By Theme or Subject Matter - Reservations and Declarations - Concluding Observations

IV. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

CERD

• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, CERD, A/51/18 (1996) 35 at para. 231.

Concern is expressed over the interpretation of article 4 as presented in the State's Party interpretative statement regarding this article and reaffirmed in the thirteenth periodic report. Such an interpretation is not only in conflict with the established view of the Committee, but also amounts to a negation of the State Party's obligation under article 4 (b) of the Convention to outlaw and prohibit organizations which promote and incite racial discrimination.

• Australia, CERD, A/55/18 (2000) 17 at para. 37.

The adoption of the Racial Hatred Act 1995 which has introduced a civil law prohibition of offensive, insulting, humiliating or intimidating behaviour based on race is acknowledged. It is recommended that the State party continue its efforts to adopt appropriate legislation with a view to giving full effect to the provisions of, and withdrawing its reservation to, article 4 (a) of the Convention.

• Malta, CERD, A/55/18 (2000) 29 at para. 125.

The fact that article 4 of the Convention is not fully covered by legislation is of concern. The State party is should take into account all aspects of article 4 in the elaboration of the new legislation and to review its declaration in relation to this article, made upon ratification of the Convention.

• Spain, CERD, A/55/18 (2000) 34 at para. 172.

It is recommended that the State party review its reservation under article 14, which imposes a restrictive deadline of three months instead of six after the exhaustion of domestic remedies, for the submission of communications to the Committee.

• Nepal, CERD, A/55/18 (2000) 52 at para. 295.

In view of the State party’s reservation to articles 4 and 6 of the Convention, the Committee remains concerned that the full implementation of those provisions may not be ensured, and therefore recommends that the State party consider withdrawing its reservation.

• Japan, CERD, A/56/18 (2001) 34 at para. 169.

The reservation maintained by the State party with respect to article 4 (a) and (b) of the Convention, states that "Japan fulfils the obligations under those provisions to the extent that fulfilment is compatible with the guarantee of the rights to freedom of assembly, association and expression and other rights under the Constitution of Japan." Concern is expressed that such an interpretation is in conflict with the State party's obligations under article 4 of the Convention. The State party’s attention is drawn to General Recommendations VII and XV, according to which article 4 is of a mandatory nature, given the non-self-executing character of all its provisions, and the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the rights to freedom of opinion and expression.

• United States of America, CERD, A/56/18 (2001) 64 at para. 391.

Concern is expressed about the State party’s far-reaching reservations, understandings and declarations entered at the time of ratification of the Convention. The implication of the reservation on the implementation of article 4 of the Convention is of particular concern. According to general recommendations VII and XV, the prohibition of dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the right to freedom of opinion and expression, given that a citizen’s exercise of this right carries special duties and responsibilities, among which is the obligation not to disseminate racist ideas. The State party should review its legislation in view of the new requirements of preventing and combatting racial discrimination, and adopt regulations extending the protection against acts of racial discrimination, in accordance with article 4 of the Convention.

ICCPR

• Belgium, ICCPR, A/47/40 (1992) 94 at para. 430.

The State party should reconsider its reservations so as to withdraw as many as possible.

• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Hong Kong), ICCPR, A/51/40 vol. I (1996) 13 at para. 65.

The Committee is aware of the reservation made by the United Kingdom that article 25 of the Covenant does not require establishment of an elected executive or legislative council. However, once an elected legislative council is established, its election must conform to article 25. The electoral system in Hong Kong does not meet the requirements of article 25, or of articles 2, 3 and 26 of the Covenant. That only 20 of 60 seats in the Legislative Council are subject to direct popular election and that the concept of functional constituencies, which gives undue weight to the views of the business community, discriminates among voters on the basis of property and functions, are underscored in particular. That clearly constitutes a violation of article 2, paragraph 1 and articles 25 (b) and 26. It is also of concern that laws depriving convicted persons of their voting rights for periods of up to 10 years may be a disproportionate restriction of the rights protected by article 25.

• India, ICCPR, A/52/40 vol. I (1997) 67 at para. 439.

It is regretted that the use of special powers of detention remains widespread. While noting the State party's reservation to article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that this reservation does not exclude the obligation to comply with the requirement to inform promptly the person concerned of the reasons for his or her arrest. Preventive detention is a restriction of liberty imposed as a response to the conduct of the individual concerned, and the decision as to continue detention must be considered as a determination falling within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, and proceedings to decide the continuation of detention must, therefore, comply with that provision. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the requirements of article 9, paragraph 2, of the Covenant be complied with in respect of all detainees. The question of continued detention should be determined by an independent and impartial tribunal constituted and operating in accordance with article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Furthermore it is recommended, at the very least, that a central register of detainees under preventive detention laws be maintained and that the State party accept the admission of the International Committee of the Red Cross to all types of detention facilities, particularly in areas of conflict.

• Belgium, ICCPR, A/54/40 vol. I (1999) 26 at para. 82.

The Government is urged to reconsider its reservations to the Covenant, in particular with regard to article 10. The explanation that the reservation is necessary because there is a problem of overcrowding in prisons is not persuasive. In addition, alternative sentencing, including community service, should be encouraged in view of its rehabilitative function.

• Kuwait, ICCPR, A/55/40 vol. I (2000) 65 at paras. 456 and 457.

Paragraph 456

Referring to General Comment No. 24 on reservations, it is noted that the “interpretative declarations” of the State party regarding article 2, paragraph 1, article 3, and article 23, as well as the “reservations” concerning article 25 (b) of the Covenant raise the serious issue of their compatibility with the object and purpose of the Covenant. In particular, it is noted that articles 2 and 3 of the Covenant constitute core rights and overarching principles of international law that cannot be subject to “limits set by Kuwaiti law”. Such broad and general limitations undermine the object and purpose of the entire Covenant.

Paragraph 457

The interpretative declaration regarding articles 2 and 3 contravenes the State party’s essential obligations under the Covenant and is therefore without legal effect and does not affect the powers of the Committee. The State party is urged to withdraw formally both the interpretative declarations and the reservations.

• Monaco, ICCPR, A/56/40 vol. I (2001) 89 at para. 84(4).

The existence of six interpretative declarations and one reservation made by the State party when ratifying the Covenant is of concern. The State party should reduce the number of those interpretative declarations. The State party is encouraged to review them, particularly those that have become or are becoming obsolete and unnecessary in the light of developments that have taken place or are taking place, especially with regard to articles 13, 14, 19 and 25(c), of the Covenant.

ICESCR

• Egypt, ICESCR, E/2001/22 (2000) 38 at para. 169.

The State party is strongly urged, notwithstanding the declaration made upon ratification of the Covenant, to undertake a comprehensive review of its legislation as soon as possible, with a view to amending laws that contradict the provisions of its own Constitution and of the Covenant.

• Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (China), ICESCR, E/2002/22 (2001) 39 at para. 191.

The reservation on article 6 and the interpretative declaration replacing the former reservation on article 8 should be withdrawn.

• Japan, ICESCR, E/2002/22 (2001) 90 at paras. 590 and 613.

Paragraph 590

There is particular concern that there is no intention to withdraw the reservations to articles 7 (d), 8 (2) and 13 (2) (b) and (c), of the Covenant, based on the argument that the State party has to a large extent already achieved realization of the rights enshrined in the aforementioned articles. However, information reveals that full realization of those rights is not yet guaranteed.

Paragraph 613

The State party should consider withdrawing its reservations to articles 7 (d), 8 (2) and 13 (2) (b) and (c) of the Covenant.

CEDAW

• Cyprus, CEDAW, A/51/38 (1996) 9 at para. 43.

The reservation as to the exclusion of women from the military is noted with concern.

• Bangladesh, CEDAW, A/52/38/Rev.1 part II (1997) 117 at para. 433.

The remaining reservations to articles 2 and 16, paragraph 1 (a) are of concern. Article 2 is a fundamental and core provision of the Convention, while article 16 is critical to the full enjoyment by women of their rights.

• New Zealand, CEDAW, A/53/38/Rev.1 part II (1998) 68 at para. 266.

The continuing existence of a reservation to article 11, subparagraph 2 (b), on paid maternity leave is of serious concern. The requirement for women to negotiate maternity leave individually with their employers, rather than being established as a matter of national law and policy, is a disadvantage for New Zealand’s women.

• Thailand, CEDAW, A/54/38/Rev.1 part I (1999) 24 at para. 223.

The State party is commended for withdrawing five reservations to the Convention, and it is encouraged to continue its effort to withdraw the two remaining reservations. Efforts to withdraw the reservation to article 16 relating to family life and marriage are particularly commended.

• China (Hong Kong), CEDAW, A/54/38/Rev.1 part I (1999) 26 at para. 333.

The reservations entered to the Convention should be reviewed regularly. The Government is urged to amend all laws that are incompatible with the Convention, including those relating to immigration and to pension schemes, with a view to removing the relevant reservations. In particular, the Government is encouraged to eliminate discrimination against indigenous women following its review of the small house policy. The Government is also encouraged to re-examine the reservation relating to the favourable treatment of women in respect of labour law protection of pregnancy and maternity, which might well be in accordance with articles 4, paragraph 1, and 11, paragraph 2, of the Convention, as well as that regarding religious denominations.

• India, CEDAW, A/55/38 part I (2000) 7 at paras. 44, 61 and 63.

Paragraph 44

That the Government does not intend to review the declarations entered to article 16 (1) and 16 (2) of the Convention is noted with concern.

Paragraph 61

The Government is urged to withdraw its declaration to article 16 (1) of the Convention and to work with and support women’s groups as members of the community in reviewing and reforming personal laws of different religious and ethnic groups.

Paragraph 63

The Government is urged to withdraw the declaration to article 16 (2) of the Convention.

• Jordan, CEDAW, A/55/38 part I (2000) 16 at paras. 172 and 173.

Paragraph 172

It is of concern that Jordanian nationality law prevents a Jordanian woman from passing on her nationality to her children if her husband is not Jordanian. This is an anachronistic situation at a time when Jordan is making major strides in its economic and democratic development and when marriage between persons of different nationalities is increasingly common. That Jordanian law prohibits women from concluding contracts in their own name, from travelling alone and from choosing their place of residence, is also noted with concern. These limitations on the rights of women are inconsistent with the legal status of women under the Jordanian Constitution and the Convention.

Paragraph 173

The State party is called upon to revoke these laws and to withdraw its reservations to articles 9.2 and 15.4 of the Convention.

• Luxembourg, CEDAW, A/55/38 part I (2000) 38 at paras. 402 and 403.

Paragraph 402

Notwithstanding the Government’s stated commitment in its action plan 2000 to the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action, it is of concern that no further progress has been made in withdrawing the reservations concerning articles 7 (hereditary transmission of the crown to the oldest male) and 16 (g) (right to choose the family name of children). With regard to the latter, concern is expressed at the lack of governmental commitment to working towards influencing cultural traditions and attitudes which would allow for a withdrawal of the reservation.

Paragraph 403

The Government should undertake awareness-raising and education campaigns to overcome traditional and stereotypical images of women and men so as to enable it to withdraw its reservation under article 16.

• Lithuania, CEDAW, A/55/38 part II (2000) 61 at para. 130.

The fact that the State party has ratified the Convention without reservations is welcomed.

See also:

• Republic of Moldolva, CEDAW, A/55/38 part II (2000) 56 at para. 85.

• Guinea, CEDAW, A/56/38 part II (2001) 55 at para. 112.

• Iraq, CEDAW, A/55/38 part II (2000) 66 at paras. 186 and 188.

Paragraph 186

It is of concern that the State party explicitly ruled out the possibility of withdrawal of its reservations to article 2, subparagraphs (f) and (g), and articles 9 and 16. Further concern is expressed over the State party’s justification of those reservations as being based on its desire to apply the provisions of the Convention in a manner consistent with Islamic Sharia. In that regard, attention is drawn to the Committee’s statement on reservations (see A/53/38/Rev.1, part two, chap. I), and in particular its view that articles 2 and 16 are central to the object and purpose of the Convention, and that, in accordance with article 28, paragraph 2, reservations should be reviewed and modified or withdrawn.

Paragraph 188

The Government should review its reservations to article 2, subparagraphs (f) and (g), and articles 9 and 16, in the light of the Committee’s statement on reservations, assess the justifications for those reservations and modify or withdraw them as soon as possible to ensure full implementation of the Convention.

• Austria, CEDAW, A/55/38 part II (2000) 70 at para. 219.

The imminent withdrawal of the reservation to article 7 of the Convention in respect of women and the military is welcomed. At the same time, the Government is called upon to make efforts to withdraw the reservation to article 11 of the Convention in respect of night work.

• Kazakhstan, CEDAW, A/56/38 part I (2001) 10 at para. 80.

The fact that the State party has ratified the Convention without reservations and has signed the Optional Protocol, and intends to ratify it as soon as possible, is welcomed.

See also:

• Andorra, CEDAW, A/56/38 part II (2001) 49 at para. 35.

• Maldives, CEDAW, A/56/38 part I (2001) 15 at paras. 130 and 131.

Paragraph 130

The State party’s reservations 7 (a) and 16 of the Convention are of concern. It is of concern that the reservation to article 7 (a) on political participation supports the retention of legislative provisions excluding women from the office of the President and the Vice-President of the country.

Paragraph 131

The Government should withdraw its reservations to articles 7(a) and 16 of the Convention and repeal legislation limiting women’s political participation in public life.

• Uzbekistan, CEDAW, A/56/38 part I (2001) 18 at para. 161.

The fact that Uzbekistan ratified the Convention without reservations and is considering signing its Optional Protocol is welcomed.

• Finland, CEDAW, A/56/38 part I (2001) 29 at para. 292.

The objections made by the State party to the reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol are commended.

• Egypt, CEDAW, A/56/38 part I (2001) 33 at paras. 326 and 327.

Paragraph 326

While the efforts of the National Council for Women to encourage the Government to withdraw its reservations to articles 2 and 9, paragraph 2, and article 16 of the Convention are appreciated, concern is expressed that these reservations have been retained.

Paragraph 327

The necessary steps for the withdrawal of reservations should be expedited and, in that regard, attention is drawn to the statement on reservations in the report on the nineteenth session and, in particular, the view that articles 2 and 16 are central to the object and purpose of the Convention and that, in accordance with article 28, paragraph 2, the reservations should be withdrawn.

• Singapore, CEDAW, A/56/38 part II (2001) 51 at paras. 72-76 and 78.

Paragraph 72

The State party’s reservations are an impediment to full implementation of the Convention.

Paragraph 73

Deep concern is expressed regarding the reservations to articles 2, 9, 11, paragraph 1, and 16 of the Convention.

Paragraph 74

Recognizing that the pluralistic nature of Singapore society and its history call for sensitivity to the cultural and religious values of different communities, nevertheless it is necessary to clarify the fact that articles 2 and 16 are the very essence of obligations under the Convention. Since some reforms have already been introduced in Muslim personal law, this process of reform should be continued in consultation with members of different ethnic and religious groups, including women. Reforms in other countries with similar legal traditions should be studied with a view to reviewing and reforming personal laws so that they conform with the Convention, and to withdrawing these reservations.

Paragraph 75

The nationality law should be further amended so as to eliminate discrimination against women, and the reservation to article 9 should be withdrawn. The explanation that a Singaporean woman cannot transfer nationality to her child when she marries a foreigner and the child is born overseas, since dual nationality is not recognized, is unconvincing. It is pointed out that since both mother and father can transfer nationality to children born within the country in many countries, the same problem can arise with respect to the children born of Singaporean men and foreign women.

Paragraph 76

Persons in confidential, managerial and executive posts should be brought within the coverage of the Employment Act. The capacity for individual bargaining, and the existence of better working conditions in these sectors do not justify the absence of legal protection and the reservation to article 11.

Paragraph 78

The Employment Act should be amended so that it covers certain sectors and the reservation to article 11 should be withdrawn.

• The Netherlands, CEDAW, A/56/38 part II (2001) 63 at para. 199.

The Government’s willingness to place objections to reservations entered by other States parties that it considers incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention is commended.

See also:

• Sweden, CEDAW, A/56/38 part II (2001) 76 at para. 336.

CAT

• United States of America, CAT, A/55/44 (2000) 31 at paras. 179 and 180.

Paragraph 179

Concern is expressed over the reservation lodged to article 16, in violation of the Convention, the effect of which is to limit the application of the Convention.

Paragraph 180

The State party should enact a federal crime of torture in terms consistent with article 1 of the Convention and withdraw its reservations, interpretations and understandings relating to the Convention.

CRC

• Indonesia (preliminary), CRC, CRC/C/20 (1993) 13 at para. 42.

The extent of the reservations made to the Convention by the State party is of concern. The broad and imprecise nature of these reservations raises serious concern as to their compatibility with the object and purposes of the Convention.

• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, CRC, CRC/C/38 (1995) 35 at para. 209.

The broad nature of the reservations made to the Convention raise concerns as to their compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention. In particular, the reservation relating to the application of the Nationality and Immigration Act does not appear to be compatible with the principles and provisions of the Convention, including those of its articles 2, 3, 9 and 10.

• Republic of Korea, CRC, CRC/C/50 (1996) 26 at para. 157.

The reservations made by the State party to article 9, paragraph 3, article 21, paragraph (a) and article 40, paragraph 2 (b)(v) raise questions about their compatibility with the principles and provisions of the Convention, including the principles of the best interests of the child and respect for the views of the child.

• Morocco, CRC, CRC/C/57 (1996) 7 at para. 44.

Reservations entered upon ratification of the Convention should be reviewed with a view to withdrawal, in the spirit of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted in June 1993, in which the World Conference on Human Rights urged States to withdraw reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

• India, CRC, CRC/C/94 (2000) 10 at para. 98.

The State party is encouraged to withdraw its declaration with respect to article 32 of the Convention, as it is unnecessary in the light of the efforts the State party is making to address child labour.

• Islamic Republic of Iran, CRC, CRC/C/97 (2000) 8 at paras. 28 and 29.

Paragraph 28

It is noted that a governmental working group has been established to study the compatibility of existing laws with the Convention. Concern is expressed about the broad and imprecise nature of the State party’s general reservation which potentially negates many of the Convention’s provisions and raises concern as to its compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention.

Paragraph 29

It is recommended that the State party expedite this study and use the findings to review the general nature of its reservation with a view to narrowing, and in the long-term withdrawing in accordance with the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

• Jordan, CRC, CRC/C/97 (2000) 31 at paras. 158 and 159.

Paragraph 158

Concern is expressed that the broad and imprecise nature of the reservation to article 14 potentially gives rise to infringements of the freedoms of thought, conscience and religion, and raises questions of its compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention.

Paragraph 159

The State party should study its reservation to article 14 with a view to narrowing it, taking account of the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 22 and recommendations, and eventually, to withdraw it in accordance with the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

• Norway, CRC, CRC/C/97 (2000) 43 at para. 215.

The withdrawal of the State party’s reservation to article 40 (2) (b) (v) of the Convention is welcomed.

• Malta, CRC, CRC/C/97 (2000) 75 at paras. 403 and 404.

Paragraph 403

It is noted that the State party’s reservation to article 26 of the Convention may have an adverse effect on the existing levels of social services and benefits for children.

Paragraph 404

In light of the 1993 Vienna Declaration and its Programme of Action, it is recommended that the State party review the reservation made to article 26 of the Convention with a view to withdrawing it.

• Djibouti, CRC, CRC/C/97 (2000) 96 at paras. 518 and 519.

Paragraph 518

The broad and imprecise nature of the general declaration made upon ratification of the Convention, which amounts to a reservation, potentially negates many of the Convention’s provisions and raises concerns as to its compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention. Indications that the declaration may have been intended primarily to address only the issue of the right of the child to freedom of religion and that efforts will be made to review the situation are welcomed.

Paragraph 519

In the light of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, and bearing in mind the provisions of article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the State party is encouraged to review the general nature of its declaration to the Convention on the Rights of the Child with a view to its withdrawal.

• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Isle of Man), CRC, CRC/C/100 (2000) 31 at paras. 170, 171, 200 and 201.

Paragraph 170

It is of concern that the reservations made by the State party with respect to articles 32 and 37 (c) of the Convention have not yet been withdrawn and are still applicable to the Isle of Man. The Island’s commitment to discussing further the possible withdrawal of all of its reservations to the Convention is welcomed.

Paragraph 171

In the light of the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, the State party is encouraged to consider the possibility of reviewing its reservations with a view to their full withdrawal, including with respect to the Isle of Man. In order to remove the apparent obstacles to the withdrawal of the reservation to article 37 (c) of the Convention, the Isle of Man is encouraged to reinforce it efforts to complete the construction of a separate security unit for children deprived of their liberty.

Paragraph 200

Note is taken of the Isle of Man’s reservation with respect to article 32 of the Convention. Concern is expressed about the lack of information and adequate data on the situation with regard to child labour and economic exploitation on the island.

Paragraph 201

The withdrawal of the reservation to article 32 of the Convention should be considered. It is recommended that a comprehensive study be undertaken to assess the situation with regard to child labour.

• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Overseas Territories), CRC, CRC/C/100 (2000) 40 at paras. 215 and 216.

Paragraph 215

It is of concern that the reservations with respect to articles 32 and 37 (c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child have not yet been withdrawn and are still applicable to the Overseas Territories. It is noted with concern that the reservation to article 22 of the Convention made in respect to the Cayman Islands has not yet been withdrawn.

Paragraph 216

In the light of the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, the State party is encouraged to consider the possibility of reviewing the reservations with a view to their full withdrawal including with respect to all the Overseas Territories.

• Liechtenstein, CRC, CRC/C/103 (2001) 19 at paras. 90 and 91.

Paragraph 90

Concern is expressed about the reservation made by the State party to article 10 (2) of the Convention as well as the State’s policy regarding family reunification. These suggest that the State party has serious difficulties in dealing with applications for the purpose of family reunification in a positive, humane and expeditious manner and without adverse consequences for the applicants.

Paragraph 91

The State party should take the necessary legal and other measures to establish a practice in the area of family reunification in accordance with the principles and provisions of the Convention. The State party is encouraged to consider the withdrawal of its reservation to article 10 (2) of the Convention.

• Egypt, CRC, CRC/C/103 (2001) 36 at paras. 204 and 205.

Paragraph 204

The State party’s reservation to articles 20 and 21 of the Convention is unnecessary. Article 20 (3) of the Convention expressly recognizes kafalah of Islamic law as a form of alternative care. Article 21 expressly refers to those States that “recognize and/or permit” the system of adoption, which does not apply to the State party because it does not recognize the system of adoption.

Paragraph 205

Efforts to consider withdrawal of the reservation to articles 20 and 21 of the Convention should be continued, in accordance with the Vienna Declaration and Plan of Action of the World Conference on Human Rights (1993).

See also:

• Jordan, CRC, CRC/C/97 (2000) 31 at para. 156 and 157.

• Saudi Arabia, CRC, CRC/C/103 (2001) 71 at paras. 381 and 382.

Paragraph 381

Concern is expressed that the broad and imprecise nature of the State party’s general reservation potentially negates many of the Convention’s provisions and raises concern as to its compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention, as well as the overall implementation of the Convention.

Paragraph 382

The State party should withdraw its reservation, in accordance with the Vienna Declaration and Plan of Action.

• Turkey, CRC, CRC/C/108 (2001) 18 at paras. 91 and 92.

Paragraph 91

The reservations to articles 17, 29 and 30 of the Convention are noted with concern. It is also noted that, in some cases, in particular in the fields of education and freedom of expression and the right to enjoy one’s own culture and use one’s own language, these reservations may have a negative impact on children belonging to ethnic groups which are not recognized as minorities under the Treat of Lausanne of 1923, in particular children of Kurdish origin.

Paragraph 92

The State party is encouraged to consider withdrawing its reservations to articles 17, 29 and 30 of the Convention.