Declarations and
Reservations
(Unless
otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made
upon ratification, formal confirmation or accession.)
|
Australia
Declaration:
“Australia recognizes
that persons with disability enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with
others in all aspects of life. Australia declares its understanding
that the Convention allows for fully supported or substituted
decision-making arrangements, which provide for decisions to be made on
behalf of a person, only where such arrangements are necessary, as a last
resort and subject to safeguards;
Australia recognizes that
every person with disability has a right to respect for his or her
physical and mental integrity on an equal basis with others.
Australia further declares its understanding that the Convention
allows for compulsory assistance or treatment of persons, including
measures taken for the treatment of mental disability, where such
treatment is necessary, as a last resort and subject to safeguards;
Australia recognizes the
rights of persons with disability to liberty of movement, to freedom to
choose their residence and to a nationality, on an equal basis with
others. Australia further declares its understanding that the
Convention does not create a right for a person to enter or remain in a
country of which he or she is not a national, nor impact on Australia’s
health requirements for non-nationals seeking to enter or remain in
Australia, where these requirements are based on legitimate, objective and
reasonable criteria.”
|
Azerbaijan
Declaration:
“The Republic of
Azerbaijan declares that it is unable to guarantee the application of the
provisions of the Convention in the territories occupied by the Republic
of Armenia until these territories are liberated from occupation.”
|
Belgium
Declaration made upon signature:
This signature is
equally binding on the French community, the Flemish community, the
German-speaking community, the Wallone region, the Flemish region and the
region of the capital-Brussels.
|
Canada
Declaration and reservation:
“Canada recognises that
persons with disabilities are presumed to have legal capacity on an equal
basis with others in all aspects of their lives. Canada declares its
understanding that Article 12 permits supported and substitute
decision-making arrangements in appropriate circumstances and in
accordance with the law.
To the extent Article 12 may
be interpreted as requiring the elimination of all substitute
decision-making arrangements, Canada reserves the right to continue
their use in appropriate circumstances and subject to appropriate and
effective safeguards. With respect to Article 12 (4), Canada reserves the
right not to subject all such measures to regular review by an independent
authority, where such measures are already subject to review or appeal.
Canada interprets Article 33
(2) as accommodating the situation of federal states where the
implementation of the Convention will occur at more than one level of
government and through a variety of mechanisms, including existing ones.”
|
Cyprus
Reservation:
“Whereas the Persons
with Disabilities Law, as this has been harmonized with the Council
Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework
for equal treatment in employment and occupation, prescribes in section 3A
thereof that the said Law shall not apply as regards employment:
( a) to the armed forces, to
the extent that the nature of the work requires special abilities which
cannot be exercised by persons with disabilities, and
(b) to occupational
activities where by reason of the nature or the context in which they are
carried out, a characteristic or an ability which is not possessed by a
person with a disability, constitutes a genuine and determining
occupational requirement, provided that the objective is legitimate and
the requirement is proportionate, taking into account the possibility of
adopting reasonable measures,.
the Republic of Cyprus
declares that it ratifies the Convention with a reservation in respect of
Article 27(1) of the Convention, to the extent that the provisions thereof
are in conflict with the provisions of section 3A of the Persons with
Disabilities Law.”
|
Egypt
Interpretative declaration made upon signature:
The Arab Republic of
Egypt declares that its interpretation of article 12 of the International
Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, which deals with the recognition of persons with
disabilities on an equal basis with others before the law, with regard to
the concept of legal capacity dealt with in paragraph 2 of the said
article, is that persons with disabilities enjoy the capacity to acquire
rights and assume legal responsibility ('ahliyyat al-wujub) but not the
capacity to perform ('ahliyyat al-'ada'), under Egyptian law.
|
El Salvador5
Reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:
The Government of the
Republic of El Salvador signs the present Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol thereto, adopted by
the United Nations General Assembly on 13 December 2006, to the extent
that its provisions do not prejudice or violate the provisions of any of
the precepts, principles and norms enshrined in the Constitution of the
Republic of El Salvador, particularly in its enumeration of principles.
|
Estonia
Declaration:
“The Republic of Estonia
interprets article 12 of the Convention as it does not forbid to restrict
a person’s active legal capacity, when such need arises from the person’s
ability to understand and direct his or her actions. In restricting
the rights of the persons with restricted active legal capacity the
Republic of Estonia acts according to its domestic laws.”
|
European Union
Declaration:
“Article 44(1) of the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Convention') provides that a regional
integration organisation in its instrument of formal confirmation or
accession is to declare the extent of its competence with respect to
matters governed by the Convention.
The current members of the
European Community are the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria,
the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of
Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of
Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Republic of
Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom
of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the
Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak
Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The European Community notes
that for the purpose of the Convention, the term "State Parties"
applies to regional integration organisations within the limits of their
competence.
The United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities shall apply, with
regard to the competence of the European Community, to the territories in
which the Treaty establishing the European Community is applied and under
the conditions laid down in that Treaty, in particular Article 299
thereof.
Pursuant to Article 299,
this Declaration is not applicable to the territories of the Member States
in which the said Treaty does not apply and is without prejudice to such
act or positions as may be adopted under the Convention by Member States
concerned on behalf and in the interests of those territories.
In accordance with Article
44(1) of the Convention, this Declaration indicates the competences
transferred to the Community by the Member States under the Treaty
establishing the European Community, in the areas covered by the
Convention.
The scope and the exercise
of Community competence are, by their nature, subject to continuous
development and the Community will complete or amend this Declaration, if
necessary, in accordance with Article 44(1) of the Convention.
In some matters the European
Community has exclusive competence and in other matters competence is
shared between the European Community and the Member States. The Member
States remain competent for all matters in respect of which no competence
has been transferred to the European Community.
At present:
1. The Community has
exclusive competence as regards the compatibility of state aid with the
common market and the common custom tariff.
To the extent that
provisions of Community law are affected by the provision of the
Convention, the European Community has an exclusive competence to accept
such obligations with respect to its own public administration. In this
regard, the Community declares that it has power to deal with regulating
the recruitment, conditions of service, remuneration, training etc. of
non-elected officials under the Staff Regulations and the implementing
rules to those Regulations (Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No
259/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of officials
of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other
servants of the European Communities (OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1)).
2. The Community
shares competence with Member States as regards action to combat
discrimination on the ground of disability, free movement of goods,
persons, services and capital agriculture, transport by rail, road, sea
and air transport, taxation, internal market, equal pay for male and
female workers, Trans-European network policy and statistics.
The European Community has
exclusive competence to enter into this Convention in respect of those
matters only to the extent that provisions of the Convention or legal
instruments adopted in implementation thereof affect common rules
previously established by the European Community. When Community rules
exist but are not affected, in particular in cases of Community provisions
establishing only minimum standards, the Member States have competence,
without prejudice to the competence of the European Community to act in
this field. Otherwise competence rests with the Member States. A list of
relevant acts adopted by the European Community appears in the Appendix
hereto. The extent of the European Community's competence ensuing from
these acts must be assessed by reference to the precise provisions of each
measure, and in particular, the extent to which these provisions establish
common rules.
3. The following EC
policies may also be relevant to the UN Convention: Member States and the
Community shall work towards developing a coordinated strategy for
employment. The Community shall contribute to the development of quality
of education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if
necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action. The Community
shall implement a vocational training policy which shall support and
supplement the action of the Member States. In order to promote its
overall harmonious development, the Community shall develop and pursue its
actionsleading to the strengthening of its economic and social cohesion.
The Community conducts a development cooperation policy and economic,
financial and technical cooperation with third countries without prejudice
to the respective competences of the Member States.
Appendix
COMMUNITY ACTS WHICH REFER
TO MATTERS GOVERNED BY THE CONVENTION
The Community acts listed
below illustrate the extent of the area of competence of the Community in
accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community. In
particular the European Community has exclusive competence in relation to
some matters and in some other matters competence is shared between the
Community and the Member States. The extent of the Community's competence
ensuing from these acts must be assessed by reference to the precise
provisions of each measure, and in particular, the extent to which these
provisions establish common rules that are affected by the provisions of
the Convention.
– regarding
accessibility
Directive 1999/5/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment
and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of
their conformity (OJ L 91, 7.4.1999, p. 10).
Directive 2001/85/EC of the
European Parliament and the Council of 20 November 2001 relating to
special provisions for vehicles used for the carriage of passengers
comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat,
amending Directives 70/156/EEC and 97/27/EC (OJ L 42, 13.2.2002, p. 1).
Directive 96/48/EC on the
interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (O J L 235,
17.09.1996, p. 6-24) as amended by Directive 2004/50/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (O J L 164, 30.4.2004, p.
114).
Directive 2001/16/EC of the
EuropeanParliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans
European conventional rail system (O J L 110, 20.04.2001, p. 1-27) -as
amended by Directive 2004/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 29 April 2004 (OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 114 ).
Directive 2006/87/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 laying down
technical requirements for inland waterway vessels and repealing Council
Directive 82/714/EEC (OJ L 389, 30.12.2006, p. 1).
Directive 2003/24/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 14 April 2003 amending Council
Directive 98/18/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (OJ L
123, 17.5.2003, p. 18).
Directive 2007/46/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a
framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of
systems, components and separate technical units intended for such
vehicles (Framework Directive) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 263,
9.10.2007, p. 1).
Commission Decision
2008/164/EC of 21 December 2007 concerning the technical specification of
interoperability relating to 'persons with reduced mobility' in the
trans-European conventional and high-speed rail system (OJ L 64, 7.3.2008,
p. 72).
Directive 95/16/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 1995 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts (OJ L
213, 7.9.1995, p. 1), as amended by Directive 2006/42/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending
Directive 95/16/EC (recast) (OJ L 157, 9.6.2006, p. 24).
Directive 2002/21/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common
regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services
(Framework Directive) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33).
Directive 2002/22/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service
and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and
services (Universal Service Directive) ( OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 51).
Directive 97/67/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December on common rules for
the development of the internal market of Community postal services and
the improvement of quality of services (OJ L 15, 21.1.1998, p. 14) as
amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the
further opening to competition of Community postal services. (OJ L 176,
5.7.2002, p. 21) and as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive
97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of
Community postal services (OJ L 52, 27.2.2008, p. 3).
Council Regulation (EC) No
1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European
Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 25).
Directive 2004/17/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the
procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,
transport and postal services sectors (OJ L 134, 30.04.2004, p. 1).
Directive 2004/18/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (on the
coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public
supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p.
114).
Council Directive 92/13/EEC
of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the
procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,
transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ L 076, 23/03/1992, p. 14 ) as
amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and
92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures
concerning the award of public contracts (OJ L 335, 20.12.2007, p.31).
Council Directive 89/665/EEC
of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures
to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ L 395,
30.12.1989, p. 33) as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council
Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the
effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public
contracts (OJ L 335, 20.12.2007, p. 31).
– in the field of
independent living and social inclusion, work and employment
Council Directive 2000/78/EC
of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment
in employment and occupation (OJ L 303, 02.12.2000, p. 16).
Commission Regulation (EC)
No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid
compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of
the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation) (OJ L 214, 9.8.2008, p.
3).
Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 2289/83 of 29 July 1983 - laying down provisions for the implementation
of Articles 70 to 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 establishing a
Community system of duty-free arrangements (OJ L 220, 11.8.1983, p. 15).
Council Directive 83/181/EEC
of 28 March 1983 determining the scope of Article 14 (1) (d) of Directive
77/388/EEC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final
importation of certain goods (OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 38).
Directive 2006/54/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the
implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment
of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ L
204, 26.7.2006 p. 23).
Council Regulation (EEC) No
918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from
customs duty (OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 1).
Council Directive
2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax
(OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 2009/47/EC
of 5 May 2009 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards reduced rates of
value added tax (OJ L 116, 9.5.2009, p. 18).
Council Regulation (EC) No
1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 277,
21.10.2005, p. 1).
Council Directive 2003/96/EC
of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation
of energy products and electricity (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 283,
31.10.2003, p. 51).
– in the field of
personal mobility
Council Directive 91/439/EEC
of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1).
Directive 2006/126/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving
licences (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 403, 30.12.2006, p. 18).
Directive 2003/59/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on the initial
qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain roadvehicles for
the carriage of goods or passengers, amending Council Regulation (EEC) No
3820/85 and Council Directive 91/439/EEC and repealing Council Directive
76/914/EEC (OJ L 226, 10.9.2003, p. 4).
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004
establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in
the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights,
and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) – (OJ L
46, 17.2.2004, p. 1).
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning
the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when
travelling by air, Text with EEA relevance. (OJ L 204, 26.7.2006 p. 1).
Regulation (EC) No 1899/2006
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 amending
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 on the harmonisation of technical
requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation
(Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 377, 27.12.2006,
p. 1).
Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail
passengers' rights and obligations (OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14).
Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public
passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council
Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 1).
Commission Regulation (EC)
No 8/2008 of 11 December 2007 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91
as regards common technical requirements and administrative procedures
applicable to commercial transportation by aeroplane (Text with EEA relevance
) (OJ L 10, 12.1.2008, p. 1).
– regarding access to
information
Directive 2001/83/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community
code relating to medical products for human use, as amended by Directive
2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004
(OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 34).
Directive 2007/65/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending
Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions
laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (Text with
EEA relevance) (OJ L 332, 18.12.2007, p. 27).
Directive 2000/31/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal
aspects of information society services, in particular electronic
commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce) (OJ L
178, 17.7.2000, p. 1).
Directive 2001/29/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation
of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information
society (OJ L 167, 22.06.2001 p. 10).
Directive 2005/29/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair
business-to-consumer practices in the internal market and amending Council
Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council and of the Council and Regulation (EC)
No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council ('Unfair
Commercial Practices Directive') (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22).
– regarding statistics
and data collection
Directive 95/46/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the
protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personaldataand
the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31).
Council Regulation (EC)
577/98 of 9 March on the organisation of the Labour Force Sample Survey in
the Community (OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 1) with related implementing
Regulations
Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 concerning
Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC): text with
EEA relevance (OJ L 165, 3.7.2003, p. 1) with related implementing
regulations. Regulation (EC) No 458/2007 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 25 April 2007 on the European system of integrated social
protection statistics (ESSPROS) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 113,
30.4.2007, p. 3) with related implementing regulations.
Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on
Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work (OJ L
354, 31.12.2008, p. 70).
– in the field of
international cooperation
Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006
establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (OJ L 378,
27.12.2006, p. 41).
Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on
establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and
human rights worldwide. (OJ L 386, 29.12.2006, p. 1).
Commission Regulation (EC)
No 718/2007 of 12 June 2007 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No
185/2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA)
(OJ L 170, 29.6.2007, p.
1).”
Reservation:
"The European
Community states that pursuant to Community law (notably Council Directive
2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal
treatment in employment and occupation), the Member States may, if
appropriate, enter their own reservations to Article 27(1) of the
Disabilities Convention to the extent that Article 3(4) of the said
Council Directive provides them with the right to exclude
non-discrimination on the grounds of disability with respect to employment
in the armed forces from the scope of the Directive. Therefore, the
Community states that it concludes the Convention without prejudice to the
above right, conferred on its Member States by virtue of Community
law."
|
France
Declarations:
The French Republic declares
that it will interpret the term "consent" in article 15 of the
Convention in conformity with international instruments, in particular
those that relate to human rights and biomedicine, and with national
legislation, which is in line with these instruments. This means that, as
far as biomedical research is concerned, the term "consent"
applies to two different situations:
1. Consent given by a person
who is able to consent, and
2. In the case of persons
who are not able to give their consent, permission given by their
representative or an authority or body provided for by law.
The French Republic
considers it important that persons who are unable to give their free and
informed consent receive specific protection, without prejudice to all
medical research of benefit to them. In addition to the permission
referred to under paragraph 2 above, other protective measures, such as
those included in the above-mentioned international instruments, are
considered to be part of this protection.
With regard to article 29 of
the Convention, the exercise of the right to vote is a component of legal
capacity that may not be restricted except in the conditions and in
accordance with the modalities provided for in article 12 of the
Convention.
|
Georgia
Declaration:
Georgia interprets
article 12 of the Convention in conjunction with respective provisions of
other international human rights instruments and its domestic law and will
therefore interpret its provisions in a way conferring the highest legal
protection for safeguarding dignity, physical, psychological and emotional
integrity of persons and ensuring integrity of their property.
|
Greece
Reservation:
“The provisions of
Article 27 paragraph 1 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities shall not apply with respect to employment and occupation in
the armed and security forces in so far as it relates to a difference of
treatment on grounds of disability concerning the service thereto, as
provided in Article 8 paragraph 4 of the Law 3304/2005 for the
implementation of the principle of equal treatment, adopted pursuant to
Articles 3 paragraph 4 and 4 of the Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27
November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in
employment and occupation.”
|
Iran
(Islamic Republic of) 6
Iran (Islamic Republic of)6
Declaration:
“… with regard to
Article 46, the Islamic Republic of Iran declares that it does not
consider itself bound by any provisions of the Convention, which may be
incompatible with its applicable rules.”
|
Israel
Reservation:
“The State of Israel
expresses its reservation with regard to the provisions concerning
marriage in Article 23 (1) (a) of the Convention, to the extent that the
laws on personal status, which are binding on the various religious
communities in Israel, do not conform with these provisions.”
|
Japan
Declaration:
“The Government of Japan
declares that paragraph 4 of Article 23 of the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities be interpreted not to apply to a case where a
child is separated from his or her parents as a result of deportation in
accordance with its immigration law.”
|
Kuwait
Reservations:
Subject to reservations
concerning the provisions of article 18, subparagraph 1(a), and article
23, paragraph 2.
Interpretative declarations:
– Article 12, paragraph
2: The enjoyment of legal capacity shall be subject to the conditions
applicable under Kuwaiti law.
– Article 19, paragraph (a):
This paragraph shall not be interpreted to permit illicit relations outside
legitimate marriage.
– Article 25, paragraph (a):
The care in question shall not imply recognition of illicit relations
outside legitimate marriage.
|
Lithuania
Declaration:
“… the Republic of
Lithuania declares that the concept of “sexual and reproductive health”
used in Article 25(a) of the Convention shall not be interpreted to
establish new human rights and create relevant international commitments
of the Republic of Lithuania. The legal content of this concept does
not include support, encouragement or promotion of pregnancy termination,
sterilization and medical procedures of persons with disabilities, able to
cause discrimination on the grounds of genetic features.”
|
Malaysia
Declaration:
“Malaysia acknowledges
that the principles of non-discrimination and equality of opportunity as
provided in articles 3 (b), 3 (e) and 5 (2) of the said Convention are
vital in ensuring full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and
fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote
respect for their inherent dignity, which shall be applied and interpreted
on the basis of disability and on equal basis with others. Malaysia
declares that its application and interpretation of the Federal Constitution
of Malaysia pertaining to the principles of non-discrimination and
equality of opportunity shall not be treated as contravening articles 3
(b), 3 (e) and 5 (2) of the said Convention.
Malaysia recognizes the
participation of persons with disabilities in cultural life, recreation
and leisure as provided in article 30 of the said Convention and
interprets that the recognition is a matter for national legislation.”
Reservation:
“The Government of
Malaysia ratifies the said Convention subject to the reservation that it
does not consider itself bound by articles 15 and 18 of the said
Convention.”
|
Malta
Interpretative statement made upon ratification:
“[…] Pursuant to Article
25 of the Convention, Malta makes the following Interpretative Statement –
Malta understands that the phrase “sexual and reproductive health” in Art
25 (a) of the Convention does not constitute recognition of any new
international law obligation, does not create any abortion rights, and
cannot be interpreted to constitute support, endorsement, or promotion of
abortion. Malta further understands that the use of this phrase is
intended exclusively to underline the point that where health services are
provided, they are provided without discrimination on the basis of
disability.
Malta’s national legislation
considers the termination of pregnancy through induced abortion as
illegal.”
Reservations made upon ratification:
“[…] Pursuant to Article
29 (a) (i) and (iii) of the Convention, while the Government of Malta is
fully committed to ensure the effective and full participation of persons
with disabilities in political and public life, including the exercise of
their right to vote by secret ballot in elections and referenda, and to
stand for elections, Malta makes the following reservations:
With regard to (a) (i):
Malta reserves the right to
continue to apply its current electoral legislation in so far as voting
procedures, facilities and materials are concerned.
With regard to (a) (iii):
Malta reserves the right to
continue to apply its current electoral legislation in so far as
assistance in voting procedures is concerned.”
Interpretative statement and reservation made upon signature:
"(a)
Pursuant to Article 25 of the Convention, Malta makes the following
Interpretative Statement - Malta understands that the phrase "sexual
and reproductive health" in Art 25 (a) of the Convention does not
constitute recognition of any new international law obligation, does not
create any abortion rights, and cannot be interpreted to constitute
support, endorsement, or promotion of abortion. Malta further
understands that the use of this phrase is intended exclusively to
underline the point that where health services are provided, they are
provided without discrimination on the basis of disability.
Malta's national
legislation, considers the termination of pregnancy through induced
abortion as illegal.
(b) Pursuant to
Article 29 )a) (i) and (iii) of the Convention, while the Government of
Malta is fully committed to ensure the effective and full participation of
persons with disabilities in political and public life, including the
exercise of their right to vote by secret ballot in elections and
referenda, and to stand for elections, Malta makes the following
reservations:
With regard to (a) (i):
At this stage, Malta
reserves the right to continue to apply its current electoral legislation
in so far as voting procedures, facilities and materials are concerned.
With regard to (a) (iii):
Malta reserves the right to
continue to apply its current electoral legislation in so far as
assistance in voting procedures is concerned."
|
Mauritius
Reservations:
“The Republic of
Mauritius declares that it shall not for the time being take any of the
measures provided for in Articles 9.2 (d) and (e) in view of their heavy
financial implication.
With regard to Article 24.2
(b), the Republic of Mauritius has a policy of inclusive education which
is being implemented incrementally alongside special education.”
Reservation made upon signature:
"The Government of
the Republic of Mauritius makes the following reservations in relation to
Article 11 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities which pertains to situations of risk and humanitarian
emergencies.
The Government of Mauritius
signs the present Convention subject to the reservation that it does not
consider itself bound to take measures specified in article 11 unless
permitted by domestic legislation expressly providing for the taking of
such measures."
|
|
Monaco
Interpretative declaration:
The Government of His
Serene Highness the Prince of Monaco declares that implementation of the
Convention must take into account the unique features of the Principality
of Monaco, particularly the small size of its territory and the needs of
its people.
The Government of His Serene
Highness the Prince of Monaco considers that articles 23 and 25 of the
Convention must not be interpreted as recognizing an individual right to
abortion except where expressly provided for under national law.
The Government of His Serene
Highness the Prince of Monaco considers that the purpose of the Convention
is to eliminate all discrimination on the basis of disability and to
ensure that persons with disabilities have full enjoyment of all human
rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with others, but that
the Convention does not imply that persons with disabilities should be
afforded rights superior to those afforded to persons without
disabilities, especially in terms of employment, accommodation and
nationality.
|
Netherlands
Declarations made upon signature:
"The Kingdom of the
Netherlands hereby expresses its intention to ratify the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, subject to the following declarations
and such further declarations and reservations as it may deem necessary
upon ratification of the Convention.
Article 10
The Kingdom of the
Netherlands acknowledges that unborn human life is worthy of protection.
The Kingdom interprets the scope of Article 10 to the effect that
such protection - and thereby the term ‘human being' - is a matter for
national legislation.
Article 15
The Netherlands declares
that it will interpret the term ‘consent' in Article 15 in conformity with
international instruments, such as the Council of Europe Convention on
Human Rights and Biomedicine and the Additional Protocol concerning
Biomedical Research, and with national legislation which is in line with
these instruments. This means that, as far as biomedical research is
concerned, the term ‘consent' applies to two different situations:
1. consent given by a
person who is able to consent, and
2. in the case of persons
who are not able to give their consent, permission given by their
representative or an authority or body provided for by law.
The Netherlands considers it
important that persons who are unable to give their free and informed
consent receive specific protection. In addition to the permission
referred to under 2. above, other protective measures as included in the
above-mentioned international instruments are considered to be part of
this protection.
Article 23
With regard to Article 23
paragraph 1 (b), the Netherlands declares that the best interests of the
child shall be paramount.
Article 25
The individual autonomy of
the person is an important principle laid down in Article 3 (a) of
the Convention. The Netherlands understands Article 25 (f) in the
light of this autonomy. This provision is interpreted to mean that
good care involves respecting a persishes with regard to medical
treatment, food and fluids."
|
Norway
Declarations:
“Article 12
Norway recognises that
persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with
others in all aspects of life. Norway also recognizes its obligations to
take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities
to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity.
Furthermore, Norway declares its understanding that the Convention allows
for the withdrawal of legal capacity or support in exercising legal
capacity, and/or compulsory guardianship, in cases where such measures are
necessary, as a last resort and subject to safeguards.
Articles 14 and 25
Norway recognises that all
persons with disabilities enjoy the right to liberty and security of
person, and a right to respect for physical and mental integrity on an
equal basis with others. Furthermore, Norway declares its understanding
that the Convention allows for compulsory care or treatment of persons,
including measures to treat mental illnesses, when circumstances render
treatment of this kind necessary as a last resort, and the treatment is
subject to legal safeguards.”
|
Poland
Reservations made upon ratification:
“The Republic of Poland
understands that Article 23.1 (b) and Article 25 (a) shall not be
interpreted in a way conferring an individual right to abortion or
mandating state party to provide access thereto, unless that right is
guaranteed by the national law.”
“Article 23.1(a) of the
Convention refers to the recognition of the right of all persons with
disabilities who are of marriageable age to marry and to found a family on
the basis of free and full consent of the intending spouses. By virtue of
Article 46 of the Convention the Republic of Poland reserves the right not
to apply Article 23.1(a) of the Convention until relevant domestic
legislation is amended. Until the withdrawal of the reservation a disabled
person whose disability results from a mental illness or mental disability
and who is of marriageable age, can not get married without the court's
approval based on the statement that the health or mental condition of
that person does not jeopardize the marriage, nor the health of
prospective children and on condition that such a person has not been
fully incapacitated. These conditions result from Article 12 § 1 of the
Polish Code on Family and Guardianship (Journal of Laws of the Republic of
Poland of 1964, No. 9, item 59, with subsequent amendments).”
Interpretative Declaration made upon ratification:
“The Republic of Poland
declares that it will interpret Article 12 of the Convention in a way
allowing the application of the incapacitation, in the circumstances and
in the manner set forth in the domestic law, as a measure indicated in
Article 12.4, when a person suffering from a mental illness, mental disability
or other mental disorder is unable to control his or her conduct.”
Reservation made upon signature:
"The Republic of
Poland understands that Articles 23.1 (b) and 25 (a) shall not be
interpreted in a way conferring an individual right to abortion or
mandating state party to provide access thereto."
|
Republic of Korea
Reservation:
“..... with a
reservation on the provision regarding life insurance in the paragraph (e)
of the Article 25.”
|
Singapore
Reservations:
“1. The Republic of
Singapore’s current legislative framework provides, as an appropriate and
effective safeguard, oversight and supervision by competent, independent
and impartial authorities or judicial bodies of measures relating to the
exercise of legal capacity, upon applications made before them or which
they initiate themselves in appropriate cases. The Republic of Singapore
reserves the right to continue to apply its current legislative framework
in lieu of the regular review referred to in Article 12, paragraph 4 of
the Convention.
2. The Republic of Singapore
recognises that persons with disabilities have the right to enjoyment of
the highest attainable standards of health without discrimination on the
basis of disability, with a reservation on the provision by private
insurers of health insurance, and life insurance, other than national
health insurance regulated by the Ministry of Health, Singapore, in
Article 25, paragraph (e) of the Convention.
3. The Republic of Singapore
is fully committed to ensuring the effective and full participation of
persons with disabilities in political and public life, including through
the protection of the exercise of their right to vote by secret ballot in
elections and public referendums without intimidation. With respect to
Article 29, subparagraph (a) (iii) of the Convention, the Republic of
Singapore reserves the right to continue to apply its current electoral
legislation which requires that assistance in voting procedures shall only
be effected through a presiding officer who is appointed by the Returning
Officer and has signed an oath to safeguard voting secrecy.”
|
Slovakia
Reservation:
“In accordance with
article 46 of the United Nations Convention on the rights of persons with
disabilities and article 19 of the Vienna convention on the law of
treaties:
The Slovak Republic shall
apply the provisions of article 27(1)(a) on condition that the
implementation of the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of
disability in setting conditions of recruitment, hiring and employment
shall not apply in the case of recruitment for service as a member of the
armed forces, armed security forces, armed corps, the National Security
Office, the Slovak Information Service and the Fire and Rescue Corps.”
|
Syrian Arab Republic
Upon signature
Understanding:
Our signature of this
Convention does not in any way, imply recognition of Israel or entry into
relations with Israel, in any shape or form, in connection with the
Convention.
We signed today on the basis
of the understanding contained in the letter dated 5 December 2006 from
the Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations addressed, in
his capacity as Chairman of the Group of Arab States for that month, to
the Chairman of the Committee, which contains the interpretation of the
Arab Group concerning article 12 relating to the interpretation of the
concept of “legal capacity”.
|
Thailand
Interpretative declaration:
“The Kingdom of Thailand
hereby declares that the application of Article 18 of the Convention shall
be subject to the national laws, regulations and practices in Thailand.”
|
United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 8
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland8
Reservations:
“Work and Employment –
Convention Article 27 mainly
The United Kingdom accepts
the provisions of the Convention, subject to the understanding that none
of its obligations relating to equal treatment in employment and
occupation, shall apply to the admission into or service in any of the
naval, military or air forces of the Crown.
Education – Convention
Article 24 Clause 2 (a) and 2 (b)
The United Kingdom reserves
the right for disabled children to be educated outside their local community
where more appropriate education provision is available elsewhere.
Nevertheless, parents of disabled children have the same opportunity as
other parents to state a preference for the school at which they wish
their child to be educated.
Liberty of Movement
The United Kingdom reserves
the right to apply such legislation, insofar as it relates to the entry
into, stay in and departure from the United Kingdom of those who do not
have the right under the law of the United Kingdom to enter and remain in
the United Kingdom, as it may deem necessary from time to time.
...
Declaration:
“Education – Convention
Article 24 Clause 2 (a) and (b)
The United Kingdom
Government is committed to continuing to develop an inclusive system where
parents of disabled children have increasing access to mainstream schools
and staff, which have the capacity to meet the needs of disabled children.
The General Education System
in the United Kingdom includes mainstream, and special schools, which the
UK Government understands is allowed under the Convention.”
|
Venezuela
(Bolivarian Republic of)
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
Declaration:
The Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela reaffirms its absolute determination to guarantee the rights
and protect the dignity of persons with disabilities. Accordingly, it
declares that it interprets paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Convention to
mean that in the case of conflict between that paragraph and any
provisions in Venezuelan legislation, the provisions that guarantee the
greatest legal protection to persons with disabilities, while ensuring
their well-being and integral development, without discrimination, shall
apply.
|
|
(Unless
otherwise indicated, the objections were made
upon ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.)
|
Armenia
Objection to the declaration made by Azerbaijan upon ratification:
“Given that the Republic
of Azerbaijan made a declaration to the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities at the time of ratification the Republic of
Armenia declares:
The Republic of Azerbaijan
deliberately misrepresents the essence of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, with
respect to cause and effect of the conflict. The conflict arose due to
the policy of ethnic cleansing by the Republic of Azerbaijan followed by
the massive military aggression against the self-determined
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic - with the aim to repress the free will of the
Nagorno-Karabakh population. As a result, the Republic of Azerbaijan
has occupied several territories of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.”
|
Austria
26 September 2008
With regard to the reservation made by El Salvador upon signature
and confirmed upon ratification:
“The
Government of Austria has examined the reservation to the Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol thereto made
by the Government of El Salvador.
According to its
reservation, El Salvador envisages becoming Party to the Convention only
to the extent that its provisions do not prejudice or violate the
provisions of any of the precepts, principles and norms enshrined in the
Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador, particularly in its
enumeration of principles. In the absence of further clarification, this
reservation does not clearly specify the extent of El Salvador’s
derogation from the provisions of the Convention. This general and vague
wording of the reservation raises doubts as to the degree of commitment assumed
by El Salvador in becoming a party to the Convention and is therefore
incompatible with international law.
The Government of Austria
objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of El
Salvador to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and
Optional Protocol thereto.
This objection, however,
does not preclude the entry into force, in its entirety, of the Convention
between Austria and El Salvador.”
1 November 2010
With regard to the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran
upon accession:
“The
Government of Austria has examined the declaration made by the Government
of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon its accession to the Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of 13 December 2006.
The Government of Austria
considers that in aiming to exclude the application of those provisions of
the Convention which are deemed incompatible with applicable national
rules, the Islamic Republic of Iran has made a reservation of general and
indeterminate scope. This reservation does not clearly define for
the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the
reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention.
The Government of Austria
therefore considers the reservation of the Islamic Republic of Iran
incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and objects to
it.
This objection shall not
preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Austria and the
Islamic Republic of Iran.”
24 June 2011
With regard to the reservation made by Malaysia upon ratification:
“The
Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by Malaysia upon
ratification to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Government of Austria
finds that articles 15 and 18 relate to fundamental principles of the
Convention and that the exclusion of the application of these articles is
contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government
of Austria therefore objects to this reservation.
This position position,
however, does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the
Convention between Austria and Malaysia.”
|
Belgium
28 June 2010
Objection to the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran
upon accession:
Belgium
has examined the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran when it
acceded to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The
vagueness and general nature of the reservation made by the Islamic
Republic of Iran, which does not feel itself bound by any of the
provisions of the Convention that are deemed potentially incompatible with
Iranian laws, leaves open the extent of the commitment of the Islamic
Republic of Iran to the Convention and therefore raises serious doubts
about its commitment to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.
Reservations of such unspecified nature may contribute to
undermining the bases of international human rights treaties. This
reservation should therefore be considered as being incompatible with the
object and purpose of the Convention. Belgium recalls that under article
19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation
incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention
between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Belgium.
28 June 2011
with regard to the reservation made by Malaysia upon ratification:
Belgium
has carefully examined the reservation made by Malaysia upon accession to
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 19 July 2010.
The vagueness and general
nature of the reservation made by Malaysia -which does not consider itself
bound by Articles 15 and 18 of the Convention- may contribute to
undermining the bases of international human rights treaties.
Belgium further notes that
the reservation made in respect of Article 15 -concerning the prohibition
against torture, which is an absolute protection- and Article 18
concerns fundamental provisions of the Convention and is incompatible with
the object and purpose of that instrument.
Belgium notes that under
Article 46 (1) of the Convention, reservations incompatible with the
object and purpose of the Convention are not permitted. Furthermore, under
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 is not permitted (article 19 (c)).
Consequently, Belgium
objects to the reservation formulated by Malaysia with respect to Articles
15 and 18 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
This objection shall not
preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of
Belgium and Malaysia.
|
Czech Republic
30 November 2009
With regard to the reservation made by El Salvador upon ratification
to the Convention:
“The
Czech Republic has examined the reservation made by the Republic of El
Salvador upon its signature and confirmed upon its ratification of the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Czech Republic notes
that the reservation makes unclear to what extent the Republic of El
Salvador considers itself bound by the obligations of the Convention, as
the Republic of El Salvador subjects the Convention by this reservation to
“the provisions of any of the precepts, principles and norms enshrined in
the Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador”.
The Czech Republic considers
that this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the
Convention and, according to Article 46 paragraph 1 of the Convention and
according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties, such reservation shall not be permitted.
The Czech Republic,
therefore, objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of El
Salvador to the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry
into force of the Convention between the Czech Republic and the Republic
of El Salvador, without the Republic of El Salvador benefiting from its
reservation.”
30 November 2009
With regard to the interpretative declaration made by Thailand upon
ratification to the Convention:
“The
Czech Republic has examined the interpretative declaration made by the
Kingdom of Thailand upon its ratification of the Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities on 29 July 2008.
The Czech Republic believes
that the interpretative declaration made by the Kingdom of Thailand
constitutes in fact a reservation to the Article 18 of the Convention.
The Czech Republic notes
that the reservation left open to what extent the Kingdom of Thailand
commits itself to the Article 18 of the Convention and this calls into
question the Kingdom of Thailand’s commitment to the object and purpose of
the Convention as regards the rights associated with liberty of movement
and nationality. It is in the common interest of States that treaties, to
which they have chosen to become a party, are respected, as to their
object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to
undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their
obligations under these treaties.
According to Article 46
paragraph 1 of the Convention and according to customary international law
as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation
that is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be
permitted.
The Czech Republic,
therefore, objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Kingdom of
Thailand to the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry
into force of the Convention between the Czech Republic and the Kingdom of
Thailand, without the Kingdom of Thailand benefiting from its
reservation.”
28 July 2010
Objection to the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran
upon accession:
“The
Czech Republic has examined the declaration made by the Islamic Republic
of Iran upon its accession to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (hereinafter the ‘Convention’) on October 23, 2009.
The Czech Republic points
out that the title of a statement intended to modify or exclude the legal
effects of certain provisions of a treaty does not alone determine the
status of such statement as a reservation or declaration. The Czech
Republic is of the opinion that the declaration made by the Islamic
Republic of Iran constitutes, in fact, a reservation.
The Czech Republic finds
that the reservation does not make it clear to what extent the Islamic
Republic of Iran is willing to honour its obligations under the
Convention, since ‘it does not consider itself bound by any provisions of
the Convention which may be incompatible with its applicable rules’.
The Czech Republic believes
that this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the
Convention. According to Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention
and customary international law codified in the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties, such reservations should 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 Czech Republic,
therefore, objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Islamic
Republic of Iran and considers the reservation null and void. This
objection shall not preclude the entryinto force of the Convention between
the Czech Republic and the Islamic Republic of Iran, without the Islamic
Republic of Iran benefiting from its reservation.”
|
France
30 March 2010
With regard to the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran
upon upon accession:
The
Government of the French Republic has examined the declaration made by the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon its adherence to the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of 13 December 2006.
The Government of the French Republic considers that, in aiming to exclude
the application of those provisions of the Convention that are deemed
incompatible with Iranian laws, the Islamic Republic of Iran has in effect
made a reservation of general and indeterminate scope. This reservation is
vague, failing to specify the relevant provisions of the Convention or the
domestic laws to which the Islamic Republic of Iran wishes to give
preference. Consequently, it does not allow other States parties to know
the extent of the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Iran and could
render the Convention ineffective. The Government of the French Republic
considers that this reservation runs counter to the purpose and goals of
the Convention and raises an objection to it. This objection does not
prevent the entry into force of the Convention between the Islamic
Republic of Iran and France.
|
Germany
1 November 2010
With regard to the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran
upon accession:
“The
Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by
the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon its accession to the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of 13 December 2006.
The Federal Republic of
Germany is of the opinion that by excluding the application of those
provisions of the Convention which may be incompatible with applicable
national rules the Islamic Republic of Iran in fact has made a reservation
which leaves it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Iran
accepts being bound by the obligations under the Convention.
The Federal Republic of
Germany objects to this reservation as being incompatible with the object
and purpose of the Convention and thus impermissible according to Article
46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
This objection shall not
preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal
Republic of Germany and the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
3 August 2011
With regard to the reservation made by Malaysia upon ratification:
“The
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the
reservation made by the Government of Malaysia upon ratification of the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of 13 December 2006.
The Government of the
Federal Republic of Germany considers that the provisions of Articles 15
and 18 are core provisions of the Convention and that the exclusion of
their application is incompatible with the object and purpose of the
Convention.
The Government of the
Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to this reservation as being
inadmissible according to Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
This objection shall not
preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal
Republic of Germany and Malaysia.”
|
Hungary
1 August 2011
With regard to the reservation made by Malaysia upon ratification:
“The
Government of the Republic of Hungary has examined the reservations made
by Malaysia on 19 July 2010 upon ratification of the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted by the General Assembly of
the United Nations on 13 December 2006, with regard to Articles 15 and 18
of the Convention.
The Government of the
Republic of Hungary is of the view that Articles 15 and 18 of the
Convention address core human rights values that are not only reflected in
several multilateral treaties, such as the UN Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but also form part of
the international customary law.
In consequence, according to
Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is a
treaty and customary norm, these reservations shall not be permitted as
they are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
Therefore, the Government of
the Republic of Hungary objects to the reservations made by Malaysia to
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted by
General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 December 2006, with regard to
Articles 15 and 18.
This objection does not
preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of
Hungary and Malaysia.”
|
Latvia
22 October 2010
With regard to the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran
upon accession:
“The
Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the
declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Convention.
The Government of the
Republic of Latvia considers that the declaration contains general
reference to national law, making any provision of the Convention subject
to the national law of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Therefore, the Government of
the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that the declaration is in fact a
unilateral act deemed to limit the scope of application of the Convention
and therefore, it shall be regarded as a reservation.
Moreover, the Government of
the Republic of Latvia considers that the reservation named as a
declaration does not make it clear to what extent the Islamic Republic of Iran
considers itself bound by the provisions of the Convention and whether the
manner of application of the rights prescribed by the Convention are in
line with the object and purpose of the Convention.
Therefore, the Government of
the Republic of Latvia recalls that the provisions of Article 46 of the
Convention set out that the reservations that are incompatible with object
and purpose of the Convention are not permitted.
Consequently, the Government
of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations
made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Convention.
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 International
Covenant will become operative without the Islamic Republic of Iran
benefiting from its reservation.”
|
Mexico
22 October 2010
With regard to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran
upon accession:
Having
examined the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran with respect
to the Convention, the United Mexican States has concluded that the
declaration is, in fact, a reservation. This reservation, which aims to
exclude the legal effects of certain provisions of the Convention, is
incompatible with the object and purpose of that instrument. Indeed, the
declaration is worded in such a way that it could hinder the realization
of normative provisions of the Convention, including those of articles 4
and 1, and thus is in breach of article 46 of the Convention and article
19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It should be noted
that article 27 of the Vienna Convention codified the principle of
international law whereby a party may not invoke the provisions of its
domestic law as justification for its failure to comply with a treaty. The
claim that domestic laws take precedence over the provisions of treaties
that are in force for the Parties is therefore inadmissible.
This objection shall not
preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Islamic
Republic of Iran and the United Mexican States.
|
Netherlands
22 January 2009
With regard to the reservation made by El Salvador upon signarue and
confirmed upon ratification:
“The
Government of Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the
reservation made by the Government of the Republic of El Salvador upon
signature and confirmed upon ratification to the Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities, done at New York on 13 December 200[6].
The Government of the
Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the
application of the Convention is made subject to the constitutional law in
force in the Republic of El Salvador. This makes it unclear to what extent
the Republic of El Salvador considers itself bound by the obligations of
the Convention.
The Government of the
Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such a reservation must be
regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the said
instrument and would recall that, according to Article 46, paragraph 1 of
the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of
the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of the
Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation made by
the Government of the Republic of El Salvador to the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
It is the understanding of
the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the reservation of
the Government of the Republic of El Salvador does not exclude or modify
the legal effect of the provisions of the Convention in their application
to the Republic of El Salvador.
This objection does not
constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of El Salvador.”
|
Portugal
23 September 2009
With regard to the declaration made by Thailand upon ratification:
“The
Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the interpretative
declaration relating to Article 18 made by the Kingdom of Thailand upon
its ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, done at New York, on the 13th December 2006.
The Government of the
Portuguese Republic believes that this interpretative declaration
constitutes a reservation that makes the application of Article 18 of the
Convention subject to conformity with the national laws, regulations and
practices. The Kingdom of Thailand has formulated a reservation that makes
it unclear to what extent it considers itself bound by the obligations of
Article 18 of the Convention, and this calls into question the Kingdom of
Thailand’s commitment to the object and purpose of the Convention as
regards the rights associated with liberty of movement and nationality.
The Government of the
Portuguese Republic recalls that, by virtue of article 46, paragraph 1, of
the Convention, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of
the Convention shall not be permitted.
Consequently, the Government
of the Portuguese Republic objects to the interpretative declaration by
the Kingdom of Thailand relating to Article 18 of the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
This objection does not
preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Portuguese
Republic and the Kingdom of Thailand.”
With regard to the declaration made by El Salvador upon
ratification:
“The
Government of the Portuguese Republic has carefully examined the
reservation made by the Government of the Republic of El Salvador upon
signature and confirmed upon ratification of the Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities, done at New York, on the 13th December 2006.
The Government of the
Portuguese Republic considers that with this reservation the application
of the Convention is made subject to the constitutional law in force in
the Republic of El Salvador. This makes it unclear to what extent the
Republic of El Salvador considers itself bound by the obligations of the
Convention.
The Government of the
Portuguese Republic considers that such a reservation must be regarded as
incompatible with the object and purpose of the said instrument and would
recall that, according to Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention, a
reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention
shall not be permitted.
The Government of the
Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the reservation made by the
Government of the Republic of El Salvador to the Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities.
This objection does not
constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between
the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of El Salvador.”
2 November 2010
With regard to the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran
upon accession:
“The
Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservation made by
the Islamic Republic of Iran on 23 October 2009 upon accession to the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Government of the
Portuguese Republic considers that the reservation subjects the
Convention’s application to domestic law, which is incompatible with the
object and purpose of the Convention, insofar as it disregards the
fundamental principles of International Law and the principles that shape
the core of the Convention.
According to International
Law, a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of a
treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the
Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the reservation made by the
Islamic Republic of Iran on 23 October 2009 upon accession to the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
This objection does not
preclude the entry into force of the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities between the Portuguese Republic and the Islamic Republic
of Iran.”
26 July 2011
With regard to the reservation made by Malaysia upon ratification:
“The
Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservations made
by Malaysia upon ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities, New York, 13 December 2006.
The Government of the
Portuguese Republic considers that the reservation made by Malaysia to
Articles 15 and 18 is a reservation that seeks to exclude the application
of these two provisions that are related to fundamental principles of the
Convention thus limiting the scope of the Convention on an unilateral
basis and contributing to undermining the basis of International Law.
The Government of the
Portuguese Republic considers that the present reservation is contrary to
the object and purpose of the Convention that seeks to promote, protect
and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and
fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote
respect for their inherent dignity.
The Government of the
Portuguese Republic recalls that, according to customary international law
as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in
accordance with Article 46 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of
the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of the
Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by
the Government of Malaysia to Articles 15 and 18 of the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, New York, 13 December [2006].
However, this objection
shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Portuguese Republic and Malaysia.”
|
Romania
26 June 2014
With regard to the reservation made by Singapore upon ratification:
“The
Government of Romania has examined the reservation made by the Government
of Singapore to articles 12, 25 and 29 of the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities (2006) and appreciates that a reservation which
consists of references to national law may raise doubts as to the
commitment of the reserving state to fulfill its obligations under the
Convention.
In accordance to article 29
of the Convention, the exercise of the right to vote is a component of the
legal capacity which cannot be restricted except under the conditions and
in the manner provided by article 12 of the Convention, not as provided in
paragraph 1 and 3 of the reservation, by applying the domestic legal
framework.
Regarding paragraph 2 of the
reservation, the Government of Romania appreciates that article 25 (e) of
the Convention is applicable to the private health insurers too. The
Convention does not create an exception for this category and does not
make a distinction between state and private insurers. The prohibition of
discrimination against persons with disabilities regarding the provision
of heath insurances, applies to all categories of insurers (including
private ones).
The Government of Romania
considers that the reservation made by Singapore subordinates the
application of some fundamental provisions of the Convention to its
domestic law, being incompatible to its object and purpose, which consist
in the obligation to protect the fundamental rights of the persons with
disabilities.
Such a reservation is also,
in view of the Government of Romania, subject to the general principle of
treaty interpretation and to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of the
Law of Treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions
of its domestic law as justification for failure to perform its treaty
obligations.
The objection shall not
otherwise affect the entry into force of the Convention between Romania
and Singapore.”
|
Slovakia
28 September 2010
With regard to the reservation made by El Salvador upon its
signature and confirmed upon its ratification:
“The
Slovak Republic has examined the reservation made by the Republic of El
Salvador upon its signature and confirmed upon its ratification of the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, according to which:
‘The Government of the
Republic of El Salvador signs the present Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol thereto, adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly on 13 December 2006, to the extent that
its provisions do not prejudice or violate the provisions of any of the
precepts, principles and norms enshrined in the Constitution of the
Republic of El Salvador, particularly in its enumeration of principles.’
The Slovak Republic notes
that the reservation makes unclear to what extent the Republic of El
Salvador considers itself bound by the obligations of the Convention, as
the Republic of El Salvador subjects the Convention by this reservation to
‘the provisions of any of the precepts, principles and norms enshrined in
the Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador’.
The Slovak Republic
considers that this reservation is incompatible with the object and
purpose of the Convention and, according to Article 46 paragraph 1 of the
Convention and according to customary international law as codified in the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; such reservation shall not be
permitted.
The Slovak Republic, therefore,
objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Republic of
El Salvador to the
Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force
of the Convention between the Slovak Republic and the Republic of El
Salvador, without the Republic of El Salvador benefiting from its
reservation.”
18 July 2011
With regard to the reservation made by Malaysia upon ratification:
“The
Slovak Republic has examined the reservation made by Malaysia as to its
ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
of 13 December 2006, according to which:
‘The Government of Malaysia
ratifies the said Convention subject to the reservation that it does not
consider itself bound by articles 15 and 18 of the said Convention.’
The Slovak Republic
considers the reservation to Articles 15 and 18 of the Convention as
incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
It is in the common interest
of States that all parties respect treaties to which they have chosen to
become party, as to their object and purpose, and that States are prepared
to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their
obligations under the treaties.
The Slovak Republic notes
that this calls into question the Malaysia’s commitment to the object and
purpose of the Convention regarded to the prohibition of torture and to
the rights associated with liberty of movement and nationality.
According to Article 46,
paragraph 1 of the Convention and according to the customary international
law as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in
particular Article 19 (c), the reservation that is incompatible with the
object and purpose of a treaty is not permitted.
The Slovak Republic,
therefore, objects to the reservation made by Malaysia to Articles 15 and
18 of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry
into force of the Convention between the Slovak Republic and Malaysia,
without Malaysia benefiting from its reservation.”
|
Spain
27 July 2009
With regard to the interpretative declaration made by Thailand upon
ratification:
The
Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the interpretative
declaration made by Thailand upon its ratification of the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, relating to article 18 of that
international instrument.
The Government of the
Kingdom of Spain believes that this interpretative declaration constitutes
a reservation that makes the application of article 18 of the Convention
subject to conformitywith the national laws, regulations and practices.
Thailand has formulated a reservation that makes it unclear to what extent
it considers itself bound by the obligations of article 18 of the
Convention, and this calls into question Thailand’s commitment to the
object and purpose of the Convention as regards the rights associated with
liberty of movement and nationality.
The Government of the
Kingdom of Spain recalls that, by virtue of article 46, paragraph 1, of
the Convention, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of
the Convention shall not be permitted. Consequently, the Government of the
Kingdom of Spain objects to the interpretative declaration by Thailand
relating to article 18 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities.
This objection does not
preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Spain and
Thailand.
3 December 2009
With regard to the reservation made by the Republic of Korea upon
ratification:
The
Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation formulated
by the Republic of Korea when it ratified the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities with regard to article 25 (e) of this
international treaty.
The Government of the
Kingdom of Spain considers that the Republic of Korea has formulated a
reservation which does not permit clear determination as to the extent to
which the Republic of Korea has accepted the obligations under article
25(e) of the Convention, which raises doubts as to the commitment of the
Republic of Korea to the object and purpose of the Convention in relation
to the
non-discriminatory, fair and
reasonable provision of life insurance.
The Government of the
Kingdom of Spain recalls that, under article 46.1 of the Convention,
reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention
are not acceptable.
Consequently, Spain objects
to the reservation formulated by the Republic of Korea in relation to
article 25(e) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities.
This objection shall not
preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of
Spain and the Republic of Korea.
|
Sweden
23 January 2009
With regard to the reservation made by El Salvador upon signarue and
confirmed upon ratification:
“...
the Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by the
Government of the Republic of El Salvador upon ratifying the Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
According to international
customary law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a
treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of all 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
notes that El Salvador in its reservation gives precedence to its
Constitution over the Convention. The Government of Sweden is of the view
that such a reservation, which does not clearly specify the extent of the
derogation, raises serious doubt as to the commitment of El Salvador to
the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of Sweden
therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of
the Republic of El Salvador to the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities and considers the reservation null and void. This
objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention
between El Salvador and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety
between
El Salvador and Sweden,
without El Salvador benefiting from its reservation.”
28 July 2009
With regard to the interpretative declaration made by Thailand upon
ratification:
The
Government of Sweden has examined the interpretative declaration made by
the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand on 29 July 2008 to the
Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities.
The Government of Sweden
recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal
effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not
determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of
Sweden considers that the interpretative declaration made by the
Government of Thailand in substance constitutes a reservation.
According to international
customary law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a
treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of all 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
notes that Thailand gives precedence to its national laws, regulations and
practices over the application of article 18 of the Convention. The
Government of Sweden is of the view that such a reservation, which does
not clearly specify the extent of the derogation, raises serious doubt as
to the commitment to the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of Sweden
therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of
the Kingdom of Thailand to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities and considers the reservation null and void. This objection
shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Thailand
and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between
Thailand and Sweden, without
Thailand benefiting from its reservation.”
6 July 2011
With regard to the reservations made by Malaysia upon ratification:
“The
Government of Sweden has examined the interpretative declaration and
reservations made by the Government of Malaysia at the time of its
ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Government of Sweden
recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal
effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not
determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government
of Sweden considers that the interpretative declaration made by the
Government of Malaysia in substance constitutes a reservation, which
raises serious doubt as to the commitment to the object and purpose of the
Convention.
The Government of Sweden
furthermore considers that the reservations to articles 15 and 18 raise
serious doubt as to the commitment to the object and purpose of the
Convention.
According to international
customary law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a
treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of all
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 reservations made by the Government of
Malaysia to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and
considers the reservations null and void. This objection shall not
preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Malaysia and
Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between
Malaysia and Sweden, without Malaysia benefiting from its reservations.”
|
Switzerland
15 April 2014
With regard to the reservation by the Republic of El Salvador made
upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:
With
respect to the reservation by the Republic of El Salvador made upon
signature and confirmed upon ratification:
The Swiss Federal Council
has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of El
Salvador upon ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities.
The Swiss Federal Council
believes that the reservation made gives precedence to the Constitution of
the Republic of El Salvador over the Convention. The Swiss Federal Council
is of the view that the reservation does not clearly specify the extent of
the derogation. Accordingly, the reservation is incompatible with the
object and purpose of the Convention and is not permissible under article
46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
It is in the common interest
of States that the object and purpose of the instruments to which they
choose to become parties be respected by all parties thereto, and that
States be prepared to amend their legislation in order to fulfil their
treaty obligations.
The Swiss Federal Council
objects to the reservation of the Republic of El Salvador. This objection
shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention, in its
entirety, between the Republic of El Salvador and Switzerland.
15 April 2014
With regard to the declaration by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon
accession:
With
regard to the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon
accession:
The Swiss Federal Council
has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Iran upon accession to the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities.
The Swiss Federal Council
recalls that irrespective of the label given to it, a declaration
constitutes a reservation if it excludes or modifies the legal effect of
certain provisions of the treaty to which it relates. The Swiss Federal
Council is of the opinion that, in substance, the declaration of the
Islamic Republic of Iran constitutes a reservation to the Convention.
The Swiss Federal Council
believes that the reservation formulated gives precedence to the rules of
the Islamic Republic of Iran over the Convention. The Swiss Federal
Council is of the view that this reservation does not clearly specify the
extent of the derogation, in that it does not specify either the
provisions of the Convention concerned or the rules of domestic law which
the Islamic Republic of Iran intends to favour. Accordingly, the
reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention
and is not permissible under article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
It is in the common interest
of States that the object and purpose of the instruments to which they
choose to become parties be respected by all parties thereto, and that
States be prepared to amend their legislation in order to fulfil their
treaty obligations.
The Swiss Federal Council
objects to the reservation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This objection
shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention, in its
entirety, between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Switzerland.
15 April 2014
With regard to the reservation by Malaysia upon ratification:
With
regard to the reservation made by Malaysia upon ratification:
The Swiss Federal Council
has examined the reservation made by the Government of Malaysia upon
ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Swiss Federal Council
believes that the specific reservation to article 15 concerns a
fundamental legal guarantee enjoyed by persons with disabilities.
Accordingly, the reservation to article 15 is incompatible with the object
and purpose of the Convention and is not permissible under article 46,
paragraph 1, of the Convention.
It is in the common interest
of States that the object and purpose of the instruments to which they
choose to become parties be respected by all parties thereto, and that
States be prepared to amend their legislation in order to fulfil their
treaty obligations.
The Swiss Federal Council
objects to the reservation of Malaysia. This objection shall not preclude
the entry into force of the Convention, in its entirety, between Malaysia
and Switzerland.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|