213. Presentation of the Federal Chancellor concerning the scope of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

According to the Communications of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the following States have ratified their instruments of ratification or ratification. Accession documents to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (BGBl. No. 105/1988, last proclamation of the BGBl area. No 293/1995):

States:	Date of deposit of the Ratifications and/or Certificate of Accession:
Azerbaijan	27 November 2001
Bosnia and Herzegovina	1 March 1995
Burkina Faso	4 January 1999
Côte d' Ivoire	5 March 1997
Djibouti	5 November 2002
El Salvador	6 June 1995
Ghana	7 September 2000
Greece	5 May 1997
Guatemala	28 November 2000
Honduras	7 June 2005
Cape Verde	19 May 2000
Croatia	12 October 1995
Lesotho	6 September 2000
Liechtenstein	10 December 1998
Malawi	11 June 1996
Mali	24 October 2001
Mexico	15 March 2002
Paraguay	10 January 1995
Serbia and Montenegro	6 September 2001
Sierra Leone	23 August 1996
Sri Lanka	3 October 1997
South Africa	28 August 2002
Tajikistan	4 January 1999
Chad	9 June 1995
Turkmenistan	1 May 1997
Uganda	14 November 1995
Uzbekistan	28 September 1995

On the occasion of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or The following Member States have declared the following reservations, or Statements made:

El Salvador:

The Government of the Republic of El Salvador declares that its provisions mean that the competence of the Human Rights Committee is exclusively for the purpose of receiving and examining individual complaints, exclusively and in accordance with the provisions of the With regard to those situations, events, cases, failures and legal incidents or acts completed after the date of deposit of the instrument of ratification, that is to say, those three months after the date of deposit pursuant to Art. 9 Paragraph 2 of the Protocol also took place; the Committee should also be without competence for the communications and/or complaints which have been submitted to other procedures of international investigations or arbitration.

Guatemala:

Guatemala recognises the competence of the Committee on Human Rights to receive and verify communications from its jurisdiction, which claim to be the victim of a violation of the rights recognised by the International Covenant to be through Guatemala, whether it is the result of acts, omissions, developments or events that occurred after the Optional Protocol to the Republic of Guatemala entered into force, or from a decision concerning acts, omissions, developments or events after this date.

Croatia:

The Republic of Croatia lays down Article 1 of the Protocol to the effect that the Committee is responsible for the reception and examination of communications of the jurisdiction of the Republic of Croatia under the jurisdiction of the persons claiming to be victims of a breach of the The Republic of Croatia shall be recognised as being of recognised rights arising out of acts, omissions, developments or events which entered into force after the entry into force of the Protocol for the Republic of Croatia.

The Republic of Croatia makes clear that the Committee on Human Rights is in accordance with Article 5 (2) lit. a) the Protocol does not have the responsibility to examine a person's communications if the matter has already been examined or has been examined before another international investigation or compensation instance.

Sri Lanka:

The Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka recognises, in accordance with Article 1 of the Optional Protocol, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and examine communications of the jurisdictions of the Democratic Republic of Sri Lanka. Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, who claim to be the victim of a violation of the rights recognised in the Covenant, be that such a result of acts, omissions, developments or events which occurred, after the Protocol for the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in Power has been entered into or taken from a decision concerning acts, omissions, developments or events after that date. The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka considers that the Committee on Human Rights must not examine a person's communications if it is not established that this matter is not already before another international Examination or compensation instance has been examined or has been examined.

Uganda:

The Republic of Uganda does not accept the competence of the Committee on Human Rights to examine a communication by a private individual under Article 5 (2) if the matter is examined before another international investigation or compensation body has been made.

Following a further notice by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Guyana deposited the following reservation on 5 April 1999:

Guyana declares a reservation on Art. 6, with the effect that the Human Rights Committee is not responsible for receiving and examining the communications of persons sentenced to death for murder or treason, in relation to matters relating to the prosecution, holding, trial, conviction, sentence or execution of the death penalty or any other related matters.

In recognition of the principle that States must not use the Optional Protocol as a means of introducing reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of Guyana emphasizes that its reservation on the Optional Protocol, its obligations under the Covenant, including its obligation to all persons under the jurisdiction of Guyana and persons residing on their territory, the rights recognised in the Covenant (unless a reservation is made) ) as defined in its Article 2, to be secured and to be respected as well as Guyana's commitment to report to the Human Rights Committee in accordance with the monitoring mechanism set up in Article 40 of the Covenant, in no way compromised.

According to other communications from the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Jamaica will be on the 23. On 27 October 1997, Trinidad and Tobago informed their decisions to terminate the Additional Protocol on 27 March 2000.

Bowl