STATUS REPORT

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES

[ILLICIT TRAFFICKING]

(Vienna, 20/12/1988)

ENTRY INTO FORCE : 12-Nov-94

Depositary: Secretary-General of the United Nations

Last updated by PacLII: 10-06-10
Parties Date of Signature Date of ratification
/
Other
Entry Into Force Domestication Legislation
(where available)
Cook Islands   22 Feb 2005 a    
Fiji   25 Mar 1993 a    
Samoa   19 Aug 2005 a    
Tonga   29 Apr 1996 a    
Vanuatu   12 Jan 2006 a United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ratification (Act) No. 27 of 2001  
 
Afghanistan 20 Dec 1988 14 Feb 1992 Rt    
Albania   27 Jun 2001 a    
Algeria [#] 20 Dec 1988 09 May 1995 Rt    
Andorra [#]   23 Jul 1999 a    
Angola   26 Oct 2005 a    
Antigua and Barbuda   05 Apr 1993 a    
Argentina 20 Dec 1988 28 Jun 1993 Rt    
Armenia   13 Sep 1993 a    
Australia 14 Feb 1989 16 Nov 1992 Rt    
Austria [#] 25 Sep 1989 11 Jul 1997 Rt    
Azerbaijan   22 Sep 1993 a    
Bahamas 20 Dec 1988 30 Jan 1989 Rt    
Bahrain [#] 28 Sep 1989 07 Feb 1990 Rt    
Bangladesh 14 Apr 1989 11 Oct 1990 Rt    
Barbados   15 Oct 1992 a    
Belarus 27 Feb 1989 15 Oct 1990 Rt    
Belgium [#] 22 May 1989 25 Oct 1995 Rt    
Belize [#]   24 Jul 1996 a    
Benin   23 May 1997 a    
Bhutan   27 Aug 1990 a    
Bolivia [#] 20 Dec 1988 20 Aug 1990 Rt    
Bosnia and Herzegovina   01 Sep 1993 d    
Botswana   13 Aug 1996 a    
Brazil [#] 20 Dec 1988 17 Jul 1991 Rt    
Brunei Darussalam [#] 26 Oct 1989 12 Nov 1993 Rt    
Bulgaria 19 May 1989 24 Sep 1992 Rt    
Burkina Faso   02 Jun 1992 a    
Burundi   18 Feb 1993 a    
Cambodia   7 Jul 2005 a    
Cameroon 27 Feb 1989 28 Oct 1991 Rt    
Canada 20 Dec 1988 05 Jul 1990 Rt    
Cape Verde   08 May 1995 a    
Central African Republic   15 Oct 2001 a    
Chad   09 Jun 1995 a    
Chile 20 Dec 1988 13 Mar 1990 Rt    
China [#] 20 Dec 1988 25 Oct 1989 Rt    
Colombia [#] 20 Dec 1988 10 Jun 1994 Rt    
Comoros   01 Mar 2000 a    
Congo   03 Mar 2004 a    
Costa Rica 25 Apr 1989 08 Feb 1991 Rt    
Croatia   26 Jul 1993 d    
Cuba [#] 7 Apr 1989 12 Jun 1996 Rt    
Cyprus [#] 20 Dec 1988 25 May 1990 Rt    
Czech Republic   30 Dec 1993 d    
Cфte d'Ivoire 20 Dec 1988 25 Nov 1991 Rt    
Democratic Republic of the Congo 20 Dec 1988 28 Oct 2005 Rt    
Denmark [#] 20 Dec 1988 19 Dec 1991 Rt    
Djibouti   22 Feb 2001 a    
Dominica   30 Jun 1993 a    
Dominican Republic   21 Sep 1993 a    
Ecuador 21 Jun 1989 23 Mar 1990 Rt    
Egypt 20 Dec 1988 15 Mar 1991 Rt    
El Salvador   21 May 1993 a    
Eritrea   30 Jan 2002 a    
Estonia   12 Jul 2000 a    
Ethiopia   11 Oct 1994 a    
European Community 08 Jun 1989 31 Dec 1990 c    
Finland [#] 08 Feb 1989 15 Feb 1994 A    
France [#] 13 Feb 1989 31 Dec 1990 AA    
Gabon 20 Dec 1989      
Gambia   23 Apr 1996 a    
Georgia   08 Jan 1998 a    
Germany [#] 19 Jan 1989 30 Nov 1993 Rt    
Ghana 20 Dec 1988 10 Apr 1990 Rt    
Greece [#] 23 Feb 1989 28 Jan 1992 Rt    
Grenada   10 Dec 1990 a    
Guatemala 20 Dec 1988 28 Feb 1991 Rt    
Guinea   27 Dec 1990 a    
Guinea-Bissau   27 Oct 1995 a    
Guyana   19 Mar 1993 a    
Haiti   18 Sep 1995 a    
Holy See 20 Dec 1988      
Honduras 20 Dec 1988 11 Dec 1991 Rt    
Hungary 22 Aug 1989 15 Nov 1996 Rt    
Iceland   02 Sep 1997 a    
India   27 Mar 1990 a    
Indonesia [#] 27 Mar 1989 23 Feb 1999 Rt    
Iran (Islamic Republic of) [#] 20 Dec 1988 07 Dec 1992 Rt    
Iraq   22 Jul 1998 a    
Ireland [#] 14 Dec 1989 03 Sep 1996 Rt    
Israel [#] 20 Dec 1988 20 Mar 2002 Rt    
Italy [#] 20 Dec 1988 31 Dec 1990 AA    
Jamaica 02 Oct 1989 29 Dec 1995 Rt    
Japan 19 Dec 1989 12 Jun 1992 Rt    
Jordan 20 Dec 1988 16 Apr 1990 Rt    
Kazakhstan   29 Apr 1997 a    
Kenya   19 Oct 1992 a    
Kuwait [#] 02 Oct 1989 03 Nov 2000 Rt    
Kyrgyzstan   07 Oct 1994 a    
Lao People's Democratic Republic [#]   1 Oct 2004 a    
Latvia   24 Feb 1994 a    
Lebanon [#]   11 Mar 1996 a    
Lesotho   28 Mar 1995 a    
Liberia   16 Sep 2005 a    
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya   22 Jul 1996 a    
Lithuania [#]   08 Jun 1998 a    
Luxembourg [#] 26 Sep 1989 29 Apr 1992 Rt    
Madagascar   12 Mar 1991 a    
Malawi   12 Oct 1995 a    
Malaysia [#] 20 Dec 1988 11 May 1993 Rt    
Maldives 5 Dec 1989 7 Sep 2000 Rt    
Mali   31 Oct 1995 a    
Malta   28 Feb 1996 a    
Mauritania 20 Dec 1988 1 Jul 1993 Rt    
Mauritius 20 Dec 1988 6 Mar 2001 Rt    
Mexico [#] 16 Feb 1989 11 Apr 1990 Rt    
Micronesia (Federated States of)   6 Jul 2004 a    
Monaco 24 Feb 1989 23 Apr 1991 Rt    
Mongolia   25 Jun 2003 a    
Morocco 28 Dec 1988 28 Oct 1992 Rt    
Mozambique   8 Jun 1998 a    
Myanmar [#]   11 Jun 1991 a    
Nepal   24 Jul 1991 a    
Netherlands [#] 18 Jan 1989 8 Sep 1993 A    
New Zealand 18 Dec 1989 16 Dec 1998 Rt    
Nicaragua 20 Dec 1988 4 May 1990 Rt    
Niger   10 Nov 1992 a    
Nigeria 1 Mar 1989 1 Nov 1989 Rt    
Norway 20 Dec 1988 14 Nov 1994 Rt    
Oman   15 Mar 1991 a    
Pakistan 20 Dec 1988 25 Oct 1991 Rt    
Panama [#] 20 Dec 1988 13 Jan 1994 Rt    
Paraguay 20 Dec 1988 23 Aug 1990 Rt    
Peru [#] 20 Dec 1988 16 Jan 1992 Rt    
Philippines 20 Dec 1988 7 Jun 1996 Rt    
Poland 6 Mar 1989 26 May 1994 Rt    
Portugal [#] 13 Dec 1989 3 Dec 1991 Rt    
Qatar   4 May 1990 a    
Republic of Korea   28 Dec 1998 a    
Republic of Moldova   15 Feb 1995 a    
Romania   21 Jan 1993 a    
Russian Federation 19 Jan 1989 17 Dec 1990 Rt    
Rwanda   13 May 2002 a    
Saint Kitts and Nevis   19 Apr 1995 a    
Saint Lucia   21 Aug 1995 a    
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines   17 May 1994 a    
San Marino [#]   10 Oct 2000 a    
Sao Tome and Principe   20 Jun 1996 a    
Saudi Arabia [#]   9 Jan 1992 a    
Senegal 20 Dec 1988 27 Nov 1989 Rt    
Serbia and Montenegro   12 Mar 2001 d    
Seychelles   27 Feb 1992 a    
Sierra Leone 9 Jun 1989 6 Jun 1994 Rt    
Singapore [#]   23 Oct 1997 a    
Slovakia   28 May 1993 d    
Slovenia   06 Jul 1992 d    
South Africa   14 Dec 1998 a    
Spain [#] 20 Dec 1988 13 Aug 1990 Rt    
Sri Lanka   06 Jun 1991 a    
Sudan 30 Jan 1989 19 Nov 1993 Rt    
Suriname 20 Dec 1988 28 Oct 1992 Rt    
Swaziland   3 Oct 1995 a    
Sweden [#] 20 Dec 1988 22 Jul 1991 Rt    
Switzerland [#] 16 Nov 1989 14 Sep 2005 Rt    
Syrian Arab Republic [#]   3 Sep 1991 a    
Tajikistan   6 May 1996 a    
Thailand [#]   3 May 2002 a    
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   13 Oct 1993 a    
Togo 03 Aug 1989 01 Aug 1990 Rt    
Trinidad and Tobago 7 Dec 1989 17 Feb 1995 Rt    
Tunisia 19 Dec 1989 20 Sep 1990 Rt    
Turkey [#] 20 Dec 1988 02 Apr 1996 Rt    
Turkmenistan   21 Feb 1996 a    
Uganda   20 Aug 1990 a    
Ukraine 16 Mar 1989 28 Aug 1991 Rt    
United Arab Emirates   12 Apr 1990 a    
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [#] 20 Dec 1988 28 Jun 1991 Rt    
United Republic of Tanzania [#] 20 Dec 1988 17 Apr 1996 Rt    
United States of America [#] 20 Dec 1988 20 Feb 1990 Rt    
Uruguay 19 Dec 1989 10 Mar 1995 Rt    
Uzbekistan   24 Aug 1995 a    
Venezuela 20 Dec 1988 16 Jul 1991 Rt    
Viet Nam [#]   4 Nov 1997 a    
Yemen [#] 20 Dec 1988 25 Mar 1996 Rt    
Zambia 9 Feb 1989 28 May 1993 Rt    
Zimbabwe   30 Jul 1993 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

acceptance, approval, formal confirmation or succession. For objections thereto, see hereinafter.)


Algeria [up]

Reservation

The People's Democratic Republic of Algeria does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 32, paragraph 2, the compulsory referral of any dispute of the International Court of Justice

The People's Democratic Republic of Algeria declares that for a dispute to be referred to the International Court of Justice the agreement of all the parties to the dispute is necessary in each case


Andorra [up]

Reservation

With respect to the option provided in paragraph 4 of article 32, the Andorran State does consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article

With respect to paragraph 2, the Andorran State considers that any dispute which cannot be settled in the manner prescribed in paragraph 1 of the aforementioned article will be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the agreement of all parties involved in the dispute

Declaration

Since the Andorran legal system already embodies almost all the measures referred to in the Vienna Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, accession to the aforementioned Convention will entail only minor changes in the Andorran State's legal system, which will be taken into account in the future legislative activity. From the point of view of the rights and obligations arising from accession to this Convention, without renouncing the specific characteristics of its domestic legislation, in particular with respect to the protection of individual freedoms and the rights of bona fide third parties, and to the preservation of national sovereignty and the common good, Andorra undertakes to assume the obligations among States arising from the Vienna Convention and to cooperate, through its judicial authorities and on the basis of reciprocity, with the other States which have accepted the provisions of the aforementioned Convention.Waiting for the translation


Austria [up]

Declarations

re. Art. 2

The Republic of Austria interprets the reference to the fundamental provisions of domestic legislative systems in art. 2 para 1 in the sense that the contents of these fundamental provisions may be subject to change. The same applies to all other references of the Convention to domestic law, its fundamental principles or the national constitutional order like they are contained in art. 3 para 1 lit.c; para 2, para 10 and para 11; art. 5 para 4 lit.c; para 7 and para 9 or art. 11 para 1

re. Art. 3

The Republic of Austria interprets art. 3 para 1 and 2 as follows: In cases of a minor nature, the obligations contained in this provision may also be implemented by the creation of administrative penal regulations providing adequate sanction for the offences enumerated therein

re. Art. 7 para 10 to 12

The Republic of Austria declares that in pursuance of its domestic law, a request for the search of persons or rooms, for the seizure of objects or for the surveillance of telecommunication requires the enclosure of the certified copy or photocopy of the decision of the competent authority. If the decision has not been rendered by a court, a declaration of the authority requesting legal assistance has to be furnished, stating that all necessary preconditions are fulfilled, according to the law of the requesting state.


Bahrain [up]

Reservation

The State of Bahrain, by the ratification of this Convention, does not consider itself bound by paragraph (2) of article 32 in connection with the obligation to refer the settlement of the dispute relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention to the International Court of Justice

Declaration

Moreover, the State of Bahrain hereby declares that its ratification of this Convention shall in no way constitute recognition of Israel or be a cause for the establishment of any relations of any kind therewith


Belize [up]

Reservation

Article 8 of the Convention requires the Parties to give consideration to the possibility of transferring to one another proceedings for criminal prosecution of certain offences where such transfer is considered to be in the interests of a proper administration of justice

The courts of Belize have no extra-territorial jurisdiction, with the result that they will have no jurisdiction to prosecute offences committed abroad unless such offences are committed partly within and partly without the jurisdiction, by a person who is within the jurisdiction. Moreover, under the Constitution of Belize, the control of public prosecutions is vested in the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is an independent functionary and not under Government control

Accordingly, Belize will be able to implement article 8 of the Convention only to a limited extent insofar as its Constitution and the law allows.


Bolivia [up]

Reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratifica tion

The Republic of Bolivia places on record its express reservation to article 3, paragraph 2, and declares the inapplicability to Bolivia of those provisions of that paragraph which could be interpreted as establishing as a criminal offence the use, consumption, possession, purchase or cultivation of the coca leaf for personal consumption

For Bolivia such an interpretation of that paragraph is contrary to principles of its Constitution and basic concepts of its legal system which embody respect for the culture, legitimate practices, values and attributes of the nationalities making up Bolivia's population

Bolivia's legal system recognizes the ancestral nature of the licit use of the coca leaf which, for much of Bolivia's population, dates back over centuries. In formulating this reservation, Bolivia considers that

- The coca leaf is not, in and of itself, a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance

- The use and consumption of the coca leaf do not cause psychological or physical changes greater than those resulting from the consumption of other plants and products which are in free and universal use

- The coca leaf is widely used for medicinal purposes in the practice of traditional medicine, the validity of which is upheld by WHO and confirmed by scientific findings

- The coca leaf can be used for industrial purposes

- The coca leaf is widely used and consumed in Bolivia, with the result that, if such an interpretation of the above-mentioned paragraph was accepted, a large part of Bolivia's population could be considered criminals and punished as such, such an interpretation is therefore inapplicable

- It must be placed on record that the coca leaf is transformed into cocaine paste, sulphate and hydrochlorate when it is subjected to chemical processes which involve the use of precursors, equipment and materials which are neither manufactured in or originate in Bolivia

At the same time, the Republic of Bolivia will continue to take all necessary legal measures to control the illicit cultivation of coca for the production of narcotic drugs, as well as the illicit consumption, use and purchase of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances


Brazil [up]

Upon signature

a) The signature of the Convention is made subject to the process of ratification established by the Brazilian Constitution

b) It is the understanding of the Brazilian Government that paragraph 11 of article 17 does not prevent a coastal State from requiring prior authorization for any action under this article by other States in its Exclusive Economic Zone.


Brunei Darussalam [up]

Reservation

In accordance with article 32 of the Convention Brunei Darussalam hereby declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said article 32.


China [up]

Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification

Under the Article 32, paragraph 4, China does not consider itself bound by paragraphs 2 and 3 of that article


Colombia [up]

Upon signature

Colombia formulates a reservation to article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention, specifically subparagraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) thereof, since its legislation does not permit outside co-operation with the judiciary in investigating offences nor the establishment of joint teams with other countries to that end. Likewise inasmuch as samples of the substances that have given rise to investigations belong to the proceedings, only the judge, as previously, can take decisions in that regard

Upon ratification

Reservations

2. With respect to article 5, paragraph 7, of the Convention, Colombia does not consider itself bound to reverse the onus of proof

3. Colombia has reservations in connection with article 9, paragraphs 1 (b), (c), (d) and (e), inasmuch as they conflict with the autonomy and independence of the judicial authorities in their jurisdiction over the investigation and judgement of offences

Declarations

1. No provision of the Convention may be interpreted as obliging Colombia to adopt legislative, judicial, administrative or other measures that might impair or restrict its constitutional or legal system or that go beyond the terms of the treaties to which the Colombian State is a contracting party

2. It is the view of Colombia that treatment under the Convention of the cultivation of the coca leaf as a criminal offence must be harmonized with a policy of alternative development, taking into account the rights of the indigenous communities involved and the protection of the environment. In this connection it is the view of Colombia that the discriminatory, inequitable and restrictive treatment accorded its agricultural export products on international markets does nothing to contribute to the control of illicit crops, but, rather, is a cause of social and environmental degradation in the areas affected. Further, Colombia reserves the right to make an independent evaluation of the ecological impact of drug control policies, since those that have a negative impact on ecosystems contravene the Constitution

3. It is the understanding of Colombia that article 3, paragraph 7, of the Convention will be applied in accordance with its penal system, taking into account the benefits of its policies regarding the indictment of and collaboration with alleged criminals

4. A request for reciprocal legal assistance will not be met when the Colombian judicial and other authorities consider that to do so would run counter to the public interest or the constitutional or legal order. The principle of reciprocity must also be observed

5. It is the understanding of Colombia that article 3, paragraph 8, of the Convention does not imply the non-applicability of the statutory limitation of penal action

6. Article 24 of the Convention, on "more strict or severe measures", may not be interpreted as conferring on the Government powers that are broader than those conferred by the Political Constitution of Colombia, including in states of exception

7. It is the understanding of Colombia that the assistance provided for under article 17 of the Convention will be effective only on the high seas and at the express request and with the authorization of the Colombian Government

8. Colombia declares that it considers contrary to the principles and norms of international law, in particular those of sovereign equality, territorial integrity and non-intervention, any attempt to abduct or illegally deprive of freedom any person within the territory of one State for the purpose of bringing that person before the courts of another State

9. It is the understanding of Colombia that the transfer of proceedings referred to in article 8 of the Convention will take place in such a way as not to impair the constitutional guarantees of the right of defence. Further, Colombia declares with respect to article 6, paragraph 10, of the Convention that, in the execution of foreign sentences, the provisions of article 35, paragraph 2, of its Political Constitution and other legal and constitutional norms must be observed

The international obligations deriving from article 3, paragraphs 1 (c) and 2, as well as from article 11 are conditional on respect for Colombian constitutional principles and the above three reservations and nine declarations making the Convention compatible with the Colombian constitutional order


Cuba [up]

Declaration

The Government of the Republic of Cuba declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3, and that disputes which arise between the Parties should be settled by negotiation through the diplomatic channel


Cyprus [up]

Upon signature

[Signature is effected] subject to ratification, at the time of which reservations in respect of specific provisions of the Convention may be made and deposited in the prescribed manner. [It is understood] that such reservations, if any, cannot be incompatible with the object and purpose of this Convention.

Upon ratification

Declaration

As a result of the occupation of 37% of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, which since 1974 is occupied by Turkish troops in violation of the United Nations Charter and of basic principles of international law, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus is prevented from exercising its legitimate control and jurisdiction throughout the territory of the Republic of Cyprus and consequently over those activities in the illegally occupied area which are related to illicit drug trafficking.


Denmark [up]

Declarations

The Convention shall not apply to the Faroe Islands and Greenland.

With regard to article 17

Authorization granted by Danish authority pursuant to article 17 denotes only that Denmark will abstain from pleading infringement of Danish sovereignty in connection with the requesting State's boarding of a vessel. Danish authorities cannot authorize another State to take legal action on behalf of the Kingdom of Denmark.


France [up]

Reservations

The Government of the French Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 32, paragraph 2, and declares that any dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention which cannot be settled in the manner prescribed in paragraph 1 of the said article may not be referred to the International Court of Justice unless all the parties to the dispute agree thereto

Similarly, the Government of the French Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 32, paragraph 3


Germany [up]

Declaration

It is the understanding of the Federal Republic of Germany that the basic concepts of the legal system referred to in article 3, paragraph 2 of the Convention may be subject to change


Indonesia [up]

Reservation

The Republic of Indonesia [...] does not consider itself bound by the provision of article 32 paragraphs (2) and (3), and take the position that disputes relating to the interpretation and application [of] the Convention which have not been settled through the channel provided for in paragraph (1) of the said article, may be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of the Parties to the dispute.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [up]

Upon signature

The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran wishes to express reservation to article 6, paragraph 3, of the Convention, since this provision is incompatible with our domestic law

The Government furthermore wishes to make a reservation to article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3, since it does not consider itself bound to compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and feels that any disputes arising between the Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention should be resolved through direct negotiations by diplomatic means.


Israel [up]

Declaration

In accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 32, the Government of the State of Israel declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 2 of and 3 of this Article.


Kuwait [up]

Reservation

With reservation as to paragraphs (2) and (3) of article 32 of this Convention


Lao People's Democratic Republic [up]

Reservation

In accordance with paragraph 4, Article 32 of the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, the Lao People's Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by paragraph 2, Article 32 of the present Convention. The Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that to refer a dispute relating to interpretation and application of the present Convention to arbitration or the International Court of Justice, the agreement of all parties concerned in the dispute is necessary.


Lebanon [up]

Reservations

1. The Government of the Lebanese Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 32, paragraph 2, and declares that disputes relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention which are not settled by the means prescribed in paragraph 1 of that article shall be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the agreement of all of the Parties to the dispute

Similarly, the Government of the Lebanese Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 32, paragraph 3

2. The Government of the Lebanese Republic has reservations regarding article 5, paragraph 3, regarding article 7, paragraph 2 (f), and regarding article 7, paragraph 5, of the Convention


Lithuania [up]

Declaration

In accordance with article 6 of the said Convention the Republic of Lithuania declares that this Convention shall not be the legal basis for extradition of the Lithuanian citizens as it is provided in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

Reservation

Пn accordance with paragraph 4 of article 32 of the said Convention the Republic of Lithuania will not apply provisions of paragraph 2 and 3 of article 32, referring to the disputes relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention to the International Court of Justice.


Malaysia [up]

Declaration

The Government of Malaysia does not consider itself bound by paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 32 of the said Convention, wherein if there should arise between two or more Parties a dispute and such dispute cannot be settled in the manner prescribed in paragraph 1 of article 32 of the Convention, Malaysia is not bound to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice for decision.


Myanmar [up]

Reservations

The Government of the Union of Myanmar wishes to express reservation on article 6 relating to extradition and does not consider itself bound by the same in so far as its own Myanmar nationals are concerned

The Government further wishes to make a reservation on article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3 and does not consider itself bound by obligations to refer the disputes relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention to the International Court of Justice.


Netherlands [up]

Upon signature

Understanding

1 . Article 1 - Definition of Illicit Traffic

During the initial stages of this Conference, [the Government of the Netherlands] proposed to amend articles 15, 17, 18 and 19 (final numbering) in order to replace the generic phrase 'illicit traffic' by more specific language (e.g., 'illicit transport')

To some extent the underlying concerns have been met by the introduction in Article 15 of a specific reference to the 'offences established in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 2'. On the other hand, articles 17, 18 and 19 still contain references to 'illicit traffic in narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and substances in table I and table II

It is the understanding [of the Government of the Netherlands] that, given the scope of these articles, the term 'illicit traffic' has to be understood in a limited sense, in each case taking into account the specific context. In applying these articles, [it] would therefore have to rely on the chapeau of article 1, allowing for a contextual application of the relevant definition

2. Article 3

(a). [The Government of the Netherlands] notes with respect to article 3, paragraph 2 (subparagraph (b) (i) and (ii), and subparagraph (c) (i)) that the Drafting Committee has replaced the terms `knowing that such property is derived from an offence or offences set forth in paragraph 2' by: 'knowing that such property is derived from an offence or offences established in accordance with paragraph 1'. [The Government of the Netherlands] accepts this change with the understanding that this does not affect the applicability of the paragraphs referred to in cases where the offender knows that property is derived from an offence or offences that may have been established and committed under the jurisdiction of a foreign State

(b). With respect of article 3, paragraph 6, [the Government of the Netherlands] notes that its provisions cover offences established both under paragraph 1 and paragraph 2. In view of the provisions of paragraph 4 (d) and paragraph 11 of the same article, [the Government of the Netherlands] understands that the measure of discretionary legal powers relating to the prosecution for offences established in accordance with paragraph 2 may in practice be wider than for offences established in accordance with paragraph 1

(c). With respect to article 3, paragraphs 7 and 8, it is the understanding of [the Government of the Netherlands] that these provisions do not require the establishment of specific rules and regulations on the early release of convicted persons and the statute of limitations in respect of offences, covered by paragraph 1 of the article, which are different from such rules and regulations in respect of other, equally serious, offences. Consequently, it is [the Government's] understanding that the relevant legislation presently in force within the Kingdom sufficiently and appropriately meets the concerns expressed by the terms of these provisions

Article 17

[The Government of the Netherlands] understands the reference (in para.3) to 'a vessel exercising freedom of navigation' to mean a vessel navigating beyond the external limits of the territorial sea

The safeguard-clause contained in para. 11 of the article aims in [its] view at safeguarding the rights and obligations of Coastal States within the contiguous zone

To the extent that vessels navigating in the contiguous zone act in infringement of the Coastal State's customs and other regulations, the Coastal State is entitled to exercise, in conformity with the relevant rules of the international law of the sea, jurisdiction to prevent and/or punish such infringement.

Upon acceptance

Reservation

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of article 3, paragraphs 6, 7, and 8, only in so far as the obligations under these provisions are in accordance with Dutch criminal legislation and Dutch policy on criminal matters.


Panama [up]

Reservation

The Republic of Panama does not consider itself obligated to apply the measures of confiscation or seizure provided for in article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention to property the value of which corresponds to that of the proceeds derived from offences established in accordance with the said Convention, in so far as such measures would contravene the provisions of article 30 of the Constitution of Panama, under which there is no penalty of confiscation of property


Peru [up]

Upon signature

Peru formulates an express reservation to paragraph 1 (a) (ii) of article 3, concerning offences and sanctions; that paragraph includes cultivation among the activities established as criminal offences, without drawing the necessary clear distinction between licit and illicit cultivation. Accordingly, Peru also formulates an express reservation to the scope of the definition of illicit traffic contained in article 1 in so far as it refers to article 3, paragraph 1 (a) (ii)

In accordance with the provisions of article 32, paragraph 4, Peru declares, on signing the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, that it does not consider itself bound by article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3, since, in respect of this Convention, it agrees to the referral of disputes to the International Court of Justice only if all the parties, and not just one, agree to such a procedure


San Marino [up]

Declaration

[The Republic of San Marino declares] that any confiscation activity under article 5 is subject to the fact that the crime is considered as such also by San Marino legal system

Moreover, it declares that the establishment of "joint teams" and "liaison officers", under article 9, item 1, letter c) and d), as well as "controlled delivery" under article 11 of the [...] Convention, are not provided for by San Marino legal system.


Saudi Arabia [up]

Declarations

1. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not regard itself bound by article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Convention

2. This ratification does not constitute recognition of Israel and shall not give rise to entry with it into any dealings or to the establishment with it of any relations under the Convention


Singapore [up]

Declaration

With respect to article 6 paragraph 3, the Republic of Singapore declares that it shall not consider the Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of any offence to which article 6 applies.

Reservation

The Republic of Singapore declares, in pursuance of article 32, paragraph 4 of the Convention that it will not be bound by the provisions of article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3.


Sweden [up]

Declaration

Regarding article 3, paragraph 10, Swedish constitutional legislation on extradition implies that in judging whether a specific offence is to be regarded as a political offence, regard shall be paid to the circumstances in each individual case.


Switzerland [up]

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 , paragraphes 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


Syrian Arab Republic [up]

Declaration

The accession to this Convention shall not constitute a recognition of Israel or lead to any kind of intercourse with it


Thailand [up]

Reservation

The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 32 of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.


Turkey [up]

Reservation

Pursuant to paragraph 4 of article 32 of [said Convention], the Republic of Turkey is not bound by paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 32 of the Convention


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [up]

Reservation

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will only consider the granting of immunity under article 7, paragraph 18, where this is specifically requested by the person to whom the immunity would apply or by the authority designated, under article 7, paragraph 8, of the Party from whom assistance is requested. A request for immunity will not be granted where the judicial authorities of the United Kingdom consider that to do so would be contrary to the public interest.


United Republic of Tanzania [up]

Upon signature

Subject to a further determination on ratification, the United Republic of Tanzania declares that the provisions of article 17 paragraph 11 shall not be construed as either restraining in any manner the rights and privileges of a coastal State as envisaged by the relevant provisions relating to the Economic Exclusive Zone of the Law of the Sea Convention, or, as according third parties rights other than those so recognized under the Convention.


United States of America [up]

Understandings

(1) Nothing in this Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States

(2) The United States shall not consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition of citizens to any country with which the United States has no bilateral extradition treaty in force

(3) Pursuant to the rights of the United States under article 7 of this treaty to deny requests which prejudice its essential interests, the United States shall deny a request for assistance when the designated authority, after consultation with all appropriate intelligence, anti-narcotic, and foreign policy agencies, has specific information that a senior government official who will have access to information to be provided under this treaty is engaged in or facilitates the production or distribution of illegal drugs.

Declaration

Pursuant to article 32 (4), the United States of America shall not be bound by article 32 (2).

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Interpretative declarations

1. With respect to article 6: (Extradition)

It is the understanding of the Government of Venezuela that this Convention shall not be considered a legal basis for the extradition of Venezuelan citizens, as provided for in the national legislation in force

2. With respect to article 11: (Controlled Delivery)

It is the understanding of the Government of Venezuela that publicly actionable offences in the national territory shall be prosecuted by the competent national police authorities and that the controlled delivery procedure shall be applied only in so far as it does not contravene national legislation in this matter


Viet Nam [up]

Reservations

Reservations to article 6 on Extradition, article 32 paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 on Dispute settlement.


Yemen [up]

Upon signature

[Yemen reserves its] right to enter reservations in respect of such articles as it may see fit at a time subsequent to this signature

Objections

(Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were received upon ratification

accession, acceptance, approval, formal confirmation or succession.)


Austria [up]

16 December 1998

With regard to the reservation to article 6 made by Viet Nam upon accession

Austria is of the view that the reservation raises doubts as to its ratification of the mentioned treaty. Austria is of the view that the reservation raises doubts as to its compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention concerned, in particular the fundamental principle that perpetrators of drug-related crime should be brought to justice, regardless of their whereabouts. Non-acceptance of this principle would undermine the effectiveness of the [said] Convention

Austria therefore objects to the reservation. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the [said] Convention between Austria and Vietnam.


Belgium [up]

27 December 1989

Belgium, member State of the European Community, attached to the principle of freedom of navigation, notably in the exclusive economic zone, considers that the declaration of Brazil concerning paragraph 11 of article 17, of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, adopted at Vienna on 20 December 1988, goes further than the rights accorded to coastal States by international law


Denmark [up]

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium


France [up]

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium

7 March 1997

With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon upon accession

The Government of France has taken note of the reservations [made] by the Government of Lebanon in respect of articles 5 and 7 of this Convention and considers these reservations to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention

The Convention indicates that bank secrecy shall not be a ground for a failure to act or for a failure to render mutual assistance. The Government of France considers that these reservations therefore undermine the object and purpose of the Convention, as stated in article 2, paragraph 1, to promote cooperation in order to address more effectively the international dimension of illicit drugs trafficking

16 December 1998

With regard to the reservation with regard to article 6 made by Viet Nam upon accession

[The Government of France] considers [the reservation made by Viet Nam upon accession] to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention of 1988. France therefore objects to it

The objection does not preclude the entry into force of the 1988 Convention between France and Viet Nam


Germany [up]

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium

21 March 1997

With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by France

16 December 1998

With regard to the reservation to article 6 made by Viet Nam upon accession

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers this reservation to be problematic in the light of the object and purpose of the Convention. The reservation made in respect of article 6 is contrary to the principle 'aut dedere au iudicare' which provides that offences are brought before the court or that extradition is granted to the requesting States

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is therefore of the opinion that the reservation jeopardizes the intention of the Convention, as stated in article 2 paragraph 1, to promote cooperation among the parties so that they may address more effectively the international dimension of illicit drug trafficking

The reservation may also raise doubts as to the commitment of the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam to comply with fundamental provisions of the Convention. It is in the common interest of states that international treaties which they have concluded are respected, as to their object and purpose, and that all parties are prepared to undertake any legislative and administrative changes necessary to comply with their obligations

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the reservation

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.


Finland [up]

25 April 1997

With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by France


Greece [up]

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium


Ireland [up]

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium


Italy [up]

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium

24 April 1997

With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon upon accession

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by France

18 December 1998

With regard to the reservations made by Viet Nam upon accession

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Germany


Luxembourg [up]

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium


Mexico [up]

10 July 1990

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

The Government of the United Mexican States considers that the third declaration submitted by the Government of the United States of America (...) constitutes a unilateral claim to justification, not envisaged in the Convention, for denying legal assistance to a State that requests it, which runs counter to the purposes of the Convention. Consequently, the Government of the United Mexican States considers that such a declaration constitutes a reservation to which it objects

This objection should not be interpreted as impeding the entry into force of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 as between the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America


Netherlands [up]

27 December 1989

[Same objection,mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium

11 March 1997

With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon upon accession

[Same objectionas the one made by France


Portugal [up]

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium


Spain [up]

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium


Sweden [up]

7 March 1997

With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon upon accession

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by France

14 December 1998

With regard to the reservation made by Viet Nam upon accession

... The Government of Sweden is of the view that the reservation made by the Government of Viet Nam regarding article 6, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Viet Nam to the object and purpose of the Convention

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

Furthermore, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, and well-established customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid [reservation] by the Government of Viet Nam

[This objection does] not preclude the entry into force of the [Convention] between Viet Nam and Sweden. The [Convention] will thus become operative between the two States without Viet Nam benefiting from the [reservation].

25 July 2001

With regard to the declaration made by San Marino upon accession

The Government of Sweden has examined the declaration made by San Marino at the time of its accession to the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, regarding articles 5, 9 and 11 of the Convention

In this context, the Government of Sweden would like to recall that under well-established treaty law, the name assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. Thus, the Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by San Marino, in the absence of further clarification, in substance constitutes a reservation to the Convention

The Government of Sweden notes that the said articles of the Convention are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing legislation in San Marino

The Government of Sweden is of the view that, in the absence of further clarification, this reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of San Marino to the object and purpose of the Convention and would like to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of San Marino to the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

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


Turkey [up]

With regard to the declaration made by Cyprus upon ratification

The Republic of Cyprus, founded in 1960 as a partnership state in accordance with the international Cyprus Treaties by the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities, was destroyed in 1963 when the Greek Cypriot side threw the Turkish Cypriots out of the government and administration and thereby rendered the Government of Cyprus unconstitutional

Consequently, since December 1963, there has been no single political authority in Cyprus representing both communities and legitimate empowered to act on behalf of the whole island. The Greek Cypriot side does not possess the right or authority to become party to international instruments on behalf of Cyprus as a whole

The ratification of this Convention by Turkey shall in no way imply the recognition of the 'Republic of Cyprus' by Turkey and her accession to this Convention should not signify any obligation on the part of Turkey to enter into any dealings with the 'Republic of Cyprus' as are regulated by this Convention.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [up]

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium

10 March 1997

With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon upon accession

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by France

17 December 1998

With regard to the reservation to article 6 made by Viet Nam upon accession

The United Kingdom is not in a position to accept [the] reservation

The above objection is not however, to constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the said [Convention] as between Vietnam and the United Kingdom.


United States of America [up]

23 October 1995

With regard to the reservations and declarations made by Colombia upon ratification

The Government of the United States of America understands the first reservation to exempt Colombia from the obligations imposed by article 3, paragraphs 6 and 9, and article 6 of the Convention only insofar as compliance with such obligations would prevent Colombia from abiding by article 35 of its Political Constitution (regarding the extradition of Colombian nationals by birth), to the extent that the reservation is intended to apply other than to the extradition of Colombian nationals by birth, the Government of the United States objects to the reservation

The Government of the United States of America objects to the first declaration, as it purports to subordinate Colombia's obligations under the Convention to its Constitution and international treaties, as well as to that nation's domestic legislation generally

The Government of the United States of America objects to the seventh declaration to the extent it purports to restrict the right of other States to freedom of navigation and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to that freedom seaward of the outer limits of any State's territorial sea, determined in accordance with the International Law of the Sea as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Notifications under article 6, 7 and 17

(Unless otherwise indicated, the notifications were received upon ratification

accession, acceptance, approval, formal confirmation or succession.)


Cook Islands [up]

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

(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

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

3. 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

4. An offence may be an extradition offence although

(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

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

(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.


Ireland [up]

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 [up]

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


© 1998 University of the South Pacific

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback| Report an error
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pits/en/status_pages/1988-8.html