6 disclose their willingness to assert their competence to apply the criterion of the compatibility (supra) and contribute to secure, in this way, the integrity of the respective human rights treaties. At regional level, in its well-known judgment in the Belilos versus Switzerland case (1988), locus classicus on the issue, the European Court of Human Rights considered the declaration amounting to a reservation (of a general character) of Switzerland to the European Convention on Human Rights incompatible with the object and purpose of this latter (in the light of its Article 64). In its turn, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in its second and third Advisory Opinions11, pointed out the difficulties of a pure and simple transposition from the system of reservations of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 into the domain of the international protection of human rights. 18. At global level, in the I. Gueye et alii versus France case (1989), e.g., the Human Rights Committee (under the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), in spite of a reservation ratione temporis of the respondent State12, understood that the question - pertaining to pension benefits of more than 700 retired Senegalese members of the French army - was justiciable under the Covenant (as the effects of the French legislation on the matter lasted until then), and concluded that there was a violation of Article 26 of the Covenant13. The same Committee, in its general comment n. 24(52), of November 1994, warned that the provisions of the two Vienna Conventions and the classic rules on reservations (based upon reciprocity) were not appropriate to the human rights treaties; given the special character of the Covenant as a human rights treaty, the question of the compatibility of a reservation with its object and purpose, instead of being left at the discretion of the manifestations of the States Parties inter se, should be objectively determined, on the basis of juridical principles, by the Human Rights Committee itself (paragraphs 17 and 20)14. Journal (1985) pp. 1-49; G. Cohen-Jonathan, "Conclusions générales - La protection des droits de l'homme et l'évolution du Droit international", Société Française pour le Droit International, Colloque de Strasbourg - La protection des droits de l'homme et l'évolution du Droit international, Paris, Pédone, 1998, pp. 322-326; P. van Dijk, "The Law of Human Rights in Europe - Instruments and Procedures for a Uniform Implementation", VI-2 Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law / Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit Européen - Firenze (1995) pp. 58-60 and 64; B. Clark, "The Vienna Convention Reservations Regime and the Convention on Discrimination against Women", 85 American Journal of International Law (1991) pp. 281-321; W.A. Schabas, "Reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child", 18 Human Rights Quarterly (1996) pp. 472-491; L. Sucharipa-Behrmann, "The Legal Effects of Reservations to Multilateral Treaties", 1 Austrian Review of International and European Law (1996) pp. 6788; E.F. Sherman Jr., "The U.S. Death Penalty Reservation to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Exposing the Limitations of the Flexible System Governing Treaty Formation", 29 Texas International Law Journal (1994) pp. 69-93; A. Sanchez Legido, "Algunas Consideraciones sobre la Validez de las Reservas al Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos", 20 Revista Jurídica de Castilla-La Mancha (1994) pp. 207-230; C. Pilloud, "Reservations to the Geneva Conventions of 1949", International Review of the Red Cross (March/April 1976) pp. 3-44. 11. In its third Advisory Opinion on Restrictions to the Death Penalty (1983) the Court warned that the question of reciprocity as related to reservations did not fully apply vis-à-vis human rights treaties (paragraphs 62-63 and 65). Earlier, in its second Advisory Opinion on the Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention (1982), the Court dismissed the postponement of the entry into force of the American Convention by application of Article 20(4) of the 1969 Vienna Convention (paragraph 34). 12 . To Article 1 of the [first] Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 13. Communication n. 196/1985, decision of 03.04.1989 (and previous decision of admissibility of 05.11.1987). 14. 7. Text in U.N./Human Rights Committee, document CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6, of 02.11.1994, pp. 6-