Chapter 1 • International Human Rights Law and the Role of the Legal Professions: A General Introduction that “the matter of interpretation and acceptability of reservations” is governed by the “object and purpose test”.37 This means, for instance, that reservations “must be specific and transparent, so that the Committee, those under the jurisdiction of the reserving State and other States parties may be clear as to what obligations of human rights compliance have or have not been undertaken”; similarly a resolution must “not be general, but must refer to a particular provision of the Covenant and indicate in precise terms its scope in relation thereto”.38 The American Convention on Human Rights expressly stipulates in its article 75, that it “shall be subject to reservations only in conformity with the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”. In its Advisory Opinion on The Effect of Reservations, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated that article 75 “makes sense” only if understood as enabling “States to make whatever reservations they deem appropriate”, provided that they “are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty”.39 In its Advisory Opinion on Restrictions to the Death Penalty it further noted with regard to the rights that cannot be suspended in any circumstances under article 27(2) of the Convention that it “would follow therefrom that a reservation which was designed to enable a State to suspend any of the non-derogable fundamental rights must be deemed to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and, consequently, not permitted by it”.40 The Court accepted, however, that the “situation would be different if the reservation sought merely to restrict certain aspects of a non-derogable right without depriving the right as a whole of its basic purpose”.41 Like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights is silent on the question of reservations. However, article 64 of the European Convention on Human Rights expressly outlaws reservations of “a general character”, whilst permitting reservations “in respect of any particular provision of the Convention to the extent that any law” in force in the territory of the State at the time of signature or ratification “is not in conformity with the provision” concerned. In interpreting and applying international treaties, domestic judges, prosecutors and lawyers may thus also have to consider the relevant State’s legal obligations in the light of reservations or interpretative declarations. The scope of a State’s legal obligations under an international human rights treaty may have to be considered in the light of any existing reservations or interpretative declarations. 37 Ibid., loc. cit. 38 Ibid., p. 155, para. 19. 39 I-A Court HR, The Effect of Reservations on the Entry Into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75), Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982, Series A, No.2, p. 18, para. 35. 40 I-A Court HR, Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-3/83 of September 8, 1983, Series A, No. 3, p. 83, para. 61. 41 Ibid., at p. 84. 14 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers