International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance

[Conventions in German language (translation) see annexes]

[Conventions in English see annexes]

The instrument of ratification, signed by the Federal President and countersigned by the Federal Chancellor, was deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 7 June 2012; the Convention thus enters into force in accordance with Article 39 (2) of the Convention for Austria July 7, 2012 in force.

On the occasion of the deposit of its instrument of ratification, the Republic of Austria has made the following statements:

Declaration by the Republic of Austria pursuant to Article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance

Pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, the Republic of Austria recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearance to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation of provisions of this Convention by Austria.

Declaration by the Republic of Austria pursuant to Article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance

Pursuant to Article 32 of the Convention, the Republic of Austria recognizes the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearance to receive and consider communications in which a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its requirements. obligations under the Convention.

(Translation)

Declaration of the Republic of Austria pursuant to Article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance

In accordance with Article 31 of the Convention, the Republic of Austria shall recognise the competence of the Committee on enforced disappearing to receive and verify communications of individual persons or on behalf of individual persons who have jurisdiction over their jurisdiction , and who claim to be the victim of an infringement of this Convention by Austria.

Declaration of the Republic of Austria pursuant to Article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance

In accordance with Article 32 of the Convention, the Republic of Austria recognises the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearance and Examination of Communications in which a State Party asserts that another State Party is a party to the Convention does not comply with its obligations under the Convention.

According to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the following other States have ratified or acceded to the Convention:

Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Costa Rica, Germany, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Honduras, Iraq, Japan, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Mali, Mexico, Montenegro, the Netherlands (for the The European part of the Netherlands and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustasius and Saba)), Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Zambia, Senegal, Serbia, Spain, Tunisia and Uruguay.

On the occasion of the deposit of the instrument of ratification, the following states have declared the following reservations, or Statements made:

Germany:

On Art. 16:

A repatriation ban exists only if there is a concrete risk of involuntory disappearance for the person concerned.

Article 17 (2) (lit). f:

German law ensures that deprivation of liberty is lawful only if it has been ordered by a court of law or, exceptionally, has been subsequently approved. Article 104 (2) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz, GG) expressly states: " Only the judge shall decide on the admissibility and continuation of a deprivation of liberty. A judicial decision shall be taken without delay in the case of any deprivation of liberty which is not based on a judicial order. " If a provisional arrest is made on suspicion of a criminal offence, the person is to be referred to the judge "no later than the day after the arrest", according to Art. 104 (3) of the Basic Law.

In the event that a person is arbitrarily detained in breach of Article 104 of the Basic Law, any person may bring about a judicial decision leading to the release by applying to the local court in which he is competent, to release the detained person immediately. If the person has been detained beyond the time allowed by the Basic Law, the court has to order the release in accordance with Section 128 (2) sentence 1 of the StPO (Criminal Procedure Code).

On Art. 17 (3):

In the case of an accommodation of sick people by a supervisor or authorised representative, the persons referred to shall be in accordance with lit. a to h required information to the court which authorises the accommodation. The court can go after lit. a to h determine the necessary information at any time via the supervisor or authorised representative, who will then be subject to file contents. These are also to be regarded as files within the meaning of Article 17 (3).

On Art. 18:

According to German law, all persons who can present a legitimate interest shall be entitled to information from the court records. The restrictions provided for under German law to protect the interests of the person concerned or to safeguard the criminal proceedings are admissible under Article 20 (1) of the Convention.

On Art. 24 (4):

It is made clear that the proposed reparation and compensation scheme does not override the principle of statehiority immunity.

Cuba:

Pursuant to Article 42 (2), the Republic of Cuba hereby declares that it does not consider itself obliged to refer its disputes to the International Court of Justice, as provided for in paragraph 1 of that Article.

In addition, the following States made statements concerning the recognition of the competence of the Committee under Articles 31 and 32 of the Convention:

Albania, Argentina, Belgium, Chile, Germany, Ecuador, France, Japan (only Article 32), Mali, Montenegro, the Netherlands (European part and the Caribbean), Serbia, Spain, Uruguay.

Faymann