Status- Table of contents Participants Declarations Notes Chapter VI Previous treaty  

19. United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Vienna, 20 December 1988

 

Entry into force: 11 November 1990, in accordance with article 29 (1).
Registration: 11 November 1990, No. 27627.
Status: Signatories: 88 ,Parties: 154.
Text: Document of the United Nations Economic and Social Council E-CONF.82-15, Corr.1 and Corr.2 (English only); and depositary notification C.N.31.1990.TREATIES-1 of 9 April 1990 (procès-verbal of rectification of original French and Spanish texts). 

Note: The Convention was adopted by the United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, held at Vienna from 25 November to 20 December 1988. The Conference was convened pursuant to resolution 1988-8 of 25 May 1988 of the Economic and Social Council acting on the basis of the General Assembly resolutions 39-141 of 14 December 1984 and 42-111 of 7 December 1987. The Convention was open for signature at the United Nations Office at Vienna, from 20 December 1988 to 28 February 1989, and thereafter at the Headquarters of the United Nations at New York, until 20 December 1989. In addition to the Convention, the Conference adopted the Final Act and certain resolutions which are annexed to the Final Act. The text of the Final Act was published in document E-CONF.82-14.

 

 

PARTICIPANTS

Participant  Signature  Ratification, Accession (a), Acceptance (A), Approval (AA), Formal confirmation (c), Succession (d) 
Afghanistan  20 Dec 1988  14 Feb 1992 
Algeria  20 Dec 1988  9 May 1995 
Andorra    23 Jul 1999 a 
Antigua and Barbuda    5 Apr 1993 a 
Argentina  20 Dec 1988  28 Jun 1993 
Armenia    13 Sep 1993 a 
Australia  14 Feb 1989  16 Nov 1992 
Austria  25 Sep 1989  11 Jul 1997 
Azerbaijan    22 Sep 1993 a 
Bahamas  20 Dec 1988  30 Jan 1989 
Bahrain  28 Sep 1989  7 Feb 1990 
Bangladesh  14 Apr 1989  11 Oct 1990 
Barbados    15 Oct 1992 a 
Belarus  27 Feb 1989  15 Oct 1990 
Belgium  22 May 1989  25 Oct 1995 
Belize    24 Jul 1996 a 
Benin    23 May 1997 a 
Bhutan    27 Aug 1990 a 
Bolivia  20 Dec 1988  20 Aug 1990 
Bosnia and Herzegovina    1 Sep 1993 d 
Botswana    13 Aug 1996 a 
Brazil  20 Dec 1988  17 Jul 1991 
Brunei Darussalam  26 Oct 1989  12 Nov 1993 
Bulgaria  19 May 1989  24 Sep 1992 
Burkina Faso    2 Jun 1992 a 
Burundi    18 Feb 1993 a 
Cameroon  27 Feb 1989  28 Oct 1991 
Canada  20 Dec 1988  5 Jul 1990 
Cape Verde    8 May 1995 a 
Chad    9 Jun 1995 a 
Chile  20 Dec 1988  13 Mar 1990 
China1  20 Dec 1988  25 Oct 1989 
Colombia  20 Dec 1988  10 Jun 1994 
Costa Rica  25 Apr 1989  8 Feb 1991 
Côte d'Ivoire  20 Dec 1988  25 Nov 1991 
Croatia    26 Jul 1993 d 
Cuba  7 Apr 1989  12 Jun 1996 
Cyprus  20 Dec 1988  25 May 1990 
Czech Republic2    30 Dec 1993 d 
Democratic Republic of the Congo  20 Dec 1988   
Denmark  20 Dec 1988  19 Dec 1991 
Dominica    30 Jun 1993 a 
Dominican Republic    21 Sep 1993 a 
Ecuador  21 Jun 1989  23 Mar 1990 
Egypt  20 Dec 1988  15 Mar 1991 
El Salvador    21 May 1993 a 
Ethiopia    11 Oct 1994 a 
European Community  8 Jun 1989  31 Dec 1990 c 
Fiji    25 Mar 1993 a 
Finland  8 Feb 1989  15 Feb 1994 A 
France  13 Feb 1989  31 Dec 1990 AA 
Gabon  20 Dec 1989   
Gambia    23 Apr 1996 a 
Georgia    8 Jan 1998 a 
Germany3  19 Jan 1989  30 Nov 1993 
Ghana  20 Dec 1988  10 Apr 1990 
Greece  23 Feb 1989  28 Jan 1992 
Grenada    10 Dec 1990 a 
Guatemala  20 Dec 1988  28 Feb 1991 
Guinea    27 Dec 1990 a 
Guinea-Bissau    27 Oct 1995 a 
Guyana    19 Mar 1993 a 
Haiti    18 Sep 1995 a 
Holy See  20 Dec 1988   
Honduras  20 Dec 1988  11 Dec 1991 
Hungary  22 Aug 1989  15 Nov 1996 
Iceland    2 Sep 1997 a 
India    27 Mar 1990 a 
Indonesia  27 Mar 1989  23 Feb 1999 
Iran (Islamic Republic of)  20 Dec 1988  7 Dec 1992 
Iraq    22 Jul 1998 a 
Ireland  14 Dec 1989  3 Sep 1996 
Israel  20 Dec 1988   
Italy  20 Dec 1988  31 Dec 1990 AA 
Jamaica  2 Oct 1989  29 Dec 1995 
Japan  19 Dec 1989  12 Jun 1992 
Jordan  20 Dec 1988  16 Apr 1990 
Kazakhstan    29 Apr 1997 a 
Kenya    19 Oct 1992 a 
Kuwait  2 Oct 1989   
Kyrgyzstan    7 Oct 1994 a 
Latvia    24 Feb 1994 a 
Lebanon    11 Mar 1996 a 
Lesotho    28 Mar 1995 a 
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya    22 Jul 1996 a 
Lithuania    8 Jun 1998 a 
Luxembourg  26 Sep 1989  29 Apr 1992 
Madagascar    12 Mar 1991 a 
Malawi    12 Oct 1995 a 
Malaysia  20 Dec 1988  11 May 1993 
Maldives  5 Dec 1989   
Mali    31 Oct 1995 a 
Malta    28 Feb 1996 a 
Mauritania  20 Dec 1988  1 Jul 1993 
Mauritius  20 Dec 1988   
Mexico  16 Feb 1989  11 Apr 1990 
Monaco  24 Feb 1989  23 Apr 1991 
Morocco  28 Dec 1988  28 Oct 1992 
Mozambique    8 Jun 1998 a 
Myanmar    11 Jun 1991 a 
Nepal    24 Jul 1991 a 
Netherlands4  18 Jan 1989  8 Sep 1993 A 
New Zealand  18 Dec 1989  16 Dec 1998 
Nicaragua  20 Dec 1988  4 May 1990 
Niger    10 Nov 1992 a 
Nigeria  1 Mar 1989  1 Nov 1989 
Norway  20 Dec 1988  14 Nov 1994 
Oman    15 Mar 1991 a 
Pakistan  20 Dec 1989  25 Oct 1991 
Panama  20 Dec 1988  13 Jan 1994 
Paraguay  20 Dec 1988  23 Aug 1990 
Peru  20 Dec 1988  16 Jan 1992 
Philippines  20 Dec 1988  7 Jun 1996 
Poland  6 Mar 1989  26 May 1994 
Portugal13  13 Dec 1989  3 Dec 1991 
Qatar    4 May 1990 a 
Republic of Korea    28 Dec 1998 a 
Republic of Moldova    15 Feb 1995 a 
Romania    21 Jan 1993 a 
Russian Federation  19 Jan 1989  17 Dec 1990 
Saint Kitts and Nevis    19 Apr 1995 a 
Saint Lucia    21 Aug 1995 a 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines    17 May 1994 a 
Sao Tome and Principe    20 Jun 1996 a 
Saudi Arabia    9 Jan 1992 a 
Senegal  20 Dec 1988  27 Nov 1989 
Seychelles    27 Feb 1992 a 
Sierra Leone  9 Jun 1989  6 Jun 1994 
Singapore    23 Oct 1997 a 
Slovakia2    28 May 1993 d 
Slovenia    6 Jul 1992 d 
South Africa    14 Dec 1998 a 
Spain  20 Dec 1988  13 Aug 1990 
Sri Lanka    6 Jun 1991 a 
Sudan  30 Jan 1989  19 Nov 1993 
Suriname  20 Dec 1988  28 Oct 1992 
Swaziland    3 Oct 1995 a 
Sweden  20 Dec 1988  22 Jul 1991 
Switzerland  16 Nov 1989   
Syrian Arab Republic    3 Sep 1991 a 
Tajikistan    6 May 1996 a 
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia    13 Oct 1993 a 
Togo  3 Aug 1989  1 Aug 1990 
Tonga    29 Apr 1996 a 
Trinidad and Tobago  7 Dec 1989  17 Feb 1995 
Tunisia  19 Dec 1989  20 Sep 1990 
Turkey  20 Dec 1988  2 Apr 1996 
Turkmenistan    21 Feb 1996 a 
Uganda    20 Aug 1990 a 
Ukraine  16 Mar 1989  28 Aug 1991 
United Arab Emirates    12 Apr 1990 a 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland1,5  20 Dec 1988  28 Jun 1991 
United Republic of Tanzania  20 Dec 1988  17 Apr 1996 
United States of America  20 Dec 1988  20 Feb 1990 
Uruguay  19 Dec 1989  10 Mar 1995 
Uzbekistan    24 Aug 1995 a 
Venezuela  20 Dec 1988  16 Jul 1991 
Viet Nam    4 Nov 1997 a 
Yemen  20 Dec 1988  25 Mar 1996 
Yugoslavia  20 Dec 1988  3 Jan 1991 
Zambia  9 Feb 1989  28 May 1993 
Zimbabwe    30 Jul 1993 a 
 

 

DECLARATIONS

Declarations and Reservations

(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon ratification, accession,

acceptance, approval, formal confirmation or succession. For objections thereto, see hereinafter.)

Algeria

Reservation:

The People's Democratic Republic of Algeria does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 32, paragraph 2, the compulsory referral of any dispute of the International Court of Justice.

The People's Democratic Republic of Algeria declares that for a dispute to be referred to the International Court of Justice the agreement of all the parties to the dispute is necessary in each case.

Andorra

Reservation:

With respect to the option provided in paragraph 4 of article 32, the Andorran State does consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article.

With respect to paragraph 2, the Andorran State considers that any dispute which cannot be settled in the manner prescribed in paragraph 1 of the aforementioned article will be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the agreement of all parties involved in the dispute.

Declaration:

Since the Andorran legal system already embodies almost all the measures referred to in the Vienna Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, accession to the aforementioned Convention will entail only minor changes in the Andorran State's legal system, which will be taken into account in the future legislative activity. From the point of view of the rights and obligations arising from accession to this Convention, without renouncing the specific characteristics of its domestic legislation, in particular with respect to the protection of individual freedoms and the rights of bona fide third parties, and to the preservation of national sovereignty and the common good, Andorra undertakes to assume the obligations among States arising from the Vienna Convention and to cooperate, through its judicial authorities and on the basis of reciprocity, with the other States which have accepted the provisions of the aforementioned Convention.Waiting for the translation.

Austria

Declarations:

"re. Art. 2:

The Republic of Austria interprets the reference to the fundamental provisions of domestic legislative systems in art. 2 para 1 in the sense that the contents of these fundamental provisions may be subject to change. The same applies to all other references of the Convention to domestic law, its fundamental principles or the national constitutional order like they are contained in art. 3 para 1 lit.c; para 2, para 10 and para 11; art. 5 para 4 lit.c; para 7 and para 9 or art. 11 para 1.

re. Art. 3:

The Republic of Austria interprets art. 3 para 1 and 2 as follows: In cases of a minor nature, the obligations contained in this provision may also be implemented by the creation of administrative penal regulations providing adequate sanction for the offences enumerated therein.

re. Art. 7 para 10 to 12:

The Republic of Austria declares that in pursuance of its domestic law, a request for the search of persons or rooms, for the seizure of objects or for the surveillance of telecommunication requires the enclosure of the certified copy or photocopy of the decision of the competent authority. If the decision has not been rendered by a court, a declaration of the authority requesting legal assistance has to be furnished, stating that all necessary preconditions are fulfilled, according to the law of the requesting state."

Bahrain7

Reservation:

The State of Bahrain, by the ratification of this Convention, does not consider itself bound by paragraph (2) of article 32 in connection with the obligation to refer the settlement of the dispute relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention to the International Court of Justice.

Declaration:

Moreover, the State of Bahrain hereby declares that its ratification of this Convention shall in no way constitute recognition of Israel or be a cause for the establishment of any relations of any kind therewith.

Belize

Reservation:

"Article 8 of the Convention requires the Parties to give consideration to the possibility of transferring to one another proceedings for criminal prosecution of certain offences where such transfer is considered to be in the interests of a proper administration of justice.

"The courts of Belize have no extra-territorial jurisdiction, with the result that they will have no jurisdiction to prosecute offences committed abroad unless such offences are committed partly within and partly without the jurisdiction, by a person who is within the jurisdiction. Moreover, under the Constitution of Belize, the control of public prosecutions is vested in the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is an independent functionary and not under Government control.

"Accordingly, Belize will be able to implement article 8 of the Convention only to a limited extent insofar as its Constitution and the law allows."

Bolivia

Reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratifica tion:

The Republic of Bolivia places on record its express reservation to article 3, paragraph 2, and declares the inapplicability to Bolivia of those provisions of that paragraph which could be interpreted as establishing as a criminal offence the use, consumption, possession, purchase or cultivation of the coca leaf for personal consumption.

For Bolivia such an interpretation of that paragraph is contrary to principles of its Constitution and basic concepts of its legal system which embody respect for the culture, legitimate practices, values and attributes of the nationalities making up Bolivia's population.

Bolivia's legal system recognizes the ancestral nature of the licit use of the coca leaf which, for much of Bolivia's population, dates back over centuries. In formulating this reservation, Bolivia considers that:

- The coca leaf is not, in and of itself, a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance;

- The use and consumption of the coca leaf do not cause psychological or physical changes greater than those resulting from the consumption of other plants and products which are in free and universal use;

- The coca leaf is widely used for medicinal purposes in the practice of traditional medicine, the validity of which is upheld by WHO and confirmed by scientific findings;

- The coca leaf can be used for industrial purposes;

- The coca leaf is widely used and consumed in Bolivia, with the result that, if such an interpretation of the above-mentioned paragraph was accepted, a large part of Bolivia's population could be considered criminals and punished as such, such an interpretation is therefore inapplicable;

- It must be placed on record that the coca leaf is transformed into cocaine paste, sulphate and hydrochlorate when it is subjected to chemical processes which involve the use of precursors, equipment and materials which are neither manufactured in or originate in Bolivia.

At the same time, the Republic of Bolivia will continue to take all necessary legal measures to control the illicit cultivation of coca for the production of narcotic drugs, as well as the illicit consumption, use and purchase of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Brazil

Upon signature:

"a) The signature of the Convention is made subject to the process of ratification established by the Brazilian Constitution;

" b) It is the understanding of the Brazilian Government that paragraph 11 of article 17 does not prevent a coastal State from requiring prior authorization for any action under this article by other States in its Exclusive Economic Zone."

Brunei Darussalam

Reservation:

"In accordance with article 32 of the Convention Brunei Darussalam hereby declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said article 32."

China

Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratifica tion:

Under the Article 32, paragraph 4, China does not consider itself bound by paragraphs 2 and 3 of that article.

Colombia8

Upon signature:

Colombia formulates a reservation to article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention, specifically subparagraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) thereof, since its legislation does not permit outside co-operation with the judiciary in investigating offences nor the establishment of joint teams with other countries to that end. Likewise inasmuch as samples of the substances that have given rise to investigations belong to the proceedings, only the judge, as previously, can take decisions in that regard.

Upon ratification:

Reservations:

...

2. With respect to article 5, paragraph 7, of the Convention, Colombia does not consider itself bound to reverse the onus of proof.

3. Colombia has reservations in connection with article 9, paragraphs 1 (b), (c), (d) and (e), inasmuch as they conflict with the autonomy and independence of the judicial authorities in their jurisdiction over the investigation and judgement of offences.

Declarations:

1. No provision of the Convention may be interpreted as obliging Colombia to adopt legislative, judicial, administrative or other measures that might impair or restrict its constitutional or legal system or that go beyond the terms of the treaties to which the Colombian State is a contracting party.

2. It is the view of Colombia that treatment under the Convention of the cultivation of the coca leaf as a criminal offence must be harmonized with a policy of alternative development, taking into account the rights of the indigenous communities involved and the protection of the environment. In this connection it is the view of Colombia that the discriminatory, inequitable and restrictive treatment accorded its agricultural export products on international markets does nothing to contribute to the control of illicit crops, but, rather, is a cause of social and environmental degradation in the areas affected. Further, Colombia reserves the right to make an independent evaluation of the ecological impact of drug control policies, since those that have a negative impact on ecosystems contravene the Constitution.

3. It is the understanding of Colombia that article 3, paragraph 7, of the Convention will be applied in accordance with its penal system, taking into account the benefits of its policies regarding the indictment of and collaboration with alleged criminals.

4. A request for reciprocal legal assistance will not be met when the Colombian judicial and other authorities consider that to do so would run counter to the public interest or the constitutional or legal order. The principle of reciprocity must also be observed.

5. It is the understanding of Colombia that article 3, paragraph 8, of the Convention does not imply the non-applicability of the statutory limitation of penal action.

6. Article 24 of the Convention, on "more strict or severe measures", may not be interpreted as conferring on the Government powers that are broader than those conferred by the Political Constitution of Colombia, including in states of exception.

7. It is the understanding of Colombia that the assistance provided for under article 17 of the Convention will be effective only on the high seas and at the express request and with the authorization of the Colombian Government.

8. Colombia declares that it considers contrary to the principles and norms of international law, in particular those of sovereign equality, territorial integrity and non-intervention, any attempt to abduct or illegally deprive of freedom any person within the territory of one State for the purpose of bringing that person before the courts of another State.

9. It is the understanding of Colombia that the transfer of proceedings referred to in article 8 of the Convention will take place in such a way as not to impair the constitutional guarantees of the right of defence. Further, Colombia declares with respect to article 6, paragraph 10, of the Convention that, in the execution of foreign sentences, the provisions of article 35, paragraph 2, of its Political Constitution and other legal and constitutional norms must be observed

The international obligations deriving from article 3, paragraphs 1 (c) and 2, as well as from article 11 are conditional on respect for Colombian constitutional principles and the above three reservations and nine declarations making the Convention compatible with the Colombian constitutional order.

Cuba

Declaration:

The Government of the Republic of Cuba declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3, and that disputes which arise between the Parties should be settled by negotiation through the diplomatic channel.

Cyprus

Upon signature:

"[Signature is effected] subject to ratification, at the time of which reservations in respect of specific provisions of the Convention may be made and deposited in the prescribed manner. [It is understood] that such reservations, if any, cannot be incompatible with the object and purpose of this Convention."

Upon ratification:

Declaration:

"As a result of the occupation of 37% of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, which since 1974 is occupied by Turkish troops in violation of the United Nations Charter and of basic principles of international law, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus is prevented from exercising its legitimate control and jurisdiction throughout the territory of the Republic of Cyprus and consequently over those activities in the illegally occupied area which are related to illicit drug trafficking."

Denmark

Declarations:

"The Convention shall not apply to the Faroe Islands and Greenland."

With regard to article 17:

"Authorization granted by Danish authority pursuant to article 17 denotes only that Denmark will abstain from pleading infringement of Danish sovereignty in connection with the requesting State's boarding of a vessel. Danish authorities cannot authorize another State to take legal action on behalf of the Kingdom of Denmark."

France

Reservations:

The Government of the French Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 32, paragraph 2, and declares that any dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention which cannot be settled in the manner prescribed in paragraph 1 of the said article may not be referred to the International Court of Justice unless all the parties to the dispute agree thereto.

Similarly, the Government of the French Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 32, paragraph 3.

Germany

Declaration:

It is the understanding of the Federal Republic of Germany that the basic concepts of the legal system referred to in article 3, paragraph 2 of the Convention may be subject to change.

Indonesia

Reservation:

"The Republic of Indonesia [...] does not consider itself bound by the provision of article 32 paragraphs (2) and (3), and take the position that disputes relating to the interpretation and application [of] the Convention which have not been settled through the channel provided for in paragraph (1) of the said article, may be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of the Parties to the dispute."

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Upon signature:

"The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran wishes to express reservation to article 6, paragraph 3, of the Convention, since this provision is incompatible with our domestic law.

"The Government furthermore wishes to make a reservation to article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3, since it does not consider itself bound to compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and feels that any disputes arising between the Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention should be resolved through direct negotiations by diplomatic means."

Jamaica9

Lebanon10

Reservations:

1. The Government of the Lebanese Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 32, paragraph 2, and declares that disputes relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention which are not settled by the means prescribed in paragraph 1 of that article shall be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the agreement of all of the Parties to the dispute.

Similarly, the Government of the Lebanese Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 32, paragraph 3.

2. The Government of the Lebanese Republic has reservations regarding article 5, paragraph 3, regarding article 7, paragraph 2 (f), and regarding article 7, paragraph 5, of the Convention.

Lithuania

Declaration:

"In accordance with article 6 of the said Convention the Republic of Lithuania declares that this Convention shall not be the legal basis for extradition of the Lithuanian citizens as it is provided in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania."

Reservation:

Ïn accordance with paragraph 4 of article 32 of the said Convention the Republic of Lithuania will not apply provisions of paragraph 2 and 3 of article 32, referring to the disputes relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention to the International Court of Justice."

Malaysia

Declaration:

"The Government of Malaysia does not consider itself bound by paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 32 of the said Convention, wherein if there should arise between two or more Parties a dispute and such dispute cannot be settled in the manner prescribed in paragraph 1 of article 32 of the Convention, Malaysia is not bound to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice for decision."

Myanmar

Reservations:

"The Government of the Union of Myanmar wishes to express reservation on article 6 relating to extradition and does not consider itself bound by the same in so far as its own Myanmar nationals are concerned.

"The Government further wishes to make a reservation on article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3 and does not consider itself bound by obligations to refer the disputes relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention to the International Court of Justice."

Netherlands

Upon signature:

Understanding:

"1 . Article 1 - Definition of Illicit Traffic

During the initial stages of this Conference, [the Government of the Netherlands] proposed to amend articles 15, 17, 18 and 19 (final numbering) in order to replace the generic phrase ‘illicit traffic' by more specific language (e.g., ‘illicit transport').

"To some extent the underlying concerns have been met by the introduction in Article 15 of a specific reference to the ‘offences established in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 2'. On the other hand, articles 17, 18 and 19 still contain references to ‘illicit traffic in narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and substances in table I and table II'.

"It is the understanding [of the Government of the Netherlands] that, given the scope of these articles, the term ‘illicit traffic' has to be understood in a limited sense, in each case taking into account the specific context. In applying these articles, [it] would therefore have to rely on the chapeau of article 1, allowing for a contextual application of the relevant definition.

"2. Article 3

"(a). [The Government of the Netherlands] notes with respect to article 3, paragraph 2 (subparagraph (b) (i) and (ii), and subparagraph (c) (i)) that the Drafting Committee has replaced the terms `knowing that such property is derived from an offence or offences set forth in paragraph 2' by: ‘knowing that such property is derived from an offence or offences established in accordance with paragraph 1'. [The Government of the Netherlands] accepts this change with the understanding that this does not affect the applicability of the paragraphs referred to in cases where the offender knows that property is derived from an offence or offences that may have been established and committed under the jurisdiction of a foreign State.

"(b). With respect of article 3, paragraph 6, [the Government of the Netherlands] notes that its provisions cover offences established both under paragraph 1 and paragraph 2. In view of the provisions of paragraph 4 (d) and paragraph 11 of the same article, [the Government of the Netherlands] understands that the measure of discretionary legal powers relating to the prosecution for offences established in accordance with paragraph 2 may in practice be wider than for offences established in accordance with paragraph 1.

"(c). With respect to article 3, paragraphs 7 and 8, it is the understanding of [the Government of the Netherlands] that these provisions do not require the establishment of specific rules and regulations on the early release of convicted persons and the statute of limitations in respect of offences, covered by paragraph 1 of the article, which are different from such rules and regulations in respect of other, equally serious, offences. Consequently, it is [the Government's] understanding that the relevant legislation presently in force within the Kingdom sufficiently and appropriately meets the concerns expressed by the terms of these provisions.

"Article 17

[The Government of the Netherlands] understands the reference (in para.3) to ‘a vessel exercising freedom of navigation' to mean a vessel navigating beyond the external limits of the territorial sea.

"The safeguard-clause contained in para. 11 of the article aims in [its] view at safeguarding the rights and obligations of Coastal States within the contiguous zone.

"To the extent that vessels navigating in the contiguous zone act in infringement of the Coastal State's customs and other regulations, the Coastal State is entitled to exercise, in conformity with the relevant rules of the international law of the sea, jurisdiction to prevent and-or punish such infringement."

Upon acceptance:

Reservation:

"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of article 3, paragraphs 6, 7, and 8, only in so far as the obligations under these provisions are in accordance with Dutch criminal legislation and Dutch policy on criminal matters."

Panama

Reservation:

The Republic of Panama does not consider itself obligated to apply the measures of confiscation or seizure provided for in article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention to property the value of which corresponds to that of the proceeds derived from offences established in accordance with the said Convention, in so far as such measures would contravene the provisions of article 30 of the Constitution of Panama, under which there is no penalty of confiscation of property.

Philippines11

Peru

Upon signature:

Peru formulates an express reservation to paragraph 1 (a) (ii) of article 3, concerning offences and sanctions; that paragraph includes cultivation among the activities established as criminal offences, without drawing the necessary clear distinction between licit and illicit cultivation. Accordingly, Peru also formulates an express reservation to the scope of the definition of illicit traffic contained in article 1 in so far as it refers to article 3, paragraph 1 (a) (ii).

In accordance with the provisions of article 32, paragraph 4, Peru declares, on signing the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, that it does not consider itself bound by article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3, since, in respect of this Convention, it agrees to the referral of disputes to the International Court of Justice only if all the parties, and not just one, agree to such a procedure.

Saudi Arabia7

Declarations:

1. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not regard itself bound by article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Convention;

2. This ratification does not constitute recognition of Israel and shall not give rise to entry with it into any dealings or to the establishment with it of any relations under the Convention.

Singapore

Declaration:

"With respect to article 6 paragraph 3, the Republic of Singapore declares that it shall not consider the Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of any offence to which article 6 applies."

Reservation:

"The Republic of Singapore declares, in pursuance of article 32, paragraph 4 of the Convention that it will not be bound by the provisions of article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3."

Sweden

Declaration:

"Regarding article 3, paragraph 10, Swedish constitutional legislation on extradition implies that in judging whether a specific offence is to be regarded as a political offence, regard shall be paid to the circumstances in each individual case."

Syrian Arab Republic7

Declaration:

The accession to this Convention shall not constitute a recognition of Israel or lead to any kind of intercourse with it.

Turkey

Reservation:

Pursuant to paragraph 4 of article 32 of [said Convention], the Republic of Turkey is not bound by paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 32 of the Convention.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Reservation:

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will only consider the granting of immunity under article 7, paragraph 18, where this is specifically requested by the person to whom the immunity would apply or by the authority designated, under article 7, paragraph 8, of the Party from whom assistance is requested. A request for immunity will not be granted where the judicial authorities of the United Kingdom consider that to do so would be contrary to the public interest."

United Republic of Tanzania

Upon signature:

"Subject to a further determination on ratification, the United Republic of Tanzania declares that the provisions of article 17 paragraph 11 shall not be construed as either restraining in any manner the rights and privileges of a coastal State as envisaged by the relevant provisions relating to the Economic Exclusive Zone of the Law of the Sea Convention, or, as according third parties rights other than those so recognized under the Convention."

United States of America

Understandings:

"(1) Nothing in this Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.

"(2) The United States shall not consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition of citizens to any country with which the United States has no bilateral extradition treaty in force.

"(3) Pursuant to the rights of the United States under article 7 of this treaty to deny requests which prejudice its essential interests, the United States shall deny a request for assistance when the designated authority, after consultation with all appropriate intelligence, anti-narcotic, and foreign policy agencies, has specific information that a senior government official who will have access to information to be provided under this treaty is engaged in or facilitates the production or distribution of illegal drugs."

Declaration:

"Pursuant to article 32 (4), the United States of America shall not be bound by article 32 (2)."

Venezuela

Interpretative declarations:

1. With respect to article 6: (Extradition)

It is the understanding of the Government of Venezuela that this Convention shall not be considered a legal basis for the extradition of Venezuelan citizens, as provided for in the national legislation in force.

2. With respect to article 11: (Controlled Delivery)

It is the understanding of the Government of Venezuela that publicly actionable offences in the national territory shall be prosecuted by the competent national police authorities and that the controlled delivery procedure shall be applied only in so far as it does not contravene national legislation in this matter.

Viet Nam12

Reservations:

"Reservations to article 6 on Extradition, article 32 paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 on Dispute settlement."

Yemen6

Upon signature:

[Yemen reserves its] right to enter reservations in respect of such articles as it may see fit at a time subsequent to this signature.

Objections

(Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were received upon ratification,

accession, acceptance, approval, formal confirmation or succession.)

Austria

16 December 1998

With regard to the reservation to article 6 made by Viet Nam upon accession:

"Austria is of the view that the reservation raises doubts as to its ratification of the mentioned treaty. Austria is of the view that the reservation raises doubts as to its compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention concerned, in particular the fundamental principle that perpetrators of drug-related crime should be brought to justice, regardless of their whereabouts. Non-acceptance of this principle would undermine the effectiveness of the [said] Convention.

"Austria therefore objects to the reservation. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the [said] Convention between Austria and Vietnam."

Belgium

27 December 1989

Belgium, member State of the European Community, attached to the principle of freedom of navigation, notably in the exclusive economic zone, considers that the declaration of Brazil concerning paragraph 11 of article 17, of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, adopted at Vienna on 20 December 1988, goes further than the rights accorded to coastal States by international law.

Denmark

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium .]

France

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium .]

7 March 1997

With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon upon accession:

The Government of France has taken note of the reservations [made] by the Government of Lebanon in respect of articles 5 and 7 of this Convention and considers these reservations to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Convention indicates that bank secrecy shall not be a ground for a failure to act or for a failure to render mutual assistance. The Government of France considers that these reservations therefore undermine the object and purpose of the Convention, as stated in article 2, paragraph 1, to promote cooperation in order to address more effectively the international dimension of illicit drugs trafficking.

16 December 1998

With regard to the reservation with regard to article 6 made by Viet Nam upon accession:

[The Government of France] considers [the reservation made by Viet Nam upon accession] to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention of 1988. France therefore objects to it.

The objection does not preclude the entry into force of the 1988 Convention between France and Viet Nam.

Germany3

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium.]

21 March 1997

With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon:

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by France .]

16 December 1998

With regard to the reservation to article 6 made by Viet Nam upon accession:

"The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers this reservation to be problematic in the light of the object and purpose of the Convention. The reservation made in respect of article 6 is contrary to the principle ‘aut dedere au iudicare' which provides that offences are brought before the court or that extradition is granted to the requesting States.

"The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is therefore of the opinion that the reservation jeopardizes the intention of the Convention, as stated in article 2 paragraph 1, to promote cooperation among the parties so that they may address more effectively the international dimension of illicit drug trafficking.

"The reservation may also raise doubts as to the commitment of the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam to comply with fundamental provisions of the Convention. It is in the common interest of states that international treaties which they have concluded are respected, as to their object and purpose, and that all parties are prepared to undertake any legislative and administrative changes necessary to comply with their obligations.

"The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the reservation.

"This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam."

Finland

25 April 1997

With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon:

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by France.]

Greece

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium. ]

Ireland

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium .]

Italy

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium. ]

24 April 1997

With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon upon accession:

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by France. ]

18 December 1998

With regard to the reservations made by Viet Nam upon accession:

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Germany .]

Luxembourg

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium.]

Mexico

10 July 1990

With regard to the interpretative declarations made by the United States of America:

The Government of the United Mexican States considers that the third declaration submitted by the Government of the United States of America (...) constitutes a unilateral claim to justification, not envisaged in the Convention, for denying legal assistance to a State that requests it, which runs counter to the purposes of the Convention. Consequently, the Government of the United Mexican States considers that such a declaration constitutes a reservation to which it objects.

This objection should not be interpreted as impeding the entry into force of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 as between the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America.

Netherlands

27 December 1989

[Same objection,mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium. ]

11 March 1997

With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon upon accession:

Same objectionas the one made by France.

Portugal

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium. ]

Spain

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium. ]

Sweden

7 March 1997

With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon upon accession:

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by France. ]

14 December 1998

With regard to the reservation made by Viet Nam upon accession:

"... The Government of Sweden is of the view that the reservation made by the Government of Viet Nam regarding article 6, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Viet Nam to the object and purpose of the Convention.

"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.

"Furthermore, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, and well-established customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.

"The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid [reservation] by the Government of Viet Nam.

"[This objection does] not preclude the entry into force of the [Convention] between Viet Nam and Sweden. The [Convention] will thus become operative between the two States without Viet Nam benefiting from the [reservation]."

Turkey

With regard to the declaration made by Cyprus upon ratification:

"The Republic of Cyprus, founded in 1960 as a partnership state in accordance with the international Cyprus Treaties by the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities, was destroyed in 1963 when the Greek Cypriot side threw the Turkish Cypriots out of the government and administration and thereby rendered the Government of Cyprus unconstitutional.

"Consequently, since December 1963, there has been no single political authority in Cyprus representing both communities and legitimate empowered to act on behalf of the whole island. The Greek Cypriot side does not possess the right or authority to become party to international instruments on behalf of Cyprus as a whole.

"The ratification of this Convention by Turkey shall in no way imply the recognition of the ‘Republic of Cyprus' by Turkey and her accession to this Convention should not signify any obligation on the part of Turkey to enter into any dealings with the ‘Republic of Cyprus' as are regulated by this Convention."

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

27 December 1989

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Belgium. ]

10 March 1997

With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon upon accession:

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by France. ]

17 December 1998

With regard to the reservation to article 6 made by Viet Nam upon accession:

"The United Kingdom is not in a position to accept [the] reservation.

"The above objection is not however, to constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the said [Convention] as between Vietnam and the United Kingdom."

United States of America

23 October 1995

With regard to the reservations and declarations made by Colombia upon ratification:

"The Government of the United States of America understands the first reservation to exempt Colombia from the obligations imposed by article 3, paragraphs 6 and 9, and article 6 of the Convention only insofar as compliance with such obligations would prevent Colombia from abiding by article 35 of its Political Constitution (regarding the extradition of Colombian nationals by birth), to the extent that the reservation is intended to apply other than to the extradition of Colombian nationals by birth, the Government of the United States objects to the reservation.

"The Government of the United States of America objects to the first declaration, as it purports to subordinate Colombia's obligations under the Convention to its Constitution and international treaties, as well as to that nation's domestic legislation generally.

"The Government of the United States of America objects to the seventh declaration to the extent it purports to restrict the right of other States to freedom of navigation and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to that freedom seaward of the outer limits of any State's territorial sea, determined in accordance with the International Law of the Sea as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea."

 

 

NOTES

1. On 6 and 10 June 1997, respectively, the Governments of China and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notified the Secretary-General of the following:

[Same notifications as those made under note 4 in chapter IV.1.]

In addition, the notification made by the Government of China contained the following declaration:

1. The reservation made by the Government of the People's Republic of China to paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 32 of the Convention will also apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

2. Czechoslovakia had signed and ratified the Convention on 7 December 1989 and 4 June 1991, respectively. See also note 11 in chapter I.2.

3. The German Democratic Republic had signed and ratified the Convention on 21 June 1989 and 21 February 1990, respectively. The instrument of ratification contained the following declarations:

Requests for mutual legal assistance under article 7 shall be directed to the German Democratic Republic through diplomatic channel in one of the official United Nations languages or in the German language unless existing agreements on mutual legal assistance include other provisions or direct communication between legal authorities has been determined or developed on a mutual basis.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall be the competent authority to receive and respond to requests of another state to board or search a vessel suspected of being involved in illicit traffic (article 17).

See also note 14 in chapter I.2.

4. The signature was affixed for the Kingdom in Europe, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. The instrument of acceptance specifies that it is for the Kingdom in Europe. As from 10 mars 1999: for the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba with the following reservation: "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of article 3, paragraph 6, 7 and 8, only in so far as the obligations under these provisions are in accordance with Netherlands Antillean and Aruban criminal legislation and Netherlands Antillean and Aruban policy on criminal matters."

5. On 2 December 1993, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notified the Secretary-General that the Convention would apply to the Isle of Man with the following reservation:

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will only consider the granting of immunity under article 7, paragraph 18, in relation to the Isle of Man, where this is specifically requested by the person to whom the immunity would apply or by the authority designated under article 7, paragraph 8 of the party from whom assistance is requested. A request for immunity will not be granted where the judicial authorities of the Isle of Man consider that to do so would be contrary to the public interest."

Subsequently, in a notification received on 8 February 1995, the Government of the United Kingdom notified the Secretary-General that the Convention should apply, as from that same date, to the following territories: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Monserrat and Turks and Caicos Islands.

In this regard, on 6 August 1996, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the following communication:

"... In relation to the aformentioned Territories the granting of immunity under article 7, paragraph 18, of the said Convention will only be considered where this is specifically requested by the person to whom the immunity would apply or by the authority designated, under article 7, paragraph 8, of the Party from whom assistance is requested. A request for immunity will not be granted where the judicial authorities of the Territory in question consider to do so would be contrary to the public interest."

Further, on 15 May and 7 July 1997, respectively, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notified the Secretary-General that the Convention shall extend to Hong Kong (see also note 1 in this chapter) and the Bailiwick of Jersey. The application of the Convention to the Bailiwick of Jersey is subject to the following reservation:

(1)article 7, paragraph 18 (Reservation)

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will only consider the granting of immunity under article 7, paragraph 18, in relation to Jersey, where this is specifically requested by the person to whom the immunity would apply or by the authority designated under article 7, paragraph 8 of the party from whom assistance is requested. A request for immunity will not be granted where the judicial authorities of Jersey consider that to do so would be contrary to the public interest."

6. The formality was effected by the Yemen Arab Republic. See also note 33 in chapter I.2.

7. The Secretary-General received from the Government of Israel objections identical in essence, mutatis mutandis, as the one referenced in note 15 in chapter VI.16, on 14 May 1990 in regard to the declaration made by Bahrain upon ratification, on 15 November 1991 in regard to the declaration made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession and on 10 April 1992 in regard to the declaration made by Saudi Arabia upon accession.

8. On 30 December 1997, the Government of Colombia notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation with regard to article 3 (6) and (9) and article 6 made upon ratification. The reservation reads as follows.

1. Colombia is not bound by article 3, paragraphs 6 and 9, or article 6 of the Convention since they contravene article 35 of the Political Constitution of Colombia regarding the prohibition on extraditing Colombians by birth.

9. On 10 December 1996, the Government of Jamaica informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its declaration made upon accession. The declaration read as follows:

Declaration:

"The Government of Jamaica understands paragraph 11 of article 17 of the said Convention to mean that the consent of the coastal State is required as a precondition for action under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of article 17 of the said Convention in relation to the Exclusive Economic Zone and all other maritime areas under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the coastal State."

10. In regard to the reservation made by Lebanon, the Secretary-General received communications identical in essence, mutatis mutandis , as the one made by France under Objections", from the following Governments on the dates indicated hereinafter:

Participants:  Date of the communication: 
Austria  11 Jul 1997 
Greece  18 Jul 1997 
   

11. On 24 July 1997, the Government of the Philippines informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservations made upon accession, which read as follows:

"[The Government of the Philippines declares] that it does not consider itself bound by the following provisions:

1. " Paragraph 1 (b) (i) and paragraph 2 (a) (ii) of article 4 on jurisdiction;

2. "Paragraph 1 (a) and paragraph 6 (a) and (b) of article 5 on confiscation; and

3. "Paragraph 9 (a) and (b) and 10 of article on extradition."

On that same date, the Government of the Philippines declared the following:

"The Philippines, does not consider itself bound by the mandatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as provided for in article 32, paragraph 2 of the same Convention."

In keeping with the depositary practice followed in similar cases, the Secretary-General proposed to receive the declaration in question for deposit (in the absence of any objection on the part of any of the Contracting States, either to the deposit itself or to the procedure envisaged) within a period of 90 days from the date of the present notification (3 September 1997). No objection having been recieved within the said period, the above declaration was deemed accepted for deposit upon the expiration of the 90-day period, that is to say on 2 December 1997.

12. In a communication received on 15 January 1999, the Government of Finland notified the Secretary-General of the following:

"The Government of Finland is of the view that [this reservation] raise[s] doubts as to [its] compatibility with the object and purpose of the [Convention] concerned, in particular the [reservation] to article 6, paragraphs 2 and 9. According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and well-established customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty shall 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 Government of Finland therefore objects to [this reservation] made by the Government of Viet Nam to the [Convention].

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the [Convention] between Viet Nam and Finland. The [Convention] will thus become operative between the two States without Viet Nam benefitting from [this reservation]."

13. On 7 July 1999, the Government of Portugal informed the Secretary-General that the Convention would apply to Macau.

Subsequently, the Secretary-General received, on 18 November 1999, from the Government of Portugal, the following communication:

"In accordance with the Joint Declaration of the Government of the Portuguese Republic and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Macau signed on 13 April 1987, the Portuguese Republic will continue to have international responsibility for Macau until 19 December 1999 and from that date onwards the People's Republic of China will resume the exercise of sovereignty over Macau with effect from 20 December 1999.

From 20 December 1999 onwards the Portuguese Republic will cease to be responsible for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the Convention to Macau."