Introduction 11 Courts/​Commissions of Human Rights or the CPT, have also been taken into account, as was the case with relevant literature. 5.  Reservations, Declarations of Interpretation, and Denunciation of the Convention and Protocol Article 19(c) VCLT provides that reservations are, in the absence of a treaty provision to the contrary, permissible in so far as they are not ‘incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty’. While the CAT permits specific ‘opting-​out’ reservations under Articles 28(1) and 30(2), no general provision concerning the permission or prohibition of reservations or declarations of interpretation can be found. In our opinion, the fact that Articles 28(1) and 30(2) permit specific reservations cannot be used as an argument that other reservations and declarations of interpretation are generally prohibited.49 However, Article 30 OP contains a general prohibition of reservations to the Protocol.50 In addition to the specific ‘opting-​out’ reservations foreseen in Articles 28(1) and 30(2) and the optional declarations in accordance with Articles 21(1) and 22(1) CAT, only a few States have submitted reservations or declarations of interpretation.51 Article 20(5) VCLT states that, in the absence of a treaty provision to the contrary, a reservation qualifies as accepted if a State does not raise an objection within twelve months of notification. In practice, very few objections have been lodged. For example, eight States parties objected to a reservation by Qatar regarding any interpretation of the provisions of the Convention incompatible with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic religion.52 Whether a reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention is a question which needs to be determined by the Committee against Torture.53 If the Committee finds a certain reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, this reservation must be considered as invalid and can be severed from the instrument of ratification, so that the reserving State is fully bound by the treaty, including the provisions to which the reservation related.54 In practice, the Committee has on several occasions voiced its concern over broad and imprecise reservations, as well as reservations having a limiting effect on the Convention, and has issued recommendations to these States parties to withdraw them.55 Article 31 CAT and Article 33 OP explicitly provide for the right of States parties to denounce the Convention and the Protocol at any time by written notification addressed to the Secretary General of the United Nations. So far, no State party has made use of this right.56 49   But see the first chairman of the Committee, Joseph Voyame, in the discussion of the initial State report of Chile: ‘The Convention permitted reservations only in particular cases but not on a general basis, and he accordingly concluded that other reservations besides those provided for in the Convention were not admissible’: CAT/​C/​SR.40, para 36. See also Ingelse (n 7) 237. 50 51   See below Art 30 OP.   See below Appendices A3 and A4. 52   Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden. 53   This legal opinion on a controversial topic is based on the HRC General Comment No 24/​52 on issues relating to reservations and the respective jurisprudence of the ECtHR and IACtHR. See below Art 22, §§ 163–​170 and Nowak, CCPR Commentary (n 48) XXVIII ff with further references. 54   cf Nowak, CCPR Commentary (n 48) XXXII ff. 55   See eg A/​55/​44, paras 179(b) and 180(a) (USA) and CAT/​C/​QAT/​CO/​1, para 9 (Qatar). 56   See below Art 31, § 2 CAT, and Art 33 OP.