Not every State that limits the Maputo Protocol calls its statement a reservation. Some use the words “declaration” or “interpretation”. RFLD’s report Lifting the Reservations: nine country briefs on the Maputo Protocol explains why the label matters less than it seems, and how the African Commission tells the two apart.
Two kinds of statement
The report’s glossary gives two definitions. A reservation is “a unilateral statement by which a State excludes or modifies the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty in their application to that State”. An interpretive declaration is “a statement by which a State explains how it understands a provision”.
In principle the difference is clear. A reservation changes what the State is bound to do. A declaration only explains how the State reads a provision. In practice, the line can blur. A statement presented as an interpretation can narrow an obligation as effectively as a formal reservation.
The test the Commission applies
The African Commission’s Advocacy Framework, adopted at its 86th Ordinary Session in 2026, applies the test used by the UN Human Rights Committee. The report summarises it this way: “if a statement, whatever its name, purports to exclude or modify the legal effect of a treaty provision in its application to the State, it is a reservation”.
The test looks at effect. If a declaration changes what the State must do under the Protocol, it is treated as a reservation, with all the consequences that follow. It must be compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty, and the Commission can call for its withdrawal.
The glossary puts it in one line: if an interpretive declaration “changes the legal effect of the provision, it operates as a reservation”.
Where the test matters
Among the nine States covered by the report, several have made declarations alongside or instead of reservations:
- Cameroon made a single general declaration covering practices it says are not consistent with “universal or African ethical and moral values”.
- Ethiopia made interpretive declarations on six provisions, including Article 4(2) on violence and Article 6(b) on the minimum age of marriage.
- South Africa made interpretive declarations on Articles 1(f) and 31.
- For Uganda, the report notes that the scope of its statements needs to be checked against the depositary text.
Cameroon: a declaration that acts as a reservation
Cameroon’s case shows the test at work. Its declaration states that acceptance of the Protocol does not mean it endorses “non-therapeutic abortion” among other practices. The brief finds that this broad wording “creates uncertainty about how Cameroon applies Article 14(2)(c)”, the provision on medical abortion. Because the declaration may limit what Cameroon does under that article, it operates as a reservation under the test.
Ethiopia: declarations that subordinate the treaty
Ethiopia’s declaration on Article 4(2) subordinates the provision “to the relevant provision of its Criminal Code on the crime of rape”. Its declaration on Article 6(b) applies the minimum age of marriage in line with family law, “which allows dispensation from this minimum age of marriage”. Each of these statements does more than explain. It sets domestic law as the limit of the obligation, which is the mark of a reservation.
Why this matters for advocacy
The report’s toolkit lists “It is only a declaration” among the common objections advocates will hear. Its answer is short: “A declaration that excludes or modifies the legal effect of a provision operates as a reservation.”
This means advocates can ask for the withdrawal of a declaration on the same grounds as a reservation. They can also ask a simpler question first: does the declaration change what the State does in practice? If the government says it changes nothing, the declaration serves no purpose and can be withdrawn. Any other answer means it operates as a reservation and should be reviewed.
One of the questions RFLD proposes for South Africa follows exactly this line: what is the legal effect of its interpretive declarations on Articles 1(f) and 31? National human rights institutions are well placed to answer such questions through advisory opinions, and the brief on Cameroon asks its national institution to publish one on the legal effect of the declaration. For guidance on raising these points in a shadow report, see RFLD’s manual on shadow reports under the Maputo Protocol.
About the report
This article draws on RFLD’s report Lifting the Reservations: nine country briefs on the Maputo Protocol, published on 4 October 2026. Read the summary, download the English edition or the French edition.
