A/HRC/13/37 Article 4 of the Covenant allows States parties to derogate from some provisions of the Covenant, including article 17. Derogations can be made only during a state of emergency threatening the life of the nation and they are subject to several conditions.12 During the more than 30 years since the entry into force of the Covenant in 1976, fewer than 10 States parties have introduced a state of emergency with reference to acts, or the threat of, terrorism.13 Four of them have in that context sought to derogate also from article 17 of the Covenant.14 Another eight States have announced derogation from article 17 without an explicit reference to terrorism as the cause for a state of emergency.15 However, the notifications in question have remained rather generic, instead of specifying, in line with the requirements under article 4, what concrete measures derogating from article 17 are necessary within the exigencies of the situation.16 Overall, there is not a single case of a State seeking to derogate from article 17 with reference to terrorism that would demonstrate compliance with all requirements of article 4. Further, only one State has announced derogation from the Covenant with reference to the current (related to the events of 11 September 2001) threat of international terrorism.17 The situation is similar in respect of reservations to article 17. Although international law generally allows for reservations by States to human rights treaties, provided such reservations are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty,18 only one State party has submitted a reservation to article 17.19 15. Consequently, it appears that States have only rarely resorted to the acknowledged mechanisms available under international law in general, and the Covenant in particular, for unilateral exceptions to the right to privacy. Even when notifications of derogation from article 17 have been submitted, those notifications have remained generic, instead of referring to practical measures and specific forms of derogation. To the Special Rapporteur, the State practice reported above demonstrates that, generally, States appear to be content that the framework of article 17 is flexible enough to enable necessary, legitimate and proportionate restrictions to the right to privacy by means of permissible limitations, including when responding to terrorism. The Special Rapporteur supports this view. Article 17 is written in a manner that allows States parties the possibility to introduce restrictions or limitations in respect of the rights enshrined in that provision, including the right to privacy. Such restrictions and limitations will therefore be subject to the monitoring functions of the Human Rights Committee as the treaty body entrusted with the task of interpreting the provisions of the Covenant and addressing the conduct of States parties in respect of their treaty obligations. The main mechanisms for the exercise of those functions are the mandatory reporting procedure under article 40 of the Covenant and, for those 113 States 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 GE.09-17804 For the position of the pertinent treaty monitoring body in respect of the scope and effect of derogations, see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 29 (2001). Azerbaijan, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Israel, Nepal, Peru, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom. Colombia, El Salvador, Nepal and the Russian Federation. Algeria, Armenia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Panama, Serbia and Montenegro, Sri Lanka and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. In some of these cases, there may have been a factual link to terrorism, although this was not mentioned in the notification concerning a state of emergency. For instance, when seeking to derogate from ICCPR, many Latin American States have plainly notified that some named provisions of the Covenant will be “suspended”. This is not in line with the requirements of article 4 as explained in general comment No. 29. The United Kingdom on 18 December 2001. The derogations did not include article 17 and were withdrawn on 15 March 2005. For the position of the pertinent treaty monitoring body in respect of reservations to the ICCPR and its optional protocols, see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 24 (2004). Liechtenstein maintains a reservation concerning the scope of the right to respect for family life with regard to foreigners. 7