International Covenant On Civil and Political Rights

1/17/2016
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a
multilateral treaty adopted by theUnited

Nations General Assembly on 16
December 1966, and in force from 23
March 1976. It commits its parties to
respect the civil and political rights of
individuals, including the right to
life, freedom of religion, freedom of
speech, freedom of assembly, electoral
rights and rights to due process and a
fair trial. As of April 2014, the Covenant
has 74 signatories and 168 parties.[1]
The ICCPR is part of the International
Parties and signatories of the ICCPR

State party
Signatory that has not ratified
State party which attempted to withdraw (see below)
Non-state party, non-signatory
Bill of Human Rights, along with
Type
United Nations General Assembly Resolution
the International Covenant on
Drafted
1954
Signed
16 December 1966[1]
Location
United Nations Headquarters, New York
Effective
23 March 1976[1]
The ICCPR is monitored by the United
Signatories
74[1]
Nations Human Rights Committee (a
Parties
168[1]
separate body to the United Nations
Depositary
Secretary General of the United Nations
Human Rights Council), which reviews
Languages
French, English, Russian, Chinese, Spanish
Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).[2]
regular reports of States parties on how

the rights are being implemented.
Wikisource
States must report initially one year

after acceding to the Covenant and
then whenever the Committee requests (usually every four years). The Committee normally meets in
Geneva and normally holds three sessions per year.
Contents [hide]
1Genesis
2Summary
3Core provisions
3.1Rights to physical integrity
3.2Liberty and security of person
3.3Procedural fairness and rights of the accused
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights
1/15
1/17/2016
3.4Individual liberties
3.5Political rights
4Optional protocols
5Reservations
6National implementation and effects
6.1Australia
6.2Ireland
6.3New Zealand
6.4United States
6.4.1Reservations, understandings, and declarations
6.4.2Constitutionality
6.4.3Non-compliance
7Parties to the Covenant
8States not party to the Covenant
8.1Signatories that have not ratified
8.2States which are neither signatories nor parties
9Notes
10UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 34 on Freedom of Opinion and Expression
11See also
12References
13External links
Genesis
[ edit ]
The ICCPR has its roots in the same process that led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A
"Declaration on the Essential Rights of Man" had been proposed at the 1945 San Francisco
Conferencewhich led to the founding of the United Nations, and the Economic and Social Council was given
the task of drafting it.[2] Early on in the process, the document was split into a declaration setting forth
general principles of human rights, and a convention or covenant containing binding commitments. The
former evolved into the UDHR and was adopted on 10 December 1948.[2]
The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration
ofNon-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination,
and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.[3]
Drafting continued on the convention, but there remained significant differences between UN members on
the relative importance of negative Civil and Political versus positive Economic, Social and Cultural
rights.[4] These eventually caused the convention to be split into two separate covenants, "one to contain
civil and political rights and the other to contain economic, social and cultural rights."[5] The two covenants
were to contain as many similar provisions as possible, and be opened for signature simultaneously.[5] Each
would also contain an article on the right of all peoples to self-determination.[6]
The first document became the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the
second the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The drafts were presented to the UN
2/15
1/17/2016
General Assembly for discussion in 1954, and adopted in 1966.[7] As a result of diplomatic negotiations the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was adopted shortly before the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Summary
[ edit ]
The Covenant follows the structure of the UDHR and ICESCR, with a preamble and fifty-three articles,
divided into six parts.[8]
Part 1 (Article 1) recognizes the right of all peoples toself-determination, including the right to "freely
determine their political status",[9] pursue their economic, social and cultural goals, and manage and
dispose of their own resources. It recognises anegative right of a people not to be deprived of its means of
subsistence,[10] and imposes an obligation on those parties still responsible for non-self governing and trust
territories (colonies) to encourage and respect their self-determination.[11]
Part 2 (Articles 2 5) obliges parties to legislate where necessary to give effect to the rights recognised in
the Covenant, and to provide an effective legal remedy for any violation of those rights.[12] It also requires
the rights be recognised "without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,"[13] and to ensure that they
are enjoyed equally by women.[14] The rights can only be limited "in time of public emergency which
threatens the life of the nation,"[15] and even then no derogation is permitted from the rights to life, freedom
from torture and slavery, the freedom fromretrospective law, the right to personhood, andfreedom of
thought, conscience and religion.[16]
Part 3 (Articles 6 27) lists the rights themselves. These include rights to
physical integrity, in the form of the right to life and freedom from torture and slavery (Articles 6, 7, and
8);
liberty and security of the person, in the form of freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and the
right to habeas corpus (Articles 9 11);
procedural fairness in law, in the form of rights to due process, a fair and impartial trial, thepresumption
of innocence, and recognition as a person before the law (Articles 14, 15, and 16);
individual liberty, in the form of the freedoms of movement, thought, conscience and religion, speech,
association and assembly, family rights, the right to a nationality, and the right to privacy(Articles 12, 13,
17 24);
prohibition of any propaganda for war as well as any advocacy of national or religious hatred that
constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence by law (Article 20);
political participation, including the right to the right to vote (Article 25);
Non-discrimination, minority rights and equality before the law (Articles 26 and 27).
Many of these rights include specific actions which must be undertaken to realise them.
Part 4 (Articles 28 45) governs the establishment and operation of the Human Rights Committee and the
reporting and monitoring of the Covenant. It also allows parties to recognise the competence of the
Committee to resolve disputes between parties on the implementation of the Covenant (Articles 41 and 42).
3/15
1/17/2016
Part 5 (Articles 46 47) clarifies that the Covenant shall not be interpreted as interfering with the operation
of the United Nations or "the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural
wealth and resources".[17]
Part 6 (Articles 48 53) governs ratification, entry into force, and amendment of the Covenant.
Core provisions
[ edit ]
Rights to physical integrity
[ edit ]
Main articles: Right to life, Torture and Slavery

Article 6 of the Covenant recognises the individual's "inherent right to life" and requires it to be protected
by law.[18] It is a "supreme right" from which no derogation can be permitted, and must be interpreted
widely.[19] It therefore requires parties to take positive measures to reduce infant mortality and increase life
expectancy, as well as forbidding arbitrary killings by security forces.[19]
While Article 6 does not prohibit the death penalty, it restricts its application to the "most serious
crimes"[20]and forbids it to be used on children and pregnant women[21] or in a manner contrary to
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[22] The UN Human Rights
Committee interprets the Article as "strongly suggest[ing] that abolition is desirable",[19] and regards any
progress towards abolition of the death penalty as advancing this right.[19] The Second Optional
Protocol commits its signatories to the abolition of the death penalty within their borders.
Article 7 prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.[23] As with Article 6, it cannot be
derogated from under any circumstances.[16] The article is now interpreted to impose similar obligations to
those required by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, including not just prohibition of torture,
but active measures to prevent its use and a prohibition on refoulement.[24] In response to Nazi human
experimentation during WW2 this article explicitly includes a prohibition on medical and scientific
experimentation without consent.[23]
Article 8 prohibits slavery and enforced servitude in all situations.[25] The article also prohibits forced
labour, with exceptions for criminal punishment, military service and civil obligations.[26]
Liberty and security of person
[ edit ]
Main article: Habeas corpus

Article 9 recognises the rights to liberty and security of the person. It prohibits arbitrary arrest and
detention, requires any deprivation of liberty to be according to law,[27] and obliges parties to allow those
deprived of their liberty to challenge their imprisonment through the courts.[28] These provisions apply not
just to those imprisoned as part of the criminal process, but also to those detained due to mental illness,
drug addiction, or for educational or immigration purposes.[29]
Articles 9.3 and 9.4 impose procedural safeguards around arrest, requiring anyone arrested to be
promptly informed of the charges against them, and to be brought promptly before a judge.[30] It also
restricts the use of pre-trial detention,[31] requiring it to be imposed only in exceptional circumstances and
for as short a period of time as possible.[29]
4/15
1/17/2016
Article 10 requires anyone deprived of liberty to be treated with dignity and humanity.[32] This applies not
just to prisoners, but also to those detained for immigration purposes or psychiatric care.[33] The right
complements the Article 7 prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.[33] The article
also imposes specific obligations around criminal justice, requiring prisoners in pretrial detention to be
separated from convicted prisoners, and children to be separated from adults.[34] It requires prisons to be
focused on reform and rehabilitation rather than punishment.[35]
Article 11 prohibits the use of imprisonment as a punishment for breach of contract.[36]
Procedural fairness and rights of the accused
[ edit ]
Main articles: Rights of the accused and Right to a fair trial

Article 14 recognizes and protects a right to justice and a fair trial. Article 14.1 establishes the ground
rules: everyone must be equal before the courts, and any hearing must take place in open court before a
competent, independent and impartial tribunal, with any judgment or ruling made public.[37] Closed hearings
are only permitted for reasons of privacy, justice, or national security, and judgments may only be
suppressed in divorce cases or to protect the interests of children.[37] These obligations apply to both
criminal and civil hearings, and to all courts and tribunals.[38]
The rest of the article imposes specific and detailed obligations around the process of criminal trials in
order to protect the rights of the accused and the right to a fair trial. It establishes the Presumption of
innocence[39] and forbids double jeopardy.[40] It requires that those convicted of a crime be allowed to
appeal to a higher tribunal,[41] and requires victims of a Miscarriage of justice to be compensated.[42] It
establishes rights to a speedy trial, to counsel, againstself-incrimination, and for the accused to be present
and call and examine witnesses.[43]
Article 15 prohibits prosecutions under Ex post facto law and the imposition of retrospective criminal
penalties, and requires the imposition of the lesser penalty where criminal sentences have changed
between the offence and conviction.[44] But except the criminal according to general principles of
lawrecognized by international community.[45] (jus cogens)
Article 16 requires states to recognize everyone as a person before the law.[46]
Individual liberties
[ edit ]
Main articles: Freedom of movement, Freedom of religion, Freedom of thought, Freedom of

speech,Freedom of assembly and Freedom of association
Article 12 guarantees freedom of movement, including the right of persons to choose their residence and
to leave a country.[47] These rights apply to legal aliens as well as citizens of a state,[48]and can be
restricted only where necessary to protect national security, public order or health, and the rights and
freedoms of others.[49] The article also recognises a right of people to enter their own country.[50] The
Human Rights Committee interprets this right broadly as applying not just to citizens, but also to those
stripped of or denied their nationality.[48] They also regard it as near-absolute; "there are few, if any,
circumstances in which deprivation of the right to enter one's own country could be reasonable".[48]
Article 13 forbids the arbitrary expulsion of resident aliens and requires such decisions to be able to be
5/15
1/17/2016
appealed and reviewed.[51]

Article 17 mandates the right of privacy.[52] This provision, specifically article 17(1), protects private adult
consensual sexual activity, thereby nullifying prohibitions on homosexual behaviour,[53] however, the
wording of this covenant's marriage right (Article 23) excludes the extrapolation of a same-sex marriage
right from this provision.[54] Article 17 also protects people against unlawful attacks to their honor and
reputation. Article 17 (2) grants the protection of the Law against such attacks[52]
Article 18 mandates freedom of religion.[55]
Article 19 mandates freedom of expression.[56]
Article 20 mandates sanctions against inciting hatred.[57]
Articles 21 and 22 mandate freedom of association. These provisions guarantee the right to freedom of
association, the right to trade unions and also defines the International Labour Organisation.[58][59]
Article 23 mandates the right of marriage.[60] The wording of this provision neither requires nor
prohibitssame-sex marriage.[61]
Article 24 mandates special protection, the right to a name, and the right to a nationality for every child.[62]
Article 27 mandates the rights of ethnic, religious andlinguistic minority to enjoy their own culture, to
profess their own religion, and to use their own language.[63]
Political rights
[ edit ]
Article 3 provides an accessory non-discrimination principle. Accessory in the way that it cannot be used
independently and can only be relied upon in relation to another right protected by the ICCPR.
In contrast, Article 26 contains a revolutionary norm by providing an autonomous equality principle which is
not dependent upon another right under the convention being infringed. This has the effect of widening the
scope of the non-discrimination principle beyond the scope of ICCPR.
Optional protocols
[ edit ]
There are two Optional Protocols to the Covenant. The First Optional Protocol establishes an individual
complaints mechanism, allowing individuals to complain to the Human Rights Committee about violations of
the Covenant.[64] This has led to the creation of a complex jurisprudence on the interpretation and
implementation of the Covenant. As of July 2013, the First Optional Protocol has 114 parties.[65]
The Second Optional Protocol abolishes the death penalty; however, countries were permitted to make a
reservation allowing for use of death penalty for the most serious crimes of a military nature, committed
during wartime.[66] As of July 2013, the Second Optional Protocol had 77 parties.[67]
Reservations
[ edit ]
This section requires expansion.

(June 2010)
A number of parties have made reservations and interpretative declarations to their application of the
6/15
1/17/2016
Covenant.
Argentina will apply the fair trial rights guaranteed in its constitution to the prosecution of those accused of
violating the general law of nations.[1]
Australia reserves the right to progressively implement the prison standards of Article 10, to compensate
for miscarriages of justice by administrative means rather than through the courts, and interprets the
prohibition on racial incitement as being subject to the freedoms of expression, association and assembly. It
also declares that its implementation will be effected at each level of its federal system.[1]
Austria reserves the right to continue to exile members of the House of Habsburg, and limits the rights of
the accused and the right to a fair trial to those already existing in its legal system.[1]
Bahamas, due to problems with implementation, reserves the right not to compensate for miscarriages of
justice.[1]
Bahrain interprets Articles 3 (no sexual discrimination), 18 (freedom of religion) and 23 (family rights) within
the context of Islamic Sharia law.[1]
Bangladesh reserves the right to try people in absentia where they are fugitives from justice and declares
that resource constraints mean that it cannot necessarily segregate prisons or provide counsel for accused
persons.[1]
Barbados reserves the right not to provide free counsel for accused persons due to resource
constraints.[1]
Belgium interprets the freedoms of speech, assembly and association in a manner consistent with
theEuropean Convention on Human Rights. It does not consider itself obliged to ban war propaganda as
required by Article 20, and interprets that article in light of the freedom of expression in the UDHR.[1]
Belize reserves the right not to compensate for miscarriages of justice, due to problems with
implementation, and does not plan to provide free legal counsel for the same reasons as above. It also
refuses to ensure the right to free travel at any time, due to a law requiring those travelling abroad to
provide tax clearance certificates.[1]
Congo, as per the Congolese Code of Civil, Commercial, Administrative and Financial Procedure, in
matters of private law, decisions or orders emanating from conciliation proceedings may be enforced
through imprisonment for debt.[1]
Denmark reserves the right to exclude the press and the public from trials as per its own laws. Reservation
is further made to Article 20, paragraph 1. This reservation is in accordance with the vote cast by Denmark
in the XVI General Assembly of the United Nations in 1961 when the Danish Delegation, referring to the
preceding article concerning freedom of expression, voted against the prohibition against propaganda for
war.[1]
Gambia, as per its constitution, will provide free legal assistance for accused persons charged with capital
offences only.[1]
The United States has made reservations that none of the articles should restrict the right of free
speechand association; that the US government may impose capital punishment on any person other than
7/15
1/17/2016
a pregnant woman, including persons below the age of 18; that "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment" refers to those treatments or punishments prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth
Amendments to the US Constitution; that Paragraph 1, Article 15 will not apply; and that, notwithstanding
paragraphs 2(b) and 3 of Article 10 and paragraph 4 of Article 14, the US government may treat juveniles
as adults, and accept volunteers to the military prior to the age of 18. The United States also submitted five
"understandings", and four "declarations".[68]
National implementation and effects
[ edit ]
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has 167 states parties, 67 by signature and
ratification, and the remainder by accession or succession. Another five states have signed but have yet to
ratify the treaty.[1]
Australia
[ edit ]
The Covenant is not directly enforceable in Australia, however its provisions support a number of domestic
laws which confer enforceable rights on individuals. For example, Article 17 of the Convention has been
implemented by the Australian Privacy Act 1988 . Likewise, the Covenants equality and anti-discrimination
provisions support the federal Disability Discrimination Act 1992 . Finally, the Covenant is one of the major
sources of 'human rights' listed in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.[69]This law requires
most new legislation and administrative instruments (e.g. delegated/subordinate legislation) to be tabled in
parliament with a statement outlining the proposed law's compatibility with the listed human rights[70] A Joint
Committee on Human Rights scrutinises all new legislation and statements of compatibility.[71] The findings
of the Joint Committee are not legally binding.
Legislation also exists which establishes the Australian Human Rights Commission
theAustralian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to examine enacted
[72]
legislation[73]
which allows
(to suggest remedial
enactments[74]), its administration[75] (to suggest avoidance of practices[76]) and general compliance[77]with
the covenant which is schedule to the AHRC legislation.[78]
In Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory the Convention can be used by a plaintiff or defendant who
invokes those jurisdiction's human rights charters .[79] While the Convention cannot be used to overturn a
Victorian or ACT law, a Court can issue a 'declaration of incompatibility' which requires the relevant
Attorney-General to respond in Parliament within a set time period.[81] Courts in Victoria and the ACT are
also directed by the legislation to interpret the law in such a way as to give effect to a human right,[80]and
new legislation and subordinate legislation must be accompanied by a statement of compatibility.[82]Efforts
to implement a similar Charter at the National level have been frustrated and Australia's Constitution may
prevent conferring the 'declaration' power on federal judges.[83]
Ireland
[ edit ]
Ireland's use of Special Criminal Courts where juries are replaced by judges and other special procedures
apply has been found to not violate the treaty: "In the Committee's view, trial before courts other than the
ordinary courts is not necessarily, per se, a violation of the entitlement to a fair hearing and the facts of the
present case do not show that there has been such a violation.".[84]
8/15
1/17/2016
New Zealand
[ edit ]
While New Zealand has not incorporated the ICCPR into law, it took measures to give effect to many of the
rights contained within it by passing the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in 1990.
United States
[ edit ]
Reservations, understandings, and declarations [ edit ]

The United States Senate ratified the ICCPR in 1992, with five reservations, five understandings, and four
declarations.[68] Some have noted that with so many reservations, its implementation has little domestic
effect.[85] Included in the Senate's ratification was the declaration that "the provisions of Article 1 through 27
of the Covenant are not self-executing",[86] and in aSenate Executive Report stated that the declaration was
meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."[87]
Where a treaty or covenant is not self-executing, and where Congress has not acted to implement the
agreement with legislation, no private right of action within the U.S. judicial system is created by
ratification.[88] However, the U.S. Federal Government has held that the ICCPR treaty was only ratified
"after" it was determined that all the necessary legislation was in place to provide for domestic effect of law,
thereby making the ICCPR treaty self-executing by definition. See all four reports by U.S. to U.N. regarding
the ICCPR treaty. It is also important to emphasize that the "self-executing" statement was a declaration and
the Courts have held that declarations have NO effect upon treaty law and the rights of citizens.
As a reservation that is "incompatible with the object and purpose" of a treaty is void as a matter of
theVienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and international law,[89] there is some issue as to whether
the non-self-execution declaration is even legal under domestic law.[90]
Prominent critics in the human rights community, such as Prof. Louis Henkin[91] (non-self-execution
declaration incompatible with the Supremacy Clause) and Prof. Jordan Paust[92] ("Rarely has a treaty been
so abused") have denounced the United States' ratification subject to the non-self-execution declaration as
a blatant fraud upon the international community, especially in light of its subsequent failure to conform
domestic law to the minimum human rights standards as established in the Covenant and in theUniversal
Declaration of Human Rights over the last thirty years.
Constitutionality [ edit ]
It has been argued that Article 20(2) of the ICCPR, as well as Article 4 of the ICERD, may be
unconstitutional according to Supreme Court precedent, which is the reason behind the Senate
reservations.[93]
Non-compliance
[ edit ]
In 1994, the United Nations' Human Rights Committeeexpressed concerns with compliance:[94]
Of particular concern are widely formulated reservations which essentially render ineffective all
Covenant rights which would require any change in national law to ensure compliance with
Covenant obligations. No real international rights or obligations have thus been accepted. And
9/15
1/17/2016
when there is an absence of provisions to ensure that Covenant rights may be sued on in
domestic courts, and, further, a failure to allow individual complaints to be brought to the
Committee under the first Optional Protocol, all the essential elements of the Covenant
guarantees have been removed.
Indeed, the United States has not accepted a single international obligation required under the Covenant. It
has not changed its domestic law to conform with the strictures of the Covenant.[95] Its citizens are not
permitted to sue to enforce their basic human rights under the Covenant.[95] It has not ratified the Optional
Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT). As such, the Covenant has been rendered
ineffective, with the bone of contention being United States officials' insistence upon preserving a vast web
ofsovereign, judicial, prosecutorial, and executive branch immunities that often deprives its citizens of the
"effective remedy" under law the Covenant is intended to guarantee.
In 2006, the Human Rights Committee expressed concern over what it interprets as material noncompliance, exhorting the United States to take immediate corrective action:[96]
The Committee notes with concern the restrictive interpretation made by the State party of its
obligations under the Covenant, as a result in particular of (a) its position that the Covenant
does not apply with respect to individuals under its jurisdiction but outside its territory, nor in
time of war, despite the contrary opinions and established jurisprudence of the Committee and
the International Court of Justice; (b) its failure to take fully into consideration its obligation
under the Covenant not only to respect, but also to ensure the rights prescribed by the
Covenant; and (c) its restrictive approach to some substantive provisions of the Covenant,
which is not in conformity with the interpretation made by the Committee before and after the
State partys ratification of the Covenant.
The State party should review its approach and interpret the Covenant in good faith, in
accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context, including
subsequent practice, and in the light of its object and purpose. The State party should in
particular (a) acknowledge the applicability of the Covenant with respect to individuals under its
jurisdiction but outside its territory, as well as its applicability in time of war; (b) take positive
steps, when necessary, to ensure the full implementation of all rights prescribed by the
Covenant; and (c) consider in good faith the interpretation of the Covenant provided by the
Committee pursuant to its mandate.
As of February 2013, the United States is among States scheduled for examination in the 107th (1128
March 2013) and 109th (14 October 1 November 2013) sessions of the Committee.[97]
Parties to the Covenant
[ edit ]
There are a total of 168 parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[98]
State party
Signed
Ratified or
Entry into force

10/15
1/17/2016
acceded
Afghanistan
24 January 1983
24 April 1983
Albania
4 October 1991
4 January 1992
Algeria
10 December 1968
12 September 1989
12 December 1989
Andorra
5 August 2002
22 September 2006
22 December 2006
Angola
10 January 1992
10 April 1992
Argentina
18 February 1968
8 August 1986
8 November 1986
Armenia
23 June 1993
23 September 1993
Australia
18 December 1972
13 August 1980
13 November 1980
Austria
10 December 1973
10 September 1978
10 December 1978
Azerbaijan
13 August 1992
13 November 1992
Bahamas, The
4 December 2008
23 December 2008
23 March 2008
Bahrain
20 September 2006
20 December 2006
Bangladesh
6 September 2000
6 December 2000
Barbados
5 January 1973
23 March 1976
Belarus
19 March 1968
12 November 1973
23 March 1976
Belgium
10 December 1968
12 April 1983
12 July 1983
Belize
10 June 1996
10 September 1996
Benin
12 March 1992
12 June 1992
Bolivia
12 August 1982
12 November 1982
Bosnia and Herzegovina[A]
1 September 1993
6 March 1992
Botswana
8 September 2000
8 September 2000
8 December 2000
Brazil
24 January 1992
24 April 1992
Bulgaria
8 October 1968
21 September 1970
23 March 1976
Burkina Faso
4 January 1999
4 April 1999
Burundi
8 May 1990
8 August 1990
Cambodia[B]
17 October 1980
26 May 1992
26 August 1992
Cameroon
27 January 1984
27 April 1984
Canada
19 May 1976
19 August 1976
Cape Verde
6 August 1993
6 November 1993
Central African Republic
8 May 1981
8 August 1981
Chad
9 June 1995
9 September 1995
Chile
16 September 1969 10 February 1972
23 March 1976
Colombia
21 December 1966
29 October 1969
23 March 1976
1 November 1976
1 February 1977
Congo, Republic of the
5 October 1983
5 January 1984
Costa Rica
19 December 1966
29 November 1968
23 March 1976
Cte d'Ivoire
26 March 1992
26 June 1992
Croatia[A]
12 October 1992
12 January 1993
Cyprus
19 December 1966
2 April 1969
23 March 1976
Congo, Democratic Republic of

the
11/15
1/17/2016
Czech Republic[C]
22 February 1993
1 January 1993
Denmark
20 March 1968
6 January 1972
23 March 1976
Djibouti
5 November 2002
5 February 2003
Dominica
Dominican Republic
17 June 1993
17 September 1993
4 January 1978
4 April 1978
East Timor
Ecuador
18 September 2003
18 December 2003
4 April 1968
6 March 1969
23 March 1976
Egypt
4 August 1967
14 January 1982
14 April 1982
El Salvador
21 September 1967 30 November 1979
29 February 1980
Equatorial Guinea
25 September 1987
25 December 1987
Eritrea
22 January 2002
22 April 2002
Estonia
21 October 1991
21 January 1992
Ethiopia
11 June 1993
11 September 1993
Finland
11 October 1967
19 August 1975
23 March 1976
France
4 November 1980
4 February 1981
Gabon
21 January 1983
21 April 1983
Gambia, The
22 March 1979
22 June 1979
Georgia
3 May 1994
3 August 1994
Germany[D]
9 October 1968
17 December 1973
23 March 1976
Ghana
7 September 2000
7 September 2000
7 December 2000
Greece
5 May 1997
5 August 1997
Grenada
6 September 1991
6 December 1991
Guatemala
5 May 1992
5 August 1992
Guinea
28 February 1967
24 January 1978
24 April 1978
Guinea-Bissau
12 September 2000 1 November 2010
1 February 2011
Guyana
22 August 1968
15 February 1977
15 May 1977
Haiti
6 February 1991
6 May 1991
Honduras
19 December 1966
25 August 1997
25 November 1997
Hungary
25 March 1969
17 January 1974
23 March 1976
Iceland
30 December 1968
22 August 1979
22 November 1979
India
10 April 1979
10 July 1979
Indonesia
23 February 2006
23 May 2006
Iran
4 April 1968
24 June 1975
23 March 1976
Iraq
18 February 1969
25 January 1971
23 March 1976
Ireland
1 October 1973
8 December 1989
8 March 1990
Israel
19 December 1966
3 October 1991
3 January 1992
Italy
18 January 1967
15 September 1978
15 December 1978
Jamaica
19 December 1966
3 October 1975
23 March 1976
Japan
30 May 1978
21 June 1979
21 September 1979
Jordan
30 June 1972
28 May 1975
23 March 1976
Kazakhstan
2 December 2003
24 January 2006
24 April 2006
12/15
1/17/2016
Kenya
1 May 1972
23 March 1976
Korea, North[E]
14 September 1981
14 December 1981
Korea, South
10 April 1990
10 July 1990
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
21 May 1996
7 October 1994
21 August 1996
7 January 1995
Laos
7 December 2000
25 September 2009
25 December 2009
Latvia
14 April 1992
14 July 1992
Lebanon
3 November 1972
23 March 1976
Lesotho
9 September 1992
9 December 1992
Liberia
18 April 1967
22 September 2004
22 December 2004
Libya
15 May 1970
23 March 1976
Liechtenstein
10 December 1998
10 March 1999
Lithuania
20 November 1991
10 February 1992
Luxembourg
26 November 1974
18 August 1983
18 November 1983
Macedonia[A]
18 January 1994
17 September 1991
Madagascar
17 September 1969 21 June 1971
23 March 1976
Malawi
22 December 1993
22 March 1994
Maldives
19 September 2006
19 December 2006
Mali
16 July 1974
23 March 1976
Malta
13 September 1990
13 December 1990
Mauritania
17 November 2004
17 February 2005
Mauritius
12 December 1973
23 March 1976
Mexico
23 March 1981
23 June 1981
Moldova
26 January 1993
26 April 1993
Monaco
26 June 1997
28 August 1997
28 November 1997
Mongolia
5 June 1968
18 November 1974
23 March 1976
Montenegro[A]
23 October 2006
3 June 2006
Morocco
19 January 1977
3 May 1979
3 August 1979
Mozambique
21 July 1993
21 October 1993
Namibia
28 November 1994
28 February 1995
Nepal
14 May 1991
14 August 1991
Netherlands
25 June 1969
11 December 1978
11 March 1979
New Zealand
12 November 1968
28 December 1978
28 March 1979
Nicaragua
12 March 1980
12 June 1980
7 March 1986
7 June 1986
Nigeria
29 July 1993
29 October 1993
Norway
20 March 1968
13 September 1972
23 March 1976
Pakistan
17 April 2008
23 June 2010
23 September 2010
Palestine
2 April 2014
2 July 2014
Panama
27 July 1976
8 March 1977
8 June 1977
21 July 2008
21 October 2008
Niger
13/15
1/17/2016
21 July 2008
21 October 2008
Paraguay
10 June 1992
10 September 1992
Peru
11 August 1977
28 April 1978
28 July 1978
Philippines
19 December 1966
23 October 1986
23 January 1987
Poland
2 March 1967
18 March 1977
18 June 1977
Portugal[F]
7 October 1976
15 June 1978
15 September 1978
Romania
27 June 1968
9 December 1974
23 March 1976
Russia
18 March 1968
16 October 1973
23 March 1976
Rwanda
16 April 1975
23 March 1976
9 November 1981
9 February 1981
Samoa
San Marino
15 February 2008
15 May 2008
18 October 1985
18 January 1986
Senegal
6 July 1970
13 February 1978
13 May 1978
Serbia[A]
12 March 2001
27 April 1992
Seychelles
5 May 1992
5 August 1992
Sierra Leone
23 August 1996
23 November 1996
Slovakia[C]
28 May 1993
1 January 1993
Slovenia[A]
6 July 1992
6 October 1992
Somalia
24 January 1990
24 April 1990
South Africa
3 October 1994
10 December 1998
10 March 1999
Spain
28 September 1976 27 April 1977
27 July 1977
Sri Lanka
11 June 1980
11 September 1980
Sudan
18 March 1986
18 June 1986
Suriname
28 December 1976
28 March 1977
Swaziland
26 March 2004
26 June 2004
Sweden
29 September 1967 6 December 1971
23 March 1976
Switzerland
18 June 1992
18 September 1992
Syria
21 April 1969
23 March 1976
Tajikistan
4 January 1999
4 April 1999
Tanzania
11 June 1976
11 September 1976
Thailand
29 October 1996
29 January 1997
Togo
24 May 1984
24 August 1984
Trinidad and Tobago
21 December 1978
21 March 1979
Tunisia
30 April 1968
18 March 1969
23 March 1976
Turkey
15 August 2000
23 September 2003
23 December 2003
Turkmenistan
1 May 1997
1 August 1997
Uganda
21 June 1995
21 September 1995
Ukraine
20 March 1968
12 November 1973
23 March 1976
Papua New Guinea
Saint Vincent and the

Grenadines
United
Kingdom[G]
16 September 1968 20 May 1976
20 August 1976
14/15
1/17/2016
United States
Uruguay
5 October 1977
8 June 1992
8 September 1992
21 February 1967
21 May 1967
23 March 1976
Uzbekistan
28 September 1995
28 December 1995
Vanuatu
29 November 2007
21 November 2008
21 February 2009
Venezuela
24 June 1969
10 May 1978
10 August 1978
Vietnam
24 September 1982
24 December 1982
Yemen
9 February 1987
9 May 1987
Zambia
10 April 1984
10 July 1984
Zimbabwe
13 May 1991
13 August 1991
States not party to the Covenant
[ edit ]
The majority of states in the world are parties to the ICCPR. The following 29 states have not become party
to it, however seven states have signed the Covenant, but not ratified it.[98]
Signatories that have not ratified

State
[ edit ]
Signed
China[F][G][H]
5 October 1998
Comoros
25 September 2008
Cuba
28 February 2008
Nauru
12 November 2001
Palau
20 September 2011
Saint Lucia
22 September 2011
So Tom and Prncipe 31 October 1995
States which are neither signatories nor parties

Antigua and
Barbuda
Bhutan
Brunei
Cook Islands
Fiji
Kiribati
Malaysia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Niue
Myanmar
Notes
[ edit ]
A. ^ a
bc de f
[ edit ]
Oman
Qatar
Saint Kitts and
Nevis
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Solomon Islands
South Sudan
Tonga
Tuvalu
United Arab
Emirates
Vatican City
15/15

International Covenant On Civil and Political Rights - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

International Covenant On Civil and Political Rights - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1/17/2016

The International Covenant on Civil

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

multilateral treaty adopted by theUnited

Parties and signatories of the ICCPR

Bill of Human Rights, along with

United Nations General Assembly Resolution

the International Covenant on

United Nations Headquarters, New York

The ICCPR is monitored by the United

Nations Human Rights Committee (a

separate body to the United Nations

Secretary General of the United Nations

Human Rights Council), which reviews

French, English, Russian, Chinese, Spanish

Economic, Social and Cultural

regular reports of States parties on how

States must report initially one year

Rights to physical integrity

Main articles: Right to life, Torture and Slavery

Liberty and security of person

Main article: Habeas corpus

Procedural fairness and rights of the accused

Main articles: Rights of the accused and Right to a fair trial

Main articles: Freedom of movement, Freedom of religion, Freedom of thought, Freedom of

appealed and reviewed.[51]

This section requires expansion.

National implementation and effects

(to suggest remedial

Reservations, understandings, and declarations [ edit ]

Parties to the Covenant

Entry into force

Bosnia and Herzegovina[A]

Central African Republic

16 September 1969 10 February 1972

Congo, Republic of the

Congo, Democratic Republic of

21 September 1967 30 November 1979

12 September 2000 1 November 2010

17 September 1969 21 June 1971

28 September 1976 27 April 1977

29 September 1967 6 December 1971

Trinidad and Tobago

Papua New Guinea

Saint Vincent and the

16 September 1968 20 May 1976

States not party to the Covenant

Signatories that have not ratified

So Tom and Prncipe 31 October 1995

States which are neither signatories nor parties

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi