Chile:
(Declaration made at the time
of signature)
The Delegation of Chile signs
this Convention, subject to its subsequent parliamentary approval and
ratification,
in accordance with the
constitutional rules in force.
(Reservations made at the
time of ratification)
Recongnition of Competence:
a)
The Government of Chile declares that it recognizes, for an indefinite period
of time and on the condition of reciprocity, the competence of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to receive and examine
communications in which a State Party alleges that another State Party has
committed a violation of the human rights established in the American
Convention on Human Rights, as provided for in Article 45 of the Convention.
b)
The Government of Chile declares that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto,
the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or
application of the Convention in accordance with its Article 62.
In making these declarations, the Government of Chile places on record that its
recognitions of the competence of the Commission and the jurisdiction of the
Court apply to events subsequent to the date of deposit of this instrument of ratification or, in any case, to events which began subsequent to March 11, 1990. Moreover, in acknowledging the competence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the
jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Government of Chile declares that, when these bodies apply the provisions of Article 21.2 of the Convention, they may not make statements concerning any reasons of public utility or social interest that may have been taken into account in depriving a person of his or her property.
Ecuador:
(Declaration made at the time
of signature)
The Delegation of Ecuador has
the honor of signing the American Convention on Human Rights. It does
not believe that it is necessary to make any specific reservation at this
time, without prejudice to the general power set forth in the Convention
itself that leaves the governments free to ratify it or not.
Recognition of Competence:
On August 13, 1984, the OAS General Secretariat received
the note informing about the recognition of competence established in
Articles 45 and 62 of the Convention, respectively. Ecuador recognized the
validity of Articles 45 and 62 of the American Convention on Human Rights,
by Decree No. 2768, of July 24, 1984, published in the Official Register No.
795 of July 27, 1984.
In addition, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs of Ecuador made the following declaration on July 30, 1984, in
conformity with Articles 45(4) and 62(2) of the above-mentioned Convention: In
keeping with the provisions of Article 45, paragraph 1, of the American
Convention on Human Rights--Pact of San José, Costa Rica-- (ratified by
Ecuador on October 21, 1977, and in force since October 27, 1977), the
Government of Ecuador recognizes the competence of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights toreceive and examine communications in which a
State Party alleges that another State Party has committed a violation of the
human rights set forth in the Convention, under the terms
provided for in paragraph 2 of that Article.
This recognition of
competence is to be valid for an indefinite time and on condition of
reciprocity.
As provided in Article 62,
paragraph 1, of the Convention in reference, the Government of Ecuador
declares that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto, and not requiring special
agreement, the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on all
matters relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention.
This recognition of
jurisdiction is for an indeterminate period and on condition of reciprocity.
The Ecuadorian State reserves the right to withdraw its recognition of this
competence and this jurisdiction whenever it may deem it advisable to do so.
Dominican Republic:
(Declaration made at the time
of signature)
The Dominican Republic, upon signing the American Convention on Human Rights,
aspires that the principle pertaining to abolition of the death penalty shall
become purely and simply that, with general application throughout the states
of the American region, and likewise maintains the observations and comments
made on the aforementioned Draft Convention which it distributed to the
delegations to the Council of the Organization of American States on June 20,
1969.
Uruguay:
(Reservation made at the time
of signature)
Article 80.2 of the
Constitution of Uruguay provides that a person's citizenship is suspended if
the person is "under indictment on a criminal charge which may result in a
penitentiary sentence." Such a restriction on the exercise of the rights
recognized in Article 23 of the Convention is not envisaged among the
circumstances provided for in Article 23, paragraph 2, for which reason the
Delegation of Uruguay expresses a reservation on this matter.
(Reservation made at the time
of ratification)
With the reservation made at
the time of signature. Notification of this reservation was given in
conformity with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, signed on May
23, 1969.
Recognition of Competence:
In the instrument of
ratification dated March 26, 1985 and deposited with the General Secretariat
of the OAS on April 19, 1985, the Government of the Oriental Republic of
Uruguay declares that it recognizes the competence of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights for an indefinite period and of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights on all matters relating to the interpretation or
application of this Convention, on the condition of reciprocity, in accordance
with Articles 45.3 and 62.2 of the Convention.
Argentina:
(Reservation and
interpretative declarations made at the time of ratification)
The instrument of
ratification was received at the General Secretariat of the OAS on September
5, 1984, with a reservation and interpretative declarations. The
notification procedure of the reservation was taken in conformity with the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties signed on May 23, 1969.
The texts of the
above-mentioned reservation and of the interpretative declarations are the
following:
I. Reservation:
Article 21 is subject to the
following reservation: "The Argentine Government establishes that
questions relating to the Government's economic policy shall not be subject to
review by an international tribunal. Neither shall it consider
reviewable anything the national courts may determine to be matters of 'public
utility' and 'social interest', nor anything they may understand to be 'fair
compensation'."
II. Interpretative Declarations:
Article 5, paragraph 3, shall
be interpreted to mean that a punishment shall not be applied to any person
other than the criminal, that is, that there shall be no vicarious criminal
punishment.
Article 7, paragraph 7, shall
be interpreted to mean that the prohibition against "detention for debt" does
not involve prohibiting the state from basing punishment on default of certain
debts, when the
punishment is not imposed for default itself but rather for a prior
independent, illegal, punishable act.
Article 10 shall be
interpreted to mean that the "miscarriage of justice" has been established by
a national court.
Recognition of
Competence:
In the instrument of
ratification dated August 14, 1984, and deposited with the General Secretariat
of the OAS on September 5, 1984, the Government of Argentina recognizes the
competence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and on the
jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. This
recognition is for an indeterminate period and on condition of reciprocity on
all cases
related to the interpretation or application of the Convention cited, with the
partial reservation and bearing in mind the interpretative statements
contained in the instrument of ratification.
The instrument of
ratification further notes that the obligations undertaken by virtue of the
Convention shall only be effective as regards acts that have occurred after
the ratification of the above-mentioned instrument.
Barbados:
(Reservations made at the
time of ratification)
The instrument of
ratification was received at the General Secretariat of the OAS on November
5, 1981, with reservations. Notification of the reservations submitted was
given in conformity with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
signed on May 23, 1969. The twelve-month period from the notification of
said reservations expired on November 26, 1982, without any objection being
raised to the reservations.
The text of the reservations
with respect to Articles 4(4), 4(5) and 8(2) (e), is the following:
In respect of 4(4) the criminal code of Barbados
provides for death by hanging as a penalty for murder and treason. The
Government
is at present reviewing the whole matter of the death penalty which is
only rarely inflicted but wishes to enter a reservation on this point inasmuch
as treason in certain circumstances might be regarded as a
political offence and falling within the terms of section 4(4).
In respect of 4(5) while the
youth or old age of an offender may be matters which the Privy Council, the
highest Court of Appeal, might take into account in considering whether the
sentence of death should
be carried out, persons of 16 years and over or over 70 years of age may be
executed under Barbadian law.
In respect of 8(2)(e) Barbadian law does not provide as
a minimum guarantee in criminal proceeding any inalienable right to be
assisted
by counsel provided by the state. Legal aid is provided for certain
scheduled offences such as homicide, and rape.
Colombia:
Recognition of Competence:
On June 21, 1985, presented an Instrument of acceptance
by which recognizes the competence of the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights for an indefinite time, on the condition of strict reciprocity
and nonretroactivity, for the cases involving the interpretation or
application of the Convention, and reserves the right to withdraw its
recognition of competence should it deem this advisable. The same
Instrument recognizes the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, for an indefinite time, on the condition of reciprocity
and nonretroactivity, for cases involving the interpretation or application of
the Convention, and reserves the right to withdraw its recognition of
competence should it deem this advisable.
Costa
Rica:
Recognition of Competence:
Presented on July 2, 1980, at the General Secretariat
of the OAS an instrument recognizing the competence of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights and the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights, in accordance with Articles 45 and 62 of the
Convention.
(Declaration and reservations
made at the time of ratification)
1)That Costa Rica declares that it recognizes, without conditions and while the American Convention
on Human Rights remains in effect, the competence of the
Inter-American Commission to receive and examine communications in which a
State Party alleges that another State Party has committed a violation of
human rights established by the cited Convention.
2) That Costa Rica declares
that it recognizes, without conditions and while the American Convention
on Human Rights remains in effect, the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court, as
a matter of law and without a specific convention on the Inter-American Court
on Human Rights, on all cases relating to the interpretation or application
of such multilateral treaty.
El
Salvador:
(Declaration and reservations
made at the time of ratification)
The present Convention is ratified, its provisions
being
interpreted to mean that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights shall have
jurisdiction to hear any case that can be submitted to it, either by the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights or by any State Party, provided that
the State of El Salvador, as a party to the case, recognizes or has recognized
such jurisdiction, by any of the means and under the arrangements indicated in
the Convention.
The American Convention on
Human Rights, known as the "Pact of San José, Costa Rica", signed at San José,
Costa Rica, on November 22, 1969, composed of a preamble and eighty-two
articles, approved by the
Executive Branch in the Field of Foreign Affairs by Agreement 405, dated June
14 of the current year, is hereby ratified, with the reservation that such
ratification is understood without prejudice to those provisions of the
Convention that might be in conflict with express precepts of the Political
Constitution of the Republic.
The instrument of
ratification was received at the General Secretariat of the OAS on June 23,
1978, with a reservation and a declaration. The notification procedure
of the reservation was taken in conformity with the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties signed
on May 23, 1969.
Recognition of Competence
deposited on June 6, 1995 : In its instrument of recognition the Government of
El Salvador
declares:
"The Honorable Legislative Assembly of the Republic of El Salvador ratified in
Legislative Decree N0. 319 dated March 30, 1995, the the
Republic of El Salvador's Declaration on the Recognition of the
Jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in conformity
with Article 62 of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, "Pact
of San José, Costa Rica." This declaration was published in
Official
Register No. 82, Book 327, on May 5, 1995.
I.
The Government of El Salvador recognizes as binding, ipso
facto, and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in accordance with Article 62 of
the American Convention on Human Rights, "Pact of San José."
II.
The Government of El Salvador, in recognizing that
competence, expressed that its recognition is for an indefinite period
and on condition of reciprocity, and that it retains the right to
include exclusively subsequent deeds or juridical acts or deeds or
juridical acts began subsequent to the date of deposit of this
declaration of acceptance, by reserving the right to withdraw its
recognition of competence whenever it may deem it advisable to do so.
III.
The Government of El Salvador recognizes the competence of
the Court, insofar as this recognition is compatible with the
provisions in the constitution of the Republic of El Salvador.
Guatemala:
(Reservation made at the time
of ratification)
The Government of the Republic of Guatemala ratifies
the American
Convention on Human Rights, signed at San José, Costa Rica, on November
22, 1969, with a reservation as to Article 4, paragraph 4 thereof,
since the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala, in its Article 54,
only excludes the application of the death penalty to political crimes,
but not to common crimes related to political crimes.
The
instrument of ratification was received at the General
Secretariat of the OAS on May 25, 1978, with a reservation. The
notification procedure of the reservation was taken in conformity with
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties signed on May 23, 1969.
Withdrawal of Guatemala's
reservation:
The
Government of Guatemala, by Government Agreement No. 281-86,
dated May 20 1986, has withdrawn the above-mentioned reservation, which
was included in its instrument of ratification dated April 27, 1978,
considering that it is no longer supported by the Constitution in the
light of the new legal system in force. The withdrawal of the
reservation will become effective as of August 12, 1986, in conformity
with Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of
1969, in application of Article 75 of the American Convention on Human
Rights.
Recognition of Competence:
On
March 9, 1987, presented at the General Secretariat of the OAS,
the Government Agreement No. 123-87, dated February 20, 1987, of the
Republic of Guatemala, by which it recognizes the jurisdiction of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the following terms:
(Article 1) To declare that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto,
and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction
of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights on all matters
relating to
the interpretation or application of the American
Convention on
Human Rights.
(Article 2) To accept the competence of the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights for an indefinite period of time, such
competence
being general in nature, under terms of reciprocity and
with the
reservation that cases in which the competence of the
Court is
recognized are exclusively those that shall have taken
place after
the date that this declaration is presented to the
Secretary
General of the Organization of American States.
Honduras:
Recognition of Competence:
Presented on September 9, 1981, at the General Secretariat of the
OAS, an instrument recognizing the jurisdiction of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention.
Jamaica:
Recognition of Competence:
At the time of depositing the instrument of ratification, on August 7, 1978, Jamaica recognizes the competence with respect to the American Commission of Human Rights.
In the instrument of ratification, dated July 19, 1978, it is stated, in accordance with Article 45, numeral 1, of the Convention itself, that the Government of Jamaica recognizes the competence of the Commission.
Mexico:
DECLARATION FOR RECOGNITION
OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
1.
The United States of Mexico recognizes as binding ipso facto the adjudicatory
jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on matters relating to
the interpretation or application of the American Convention on Human Rights,
in accordance with article 62.1 of the same, with the exception of cases
derived from application of article 33 of the Political Constitution of the
United States of Mexico.
2.
Acceptance of the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of
Human
Rights shall only be applicable to facts or juridical acts subsequent to the date of deposit of
this
declaration, and shall not therefore apply retroactively.
3.
Acceptance of the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of
Human
Rights is of a general nature and shall continue in force for one year after the date on which the
United
States of Mexico gives notice that it has denounced it.
(Declarations and reservation
made at the time of ratification)
The
instrument of accession was received at the General Secretariat of the OAS
on March 24, 1981, with two interpretative declarations and one reservation.
Notification of the reservation submitted was given in conformity with the
provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, signed on May
23, 1969. The
twelve-month period from the notification of said reservation expired on April
2, 1982, without any objection being raised to the
reservation.
The texts of the
interpretative declarations and the
reservation are the following:
Interpretative Declarations:
With
respect to Article 4, paragraph 1, the Government of Mexico considers that
the expression "in general" does not constitute an
obligation to adopt or keep in force legislation to protect life "from
the moment of conception", since this matter falls within the domain reserved
to the States.
Furthermore, the Government of Mexico believes that the limitation
established by the Mexican Constitution to the effect that all public acts
of religious worship must be performed inside places of public
worship, conforms to the limitations set forth in Article 12, paragraph 3.
Reservation:
The
Government of Mexico makes express reservation to Article 23,
paragraph 2, since the Mexican Constitution provides, in Article 130,
that ministers of denominations shall not have an active or passive
vote, nor the right to associate for political purposes.
On April 9, 2002, the Government of Mexico notified
the General Secretariat
of its intention to partially withdraw its interpretative declarations and
reservation, which now read as follows:
Interpretative declaration
With respect to Article 4, paragraph 1, the
Government of Mexico considers
that the expression "in general" used in that paragraph does not constitute
an obligation to adopt, or keep in force, legislation to protect life "from
the moment of conception," since this matter falls within the domain reserved
to the States.
Reservation
The Government of Mexico makes express reservation to
Article 23, paragraph 2,
since the Mexican Constitution provides, in Article 130, that ministers of
denominations shall not have a passive vote, nor the right to associate for
political purposes.
On July 11, 2014, the General Secretariat acknowledged receipt of a
letter by Government of the United States of Mexico notifying the
depositary the
withdrawal of the reservation to the final wording of the first of three
paragraphs submitted with the "Declaration for recognition of the
jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”.
Nicaragua:
Recognition of Competence:
On
February 12, 1991, presented at the General Secretariat of the
OAS, an instrument dated January 15, 1991, by which the Government of
Nicaragua declares:
I.
The Government of Nicaragua recognizes as binding as of right
with no special convention the competence of the
Inter-American
Court of Human Rights in all cases involving
interpretation and
application of the Inter-American Convention on Human
Rights,
"Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica," by virtue of Article
62(1)
thereof.
II.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Government of Nicaragua
states for the record that its acceptance of the
competence of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights is given for an
indefinite
period, is general in character and grounded in
reciprocity, and
is subject to the reservations that this recognition of
competence
applies only to cases arising solely out of events
subsequent to,
and out of acts which began to be committed after, the
date of
deposit of this declaration with the Secretary General
of the
Organization of American States.
On February 6, 2006, Nicaragua
delivered a note to the General Secretariat
in which it reported that the
Government of the Republic of Nicaragua
had added a third paragraph to the
Declaration No. 49 of January 15, 1991
regarding the American Convention
on Human Rights, in which it declares
that it recognizes the competence
of the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights to receive and
examine communications in which
a State Party alleges that another
State Party has committed a violation
of a human right set forth in the
Convention.
Panama:
Recongnition of Competence:
On
May 9, 1990, presented at the General Secretariat of the OAS,
an instrument, dated February 20, 1990, by which it declares that the
Government of the Republic of Panama recognizes as binding, ipso facto,
the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the
interpretation or application of the American Convention on Human
Rights.
Peru:
Recognition of Competence:
Presented on January 21, 1981, at the General Secretariat of the
OAS an instrument recognizing the competence of the Inter- American
Commission on Human Rights and the jurisdiction of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights, in accordance with Articles 45 and 62 of the
Convention.
Withdrawl of
Declaration/Reservation: 07/09/99
Withdrawl of Denunciation:
01/31/01
Suriname:
Adhesion.
Recognition of Competence:
On
November 12, 1987, presented at the General Secretariat of the
OAS, an instrument recognizing the jurisdiction of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention.
Venezuela:
(Reservation and declaration made at the time of ratification)
Article 60, paragraph 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Venezuela establishes that: No one may be convicted in a criminal
trial without first having been personally notified of the charges and
heard in the manner prescribed by law. Persons accused of an offense
against the res publica may be tried in absentia, with the guarantees
and in the manner prescribed by law. Such a possibility is not
provided for in Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Convention, and for this
reason Venezuela formulates the corresponding reservation, and,
DECLARES: That, in accordance with the provisions of Article 45,
paragraph 1 of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of
Venezuela recognizes the competence of the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights to receive and examine communications in which a State
Party alleges that another State Party has committed violations of
human rights set forth in that Convention, in the terms stipulated in
paragraph 2 of that article. This recognition of competence is made
for an indefinite period of time.
The
instrument of ratification was received at the General
Secretariat of the OAS on August 9, 1977 with a reservation and a
declaration. The notification procedure of the reservation was taken
in conformity with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties signed
on May 23, 1969.
Recognition of Competence:
On
August 9, 1977 recognized the competence of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights and on June 24, 1981 recognized the
jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in accordance
with Articles 45 and 62 of the Convention, respectively.
DENUNCIATION
Pursuant to
article 78 of the American Convention on Human Rights, “States Parties may
denounce this Convention at the expiration of a five-year period from the
date of its entry into force and by means of notice given one year in
advance. Notice of the denunciation shall be addressed to the Secretary
General of the Organization, who shall inform the other States Parties”.
Similarly, that article states that “such a denunciation shall not have the
effect of releasing the State Party concerned from the obligations contained
in this Convention with respect to any act that may constitute a violation
of those obligations and that has been taken by that state prior to the
effective date of denunciation”.
*-The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela manifested its decision to denounce
the American Convention on Human Rights on September 10, 2012
Text of the communication:
http://www.oas.org/DIL/Nota_República_Bolivariana_Venezuela_to_SG.English.pdf
On July 31, 2019, the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela deposited the
instrument of ratification to the Inter-American Convention on Human
Rights , at the OAS headquarters, in Washington, D.C. United States.
Trinidad and Tobago:
(Reservations made at the time of adhesion)
1.
As regards Article 4(5) of the Convention the Government of
the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago makes a reservation in that under
the laws of Trinidad and Tobago there is no prohibition against the
carrying out a sentence of death on a person over seventy (70) years
of age.
Recongnition of Competence:
2.
As regards Article 62 of the Convention, the Government of
the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago recognizes the compulsory
jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights as stated in
said article only to such extent that recognition is consistent with
the relevant sections of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad
and Tobago; and provided that any judgment of the court does not
infringe, create or abolish any existing rights or duties of any
private citizen.
DENUNCIATIONS
Pursuant to article 78 of the
American Convention on Human Rights, The
States Parties may denounce this Convention at the expiration of the five-
year period from the date of its entry into force and by means of notice
given one year in advance. Notice of the denunciation shall be addressed
to the Secretary General of the Organization, who shall inform the other
States Parties.
Similarly, that article
states that Such a denunciation shall not have
the effect of releasing the State Party concerned from the obligations
contained in this Convention with respect to any act that may constitute a
violation of those obligations and that has been taken by that state prior
to the effective date of denunciation .
1. Trinidad and Tobago
Denunciation notified May
26, 1998
Text of the
denunciation:
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN
AFFAIRS
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
His Excellency Cesar Gaviria Trujillo
Secretary General
Organization of American States
Washington D.C.
26 May, 1998
Excellency,
NOTICE TO DENOUNCE THE
AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
By its decision in Pratt and
Morgan v. Attorney General for Jamaica (2.A.C.1,
1994) the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council decided that strict guidelines must be observed
by states in the hearing
and determination of appeals from convicted murderers who have been condemned
to death. In any case
in which execution was to take place more than five years after the sentence
of death there would be
strong grounds for believing that the delay was such as to constitute "inhuman
or degrading punishment
or other treatment". A State that wished to retain capital punishment
must
accept the responsibility of
ensuring that execution followed as swiftly as practicable after sentence,
allowing a reasonable time for
appeal and consideration of reprieve. Capital appeals must be expedited.
The
aim should be to hear
capital appeals within twelve months of conviction. It should be possible to
complete the entire domestic
appeal process (including an appeal to the Privy Council) within approximately
two years. It should be
possible for the International Human Rights bodies, such as the United Nations
Humans Rights
Committee and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, to dispose of
complaints to them in
death penalty cases at most within eighteen months.
The effect of the decision of
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in
the case of Pratt and Morgan
is that, notwithstanding the fact that the death penalty is the punishment for
the crime of murder in
Trinidad and Tobago, inordinate delay in carrying out the death penalty
constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment and is accordingly a contravention of section 5(2)(b) of the
Constitution of Trinidad and
Tobago. As the Court's ruling represents the constitutional standard for
Trinidad and Tobago, the
Government is mandated to ensure that the appellate process is expedited by
the elimination of delays
within the system in order that capital sentences imposed in accordance with
the laws of Trinidad and
Tobago can be enforced.
In the circumstances, and
wishing to uphold its domestic law to subject no one
to inhuman or degrading
punishment or treatment and thereby to observe its obligations under article 5
of the American
Convention on Human Rights, the Attorney General and Minister of Foreign
Affairs, as representatives of
the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, met with the Assistant
Secretary-General of the Organization of
American States and with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
The
Attorney General and
the Minister of Foreign Affairs presented to the Commission its case detailing
the problems facing
Trinidad and Tobago in complying with the timeframes laid down by the Judicial
Committee of the Privy
Council for the consideration of petitions by the International Human Rights
Bodies in capital cases. The
Attorney General sought the cooperation of the Commission in implementing the
relevant timeframes for
completion of the consideration of petitions to the Commission in capital
cases so that the mandatory
sentence of death for convicted murderers can be carried into effect.
The
Commission indicated that
whilst it was sympathetic to the problem facing Trinidad and Tobago, the
Commission had its own
established procedures for the termination of Petitions. Accordingly for
reasons which the Government
of Trinidad and Tobago respects, the Commission was unable to give any
assurances that capital cases
would be completed within the timeframe sought.
The Government of Trinidad
and Tobago is unable to allow the inability of the
Commission to deal with
applications in respect of capital cases expeditiously to frustrate the
implementation of the lawful penalty
for the crime of murder in Trinidad and Tobago. Persons convicted and
sentenced to death after due
process of law can have the constitutionality of their death sentence
determined before the Courts of
Trinidad and Tobago. Sufficient safeguards therefore exist for the
protection
of the human and
fundamental rights of condemned prisoners.
According, the Government of
Trinidad and Tobago pursuant to article 78 of the
American Convention
on Human rights, hereby gives notice to the Secretary-General of the
Organization of American States of
the withdrawal of its ratification of the said American Convention on Human
Rights.
Please accept, Excellency,
the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
Ralph Maraj
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Brazil:
(Interpretative declaration made at the time of adhesion)
The
Government of Brazil understands that Articles 43 and 48, (D)
do not include the automatic right of on site visits and inspections
by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, which will depend on
the express consent of the State.
Reconocimiento de Competencia.-
"The Government of the
Federative Republic of Brazil declares its recognition
as binding,
for an indefinite period of time, ipso jure, of the jurisdiction of the
Inter-American Court of Human
Rights on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of the
American Convention on
Human Rights, according to Article 62 of that Convention, on the condition of
reciprocity, and for
matters arising after the time of this declaration."
(Date: December 10, 1998
Paraguay:
Recognition of competence
The
aforementioned instrument of the Government of Paraguay
states:
I.
That, by virtue of the enactment of Decree No. 16,078 of
January 8, 1993, which recognizes the competence of the
Inter-
American Court of Human Rights for the interpretation and
application of the American Convention on Human
Rights or Pact of
San Jose, Costa Rica.
II.
This recognition is for an indefinite period, and should be
interpreted in keeping with the guiding principles of
international law, in the sense that this recognition
pertains
expressly to events occurring after this declaration
and only on
the condition of reciprocity.
Dominica:
(Reservation made at the time of ratification)
In
the instrument of ratification, the Government of the
Commonwealth of Dominica presented the following reservations
concerning the American Convention on Human Rights.
Whereas the American Convention on Human Rights was
opened for
signature and ratification by or adherence of any member state of the
Organisation of American States:
And
Whereas ratification of or adherence to the Convention shall
be made by the deposit of an instrument of ratification or adherence
with the General Secretariat of the Organisation of American States.
And
Whereas Article 75 of the said Convention provides that the
Convention shall be subject to reservations only in conformity with the
provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties signed on
May 23, 1969.
Now
Therefore the Commonwealth of Dominica hereby ratifies the
American Convention on Human Rights subject to the following
reservations:
1)
Article 5. This should not be read as prohibiting corporal
punishment
administered in accordance with the Corporal
Punishment Act of
Dominica or the Juvenile Offenders
Punishment Act.
2)
Article 4.4. Reservation is made in respect of the words "or
related common
crimes".
3)
Article 8.2.(e) This Article shall not apply in
respect
of Dominica.
4)
Article 21.2. This must be
interpreted in the light of
the provisions of
the Constitution of Dominica and is not to
be deemed to extend
or limit the rights declared in the
Constitution.
5)
Article 27.1. This must also be read
in the light of
our Constitution
and is not to be deemed to extend or limit
the rights declared
by the Constitution.
6)
Article 62. The Commonwealth of Dominica does not recognize
the jurisdiction of
the Court.
Bolivia:
Recognition of competence:
On July 27, 1993, presented at the General Secretariat of
the OAS an instrument recognizing the jurisdiction of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in
accordance with Articles 45 and 62 of the Convention.
The
Government of Bolivia declares in that instrument:
I.
The Constitutional Government of the Republic, under Article
59, paragraph 12, of the State Constitutional, by Law
1430 of
February 11, approved and ratified the American
Convention on
Human Rights "Pact of San Jose", signed at San Jose,
Costa Rica,
on November 22, 1969, and recognized the competence of
the Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights, under Articles 45 and 62 of the
Convention.
II.
By virtue of the power vested in me under Article 96,
paragraph 2, Constitution of the State, I issue this
instrument
ratifying the American Convention on Human Rights "Pact
of San
Jose", recognizing the competence of the Inter-American
Commission
on Human Rights, and recognizing as binding, ipso
facto,
unconditionally and indefinitely the jurisdiction of
the Inter-
American Court of Human Rights, under Article 62 of the
Convention.
The
Government of Bolivia in letter OAS/262/93, of July 22, 1993,
made an interpretative declaration at the time of deposit of the
instrument of recognition of the competence of the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights. The text of the declaration is as follows:
"The
Government of Bolivia declares that the norms of
unconditionally and indeterminacy shall apply with
strict
observance to the Constitution of Bolivia, especially
with respect
to the principles of reciprocity, non retroactivity and
judicial
autonomy."
Haiti
Recognition of Competence
DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION
OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
BY THE REPUBLIC OF HAITI
WE,
RENE PREVAL,
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF HAITI,
Having seen the Constitution
of the Republic of 1987; and
Having seen the law dated
August 18, 1979, whereby the Republic of
Haiti ratified the American Convention on Human Rights,
Hereby declare that we
recognize as binding, ipso facto, and not
requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights on all matters relating to the interpretation or
application of the Convention. This declaration has been issued for
presentation to the General Secretariat of the Organization of American
States, which shall transmit copies thereof to the other member states
of the Organization and to the Secretary of the Court, pursuant to
Article 62 of the Convention.
Attached to the present
declaration is the law of August 18, 1979,
whereby the Republic of Haiti ratified the American Convention on Human
Rights, which was promulgated in the Official Journal of the Republic.
Done in the National Palace,
in Port-au-Prince, on March 3, 1998, the
195th year of independence.
(signed)
René Préval
President of the Republic of Haiti
(signed)
Minister of Foreign Affairs
