Guyana, inasmuch as denunciation of the Optional Protocol followed by re-accession to it with a reservation prejudices the ratification process and undermines the international protection of human rights

Consequently, the Government of Spain objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Guyana to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Guyana

Territorial Application

Participant: Date of receipt of the notification

Netherlands 11 Dec 1978

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback| Report an error
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pits/en/status_pages/1966-3.html

Pacific Islands Treaty Series

STATUS REPORT

OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

[[ICCPROP1]