International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Parties and signatories of the ICCPR
Signatory that has not ratified
State party that attempted to withdraw
Non-state party, non-signatory
|Type||United Nations General Assembly Resolution|
|Signed||19 December 1966|
|Location||United Nations Headquarters, New York|
|Effective||23 March 1976|
|Depositary||Secretary General of the United Nations|
|Languages||French, English, Russian, Chinese, Spanish|
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly with resolution 2200A (XXI) on 16 December 1966, and in force from 23 March 1976 in accordance with Article 49 of the covenant. Article 49 allowed that the covenant will enter into force three months after the date of the deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or accession. The covenant 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 August 2017, the Covenant has 172 parties and six more signatories without ratification.
The ICCPR is part of the International Bill of Human Rights, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
The ICCPR is monitored by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (a separate body to the United Nations Human Rights Council), which reviews regular reports of States parties on how the rights are being implemented. 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.
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 Conference which led to the founding of the United Nations, and the Economic and Social Council was given the task of drafting it. 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.
The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-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.
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. 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." The two covenants were to contain as many similar provisions as possible, and be opened for signature simultaneously. Each would also contain an article on the right of all peoples to self-determination.
The first document became the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the second the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The drafts were presented to the UN General Assembly for discussion in 1954, and adopted in 1966. 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. Together, the UDHR and the two Covenants are considered to be the foundational human rights texts in the contemporary international system of human rights.
Articles of the Covenant
Part 1 (Article 1) recognizes the right of all peoples to self-determination, including the right to "freely determine their political status", pursue their economic, social and cultural goals, and manage and dispose of their own resources. It recognises a negative right of a people not to be deprived of its means of subsistence, and imposes an obligation on those parties still responsible for non-self governing and trust territories (colonies) to encourage and respect their self-determination.
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. 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," and to ensure that they are enjoyed equally by women. The rights can only be limited "in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation," and even then no derogation is permitted from the rights to life, freedom from torture and slavery, the freedom from retrospective law, the right to personhood, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
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, the presumption 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).
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".
Part 6 (Articles 48 – 53) governs ratification, entry into force, and amendment of the Covenant.
Rights to physical integrity
Article 6 of the Covenant recognises the individual's "inherent right to life" and requires it to be protected by law. It is a "supreme right" from which no derogation can be permitted, and must be interpreted widely. 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.
While Article 6 does not prohibit the death penalty, it restricts its application to the "most serious crimes" and forbids it to be used on children and pregnant women or in a manner contrary to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The UN Human Rights Committee interprets the Article as "strongly suggest[ing] that abolition is desirable", and regards any progress towards abolition of the death penalty as advancing this right. 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. As with Article 6, it cannot be derogated from under any circumstances. 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. In response to Nazi human experimentation during WW2 this article explicitly includes a prohibition on medical and scientific experimentation without consent.
Liberty and security of person
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, and obliges parties to allow those deprived of their liberty to challenge their imprisonment through the courts. 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.
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. It also restricts the use of pre-trial detention, requiring that it not be 'the general rule'.
Article 10 requires anyone deprived of liberty to be treated with dignity and humanity. This applies not just to prisoners, but also to those detained for immigration purposes or psychiatric care. The right complements the Article 7 prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 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. It requires prisons to be focused on reform and rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Procedural fairness and rights of the accused
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. 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. These obligations apply to both criminal and civil hearings, and to all courts and tribunals.
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 and forbids double jeopardy. It requires that those convicted of a crime be allowed to appeal to a higher tribunal, and requires victims of a Miscarriage of justice to be compensated. It establishes rights to a speedy trial, to counsel, against self-incrimination, and for the accused to be present and call and examine witnesses.
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. But except the criminal according to general principles of law recognized by international community. (jus cogens)
Article 16 requires states to recognize everyone as a person before the law.
Article 12 guarantees freedom of movement, including the right of persons to choose their residence, to leave and return to a country. These rights apply to legal aliens as well as citizens of a state, and can be restricted only where necessary to protect national security, public order or health, and the rights and freedoms of others. The article also recognises a right of people to enter their own country; the Right of return. The Human Rights Committee interprets this right broadly as applying not just to citizens, but also to those stripped of or denied their nationality. 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".
Article 17 mandates the right of privacy. This provision, specifically article 17(1), protects private adult consensual sexual activity, thereby nullifying prohibitions on homosexual behaviour, however, the wording of this covenant's marriage right (Article 23) excludes the extrapolation of a same-sex marriage right from this provision. 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
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.
Article 23 mandates the right of marriage. The wording of this provision neither requires nor prohibits same-sex marriage.
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.
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. 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 116 parties.
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. As of December 2017, the Second Optional Protocol had 85 parties.
Argentina will apply the fair trial rights guaranteed in its constitution to the prosecution of those accused of violating the general law of nations.
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.
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.
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.
Belgium interprets the freedoms of speech, assembly and association in a manner consistent with the European 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.
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.
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.
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.
Pakistan, has made several reservations to the articles in the Convention; "the provisions of Articles 3, 6, 7, 18 and 19 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Sharia laws", "the provisions of Article 12 shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan", "With respect to Article 13, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners", "the provisions of Article 25 shall be so applied to the extent that they are not repugnant to the Provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan" and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan "does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 40 of the Covenant".
The United States has made reservations that none of the articles should restrict the right of free speech and association; that the US government may impose capital punishment on any person other than 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 one or more of the fifth, eighth, and 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".
Implementation and effects
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.
The Covenant is not directly enforceable in Australia, but 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 Covenant’s 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. This law requires most new legislation and administrative instruments (such as delegated/subordinate legislation) to be tabled in parliament with a statement outlining the proposed law's compatibility with the listed human rights A Joint Committee on Human Rights scrutinises all new legislation and statements of compatibility. The findings of the Joint Committee are not legally binding.
Legislation also establishes the Australian Human Rights Commission which allows the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to examine enacted legislation (to suggest remedial enactments), its administration (to suggest avoidance of practices) and general compliance with the covenant which is scheduled to the AHRC legislation.
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. While the Convention cannot be used to overturn a Victorian or ACT law, a Court can issue a 'declaration of incompatibility' that requires the relevant Attorney-General to respond in Parliament within a set time period. Courts in Victoria and the ACT are also directed by the legislation to interpret the law in a way to give effect to a human right, and new legislation and subordinate legislation must be accompanied by a statement of compatibility. 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.
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."
New Zealand took measures to give effect to many of the rights contained within it by passing the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in 1990, and formally incorporated the status of protected person into law through the passing of the Immigration Act 2009.
Reservations, understandings, and declarations
The United States Senate ratified the ICCPR in 1992, with five reservations, five understandings, and four declarations. Some have noted that with so many reservations, its implementation has little domestic effect. Included in the Senate's ratification was the declaration that "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing", and in a Senate 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." However, "expressed declarations" do not affect treaties [Igartua-De Le Rosa v. US, 417 F.3d 145, 190-191 (1st Cir. 2005)] Fleming v US (15-8425) establishes the ICCPR treaty IS SELF-Executing by legal definition of a self-executing treaty, US reports to UN, DOJ and US Ambassador Hamamoto.
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 US judicial system is created by ratification. However, the US 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 US to UN 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 the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and international law, there is some issue as to whether the non-self-execution declaration is even legal under domestic law.
Prominent critics in the human rights community, such as Prof. Louis Henkin (non-self-execution declaration incompatible with the Supremacy Clause) and Prof. Jordan Paust ("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 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights over the last thirty years.
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.
In 1994, the United Nations' Human Rights Committee expressed concerns with compliance:
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 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. Its citizens are not permitted to sue to enforce their basic human rights under the Covenant. 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 of sovereign, judicial, prosecutorial, and executive branch immunities that often deprives its citizens of the "effective remedy" under law the Covenant is intended to guarantee.
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 party’s 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.
Parties to the Covenant
|State party||Signed||Ratified or acceded||Entry into force|
|—||24 January 1983||24 April 1983|
|—||4 October 1991||4 January 1992|
|10 December 1968||12 September 1989||12 December 1989|
|5 August 2002||22 September 2006||22 December 2006|
|—||10 January 1992||10 April 1992|
|18 February 1968||8 August 1986||8 November 1986|
|—||23 June 1993||23 September 1993|
|18 December 1972||13 August 1980||13 November 1980|
|10 December 1973||10 September 1978||10 December 1978|
|—||13 August 1992||13 November 1992|
|4 December 2008||23 December 2008||23 March 2009|
|—||20 September 2006||20 December 2006|
|—||6 September 2000||6 December 2000|
|—||5 January 1973||23 March 1976|
|19 March 1968||12 November 1973||23 March 1976|
|10 December 1968||12 April 1983||12 July 1983|
|—||10 June 1996||10 September 1996|
|—||12 March 1992||12 June 1992|
|—||12 August 1982||12 November 1982|
|—||1 September 1993||6 March 1992|
|8 September 2000||8 September 2000||8 December 2000|
|—||24 January 1992||24 April 1992|
|8 October 1968||21 September 1970||23 March 1976|
|—||4 January 1999||4 April 1999|
|—||8 May 1990||8 August 1990|
|17 October 1980||26 May 1992||26 August 1992|
|—||27 January 1984||27 April 1984|
|—||19 May 1976||19 August 1976|
|—||6 August 1993||6 November 1993|
|—||8 May 1981||8 August 1981|
|—||9 June 1995||9 September 1995|
|16 September 1969||10 February 1972||23 March 1976|
|21 December 1966||29 October 1969||23 March 1976|
|—||1 November 1976||1 February 1977|
|—||5 October 1983||5 January 1984|
|19 December 1966||29 November 1968||23 March 1976|
|—||26 March 1992||26 June 1992|
|—||12 October 1992||12 January 1993|
|19 December 1966||2 April 1969||23 March 1976|
|—||22 February 1993||1 January 1993|
|20 March 1968||6 January 1972||23 March 1976|
|—||5 November 2002||5 February 2003|
|—||17 June 1993||17 September 1993|
|—||4 January 1978||4 April 1978|
|—||18 September 2003||18 December 2003|
|4 April 1968||6 March 1969||23 March 1976|
|4 August 1967||14 January 1982||14 April 1982|
|21 September 1967||30 November 1979||29 February 1980|
|—||25 September 1987||25 December 1987|
|—||22 January 2002||22 April 2002|
|—||21 October 1991||21 January 1992|
|—||11 June 1993||11 September 1993|
|—||16 August 2018||16 November 2018|
|11 October 1967||19 August 1975||23 March 1976|
|—||4 November 1980||4 February 1981|
|—||21 January 1983||21 April 1983|
|—||22 March 1979||22 June 1979|
|—||3 May 1994||3 August 1994|
|9 October 1968||17 December 1973||23 March 1976|
|7 September 2000||7 September 2000||7 December 2000|
|—||5 May 1997||5 August 1997|
|—||6 September 1991||6 December 1991|
|—||5 May 1992||5 August 1992|
|28 February 1967||24 January 1978||24 April 1978|
|12 September 2000||1 November 2010||1 February 2011|
|22 August 1968||15 February 1977||15 May 1977|
|—||6 February 1991||6 May 1991|
|19 December 1966||25 August 1997||25 November 1997|
|25 March 1969||17 January 1974||23 March 1976|
|30 December 1968||22 August 1979||22 November 1979|
|—||10 April 1979||10 July 1979|
|—||23 February 2006||23 May 2006|
|4 April 1968||24 June 1975||23 March 1976|
|18 February 1969||25 January 1971||23 March 1976|
|1 October 1973||8 December 1989||8 March 1990|
|19 December 1966||3 October 1991||3 January 1992|
|18 January 1967||15 September 1978||15 December 1978|
|19 December 1966||3 October 1975||23 March 1976|
|30 May 1978||21 June 1979||21 September 1979|
|30 June 1972||28 May 1975||23 March 1976|
|2 December 2003||24 January 2006||24 April 2006|
|—||1 May 1972||23 March 1976|
|—||14 September 1981||14 December 1981|
|—||10 April 1990||10 July 1990|
|—||21 May 1996||21 August 1996|
|—||7 October 1994||7 January 1995|
|7 December 2000||25 September 2009||25 December 2009|
|—||14 April 1992||14 July 1992|
|—||3 November 1972||23 March 1976|
|—||9 September 1992||9 December 1992|
|18 April 1967||22 September 2004||22 December 2004|
|—||15 May 1970||23 March 1976|
|—||10 December 1998||10 March 1999|
|—||20 November 1991||10 February 1992|
|26 November 1974||18 August 1983||18 November 1983|
|—||18 January 1994||17 September 1991|
|17 September 1969||21 June 1971||23 March 1976|
|—||22 December 1993||22 March 1994|
|—||19 September 2006||19 December 2006|
|—||16 July 1974||23 March 1976|
|—||13 September 1990||13 December 1990|
|—||12 March 2018||12 June 2018|
|—||17 November 2004||17 February 2005|
|—||12 December 1973||23 March 1976|
|—||23 March 1981||23 June 1981|
|—||26 January 1993||26 April 1993|
|26 June 1997||28 August 1997||28 November 1997|
|5 June 1968||18 November 1974||23 March 1976|
|—||23 October 2006||3 June 2006|
|19 January 1977||3 May 1979||3 August 1979|
|—||21 July 1993||21 October 1993|
|—||28 November 1994||28 February 1995|
|—||14 May 1991||14 August 1991|
|25 June 1969||11 December 1978||11 March 1979|
|12 November 1968||28 December 1978||28 March 1979|
|—||12 March 1980||12 June 1980|
|—||7 March 1986||7 June 1986|
|—||29 July 1993||29 October 1993|
|20 March 1968||13 September 1972||23 March 1976|
|17 April 2008||23 June 2010||23 September 2010|
|—||2 April 2014||2 July 2014|
|27 July 1976||8 March 1977||8 June 1977|
|—||21 July 2008||21 October 2008|
|—||10 June 1992||10 September 1992|
|11 August 1977||28 April 1978||28 July 1978|
|19 December 1966||23 October 1986||23 January 1987|
|2 March 1967||18 March 1977||18 June 1977|
|7 October 1976||15 June 1978||15 September 1978|
|—||21 May 2018||21 August 2018|
|27 June 1968||9 December 1974||23 March 1976|
|18 March 1968||16 October 1973||23 March 1976|
|—||16 April 1975||23 March 1976|
|—||9 November 1981||9 February 1981|
|—||15 February 2008||15 May 2008|
|—||18 October 1985||18 January 1986|
|31 October 1995||10 January 2017||10 April 2017|
|6 July 1970||13 February 1978||13 May 1978|
|—||12 March 2001||27 April 1992|
|—||5 May 1992||5 August 1992|
|—||23 August 1996||23 November 1996|
|—||28 May 1993||1 January 1993|
|—||6 July 1992||6 October 1992|
|—||24 January 1990||24 April 1990|
|3 October 1994||10 December 1998||10 March 1999|
|28 September 1976||27 April 1977||27 July 1977|
|—||11 June 1980||11 September 1980|
|—||18 March 1986||18 June 1986|
|—||28 December 1976||28 March 1977|
|—||26 March 2004||26 June 2004|
|29 September 1967||6 December 1971||23 March 1976|
|—||18 June 1992||18 September 1992|
|—||21 April 1969||23 March 1976|
|—||4 January 1999||4 April 1999|
|—||11 June 1976||11 September 1976|
|—||29 October 1996||29 January 1997|
|—||24 May 1984||24 August 1984|
|—||21 December 1978||21 March 1979|
|30 April 1968||18 March 1969||23 March 1976|
|15 August 2000||23 September 2003||23 December 2003|
|—||1 May 1997||1 August 1997|
|—||21 June 1995||21 September 1995|
|20 March 1968||12 November 1973||23 March 1976|
|16 September 1968||20 May 1976||20 August 1976|
|5 October 1977||8 June 1992||8 September 1992|
|21 February 1967||21 May 1967||23 March 1976|
|—||28 September 1995||28 December 1995|
|29 November 2007||21 November 2008||21 February 2009|
|24 June 1969||10 May 1978||10 August 1978|
|—||24 September 1982||24 December 1982|
|—||9 February 1987||9 May 1987|
|—||10 April 1984||10 July 1984|
|—||13 May 1991||13 August 1991|
States not party to the Covenant
Signatories that have not ratified
|5 October 1998|
|25 September 2008|
|28 February 2008|
|12 November 2001|
|20 September 2011|
|22 September 2011|
States which are neither signatories nor parties
- United Nations Human Rights Committee
- United Nations Human Rights Council
- United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories
- United Nations General Assembly Resolution 66 (I)
- United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV)
- United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)
- United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI)
Yugoslavia signed the Covenant on 8 August 1967 and ratified it on 2 June 1971; it entered into force for Yugoslavia on 23 March 1976. Following the breakup of Yugoslavia, the following states located in the former Yugoslavia made declarations regarding that status of the Covenant with regard to themselves: Bosnia and Herzegovina – On 1 September 1993, it declared that the Covenant was in force for it since 6 March 1992. Federal Republic of Yugoslavia – On 12 March 2001, it declared that the Covenant was in force for it since 27 April 1992. On 4 February 2003, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro, and on 3 June 2006 Serbia succeeded Serbia and Montenegro. Therefore, for Serbia, the Covenant has been in force since 27 April 1992. Republic of Macedonia – On 18 January 1994, it declared that the Covenant was in force for it since 17 September 1991. Montenegro – On 23 October 2006, it declared that the Covenant was in force for it since 3 June 2006.
- Although Cambodia signed the Covenant when it was known as Democratic Kampuchea, it filed an instrument of accession, not ratification, on 26 May 1992.
Czechoslovakia signed the Covenant on 7 October 1968 and ratified it on 23 December 1975; it entered into force for Czechoslovakia on 23 March 1976. Following the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic declared on 22 February 1993 that the Covenant was in force for it since 1 January 1993 and Slovakia declared on 28 May 1993 that the Covenant was also in force for it since 1 January 1993.
East Germany signed the Covenant on 23 March 1973 and ratified it on 8 November 1973; it entered into force for East Germany on 23 March 1976. Following the reunification of Germany on 3 October 1990, East Germany ceased to exist.
- On 25 August 1997, North Korea notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations that it was withdrawing from the Covenant. However, the Secretary-General still considers North Korea a state party to the Covenant because the Covenant does not allow for withdrawal and therefore withdrawal would only be possible if all other states parties allowed it, which has not occurred.
- Portugal extended the territorial application of the Covenant to Macau on 27 April 1993. On 3 December 1999, China notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations that the Covenant would still be in force for Macau following the transfer of sovereignty on 20 December 1999.
- Both China and the United Kingdom notified the Secretary-General that the Covenant would continue to remain in force for Hong Kong upon transfer of sovereignty on 1 July 1997.
Taiwan (the Republic of China) lost its United Nations membership on 25 October 1971; the Republic of China signed the Covenant on 5 October 1967 but did not ratify it.
- "OHCHR Dashboard".
Status of ratification
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights
- "Fact Sheet No.2 (Rev.1), The International Bill of Human Rights". UN OHCHR. June 1996. Archived from the original on 13 March 2008. Retrieved 2008-06-02.
- Christopher N.J.Roberts. "William H. Fitzpatrick's Editorials on Human Rights (1949)". Quellen zur Geschichte der Menschenrechte. Retrieved November 4, 2017.
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Part I, Article 1, paragraph 3.
- Sieghart, Paul (1983). The International Law of Human Rights. Oxford University Press. p. 25.
- United Nations General Assembly Resolution 543, 5 February 1952.
- United Nations General Assembly Resolution 545, 5 February 1952.
- United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2200, 16 December 1966.
- The following section summarises the text of the Covenant.
- ICCPR, Article 1.1.
- ICCPR, Article 1.2.
- ICCPR, Article 1.3.
- ICCPR, Article 2.2, 2.3.
- ICCPR, Article 2.1.
- ICCPR, Article 3.
- ICCPR, Article 4.1.
- ICCPR, Article 4.2.
- ICCPR, Article 47.
- ICCPR, Article 6.1.
- "CCPR General Comment No. 6: The right to life". UN OHCHR. 30 April 1982. Retrieved 2010-10-10.
- ICCPR, Article 6.2.
- ICCPR, Article 6.5.
- ICCPR, Article 6.3.
- ICCPR, Article 7.
- "CCPR General Comment No. 20: Replaces general comment 7 concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment". UN OHCHR. 10 March 1992. Retrieved 2010-10-10.
- ICCPR, Articles 8.1, 8.2.
- ICCPR, Article 8.3.
- ICCPR, Article 9.1.
- ICCPR, Article 9.4.
- "CCPR General Comment No. 08: Right to liberty and security of persons". UN OHCHR. 30 June 1982. Retrieved 2010-10-10.
- ICCPR, Articles 9.2, 9.3.
- ICCPR, Article 9.3.
- ICCPR, Article 10.1.
- "General Comment No. 21: Replaces general comment 9 concerning humane treatment of persons deprived of liberty". UN OHCHR. 10 April 1992. Retrieved 2010-10-10.
- ICCPR, Article 10.2.
- ICCPR, Article 10.3.
- ICCPR, Article 11.
- ICCPR, Article 14.1.
- "General Comment No. 13: Equality before the courts and the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent court established by law". UN OHCHR. 13 April 1984. Retrieved 2010-10-10.
- ICCPR, Article 14.2.
- ICCPR, Article 14.7.
- ICCPR, Article 14.5.
- ICCPR, Article 14.6.
- ICCPR, Article 14.3.
- ICCPR, Article 15.
- ICCPR, Article 15.2.
- ICCPR, Article 16.
- "OHCHR - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". www.ohchr.org. horizontal tab character in
|title=at position 10 (help)
- "CCPR: General Comment No. 27: Freedom of movement". UN OHCHR. 2 November 1999. Retrieved 2010-10-10.
- ICCPR, Article 12.3.
- ICCPR, Article 12.4.
- ICCPR, Article 13.
- ICCPR, Article 17.
- "Toonen v Australia Communication No. 488/1992 (1994) U.N. Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 at [8.1–8.6]".
- "Joslin v New Zealand (2002) Comm. No. 902/1999 U.N. Doc. A/57/40 at 214 (2002) at [Appendix (My Lallah & Mr Scheinen)]".
- ICCPR, Article 18.
- ICCPR, Article 19.
- ICCPR, Article 20.
- ICCPR, Article 21.
- ICCPR, Article 22.
- ICCPR, Article 23.
- Joslin v New Zealand (2002) Comm. No. 902/1999 U.N. Doc. A/57/40 at 214 (2002) at [8.2–9.0(majority)] & [1(Lallah & Scheinen JJ] "Joslin v New Zealand (2002) Comm. No. 902/1999 U.N. Doc. A/57/40 at 214 (2002)".
- ICCPR, Article 24.
- ICCPR, Ariticle 27.
- OP1-ICCPR, Article 1.
- "UN Treaty Collection: Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". United Nations. Retrieved 2011-10-14.
- OP2-ICCPR, Article 2.1
- "UN Treaty Collection: Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty". United Nations. Archived from the original on 20 October 2012. Retrieved 12 October 2009.
- "United Nations Treaty Collection". un.org.
- "University of Minnesota Human Rights Library". University of Minnesota. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
- Act No. 186 of 2011 : Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, ComLaw
- Act No. 186 of 2011, Part 3.
- Act No. 186 of 2011, Part 2
- Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth).
- Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 11(e).
- Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 11(j).
- Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 11(f)(i) – Conciliation & (ii) – Reporting.
- Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 11(n).
- Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 11(k) & (m).
- "Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), schedule 2".
- Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic); Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).
- "Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)" (PDF). legislation.act.gov.au.
- For example, Part 4, Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).
- For example, Part 4, Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).
- Vines, Timothy and Faunce, Thomas Alured, A Bad Trip for Health-Related Human Rights: Implications of Momcilovic v the Queen (2011) 85 ALJR 957 (2012). (2012) 19 Journal of Law and Medicine 685 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2257114>
- Joseph Kavanagh v. Ireland, United Nations Human Rights Committee Communication No. 819/1998, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/71/D/819/1998 (2001).
- "Immigration Act 2009 No 51 (as at 06 May 2016), Public Act Part 5 Refugee and protection status determinations – New Zealand Legislation".
- "University of Minnesota Human Rights Library".
- Black, Allinda; Hopkins, June, eds. (2003). "Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers. Hyde Park, New York: Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site. Retrieved 21 February 2009.
- 138 Cong. Rec. S4781-84 (1992)
- S. Exec. Rep. No. 102-23 (1992)
- Sei Fujii v. State 38 Cal.2d 718, 242 P.2d 617 (1952); also see Buell v. Mitchell 274 F.3d 337 Archived 17 May 2010 at the Wayback Machine. (6th Cir., 2001) (discussing ICCPR's relationship to death penalty cases, citing to other ICCPR cases)
- Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 19, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980) (specifying conditions under which signatory States can offer "reservations")
- Yoo, John C. (1999). "Globalism and the Constitution: Treaties, Non-Self-Execution, and the Original Understanding". Colum. L. Rev. 99 (8): 1955–2094. At p. 1959.
- Louis Henkin, U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Treaties: The Ghost of Senator Bricker, 89 Am. J. Int’l L. 341, 346 (1995)
- Jordan J. Paust, International Law As Law of the United States 375 (2d ed. 2003)
- Greene, Jamal. "Hate Speech and the Demos". In Herz, Michael; Molnár, Péter. The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge University Press. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-521-19109-8.
- Hum. Rts. Comm. General Comment No. 24 (52), para. 11, 18–19, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6 (1994)
- Hain v. Gibson, 287 F.3d 1224 Archived 17 May 2010 at the Wayback Machine. (10th Cir. 2002) (noting that Congress has not done so)
- Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Comm.: United States of America, U.N. Doc. No. CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1, para. 10 (2006)
- "Human Rights Committee : Sessions". ohchr.org. Archived from the original on 21 May 2011. Retrieved 25 February 2013.
- "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". United Nations Treaty Collection. 2018-08-24. Retrieved 2018-08-24.
- Text of the Covenant
- List of parties
- article 2 Bimonthly publication highlighting article 2 of the ICCPR
- Introductory note by Christian Tomuschat, procedural history note and audiovisual material on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the Historic Archives of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
- Lecture by Ruth Wedgwood entitled The Work of the United Nations Human Rights Committee: Enforcing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
- Christopher N.J. Roberts: William H. Fitzpatrick’s Editorials on Human Rights (1949), published by Arbeitskreis Menschenrechte im 20. Jahrhundert, published at "Quellen zur Geschichte der Menschenrechte"