COMMITTEE ON ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES HOLDS MEETINGS WITH STATES PARTIES AND CIVIL SOCIETY

The Committee on Enforced Disappearances this afternoon held three separate meetings with States parties to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, national human rights institutions, and non-governmental organizations.

In the meeting with States parties, Emmanuel Decaux, Chairperson of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, said that so far 50 States had ratified the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, Belize and Ukraine being the newest ratifiers.

Argentina and Spain took the floor, expressing their support for the work of the Committee, and welcoming the increase in the ratification by States. Although each country had its unique situation, the common goal was the same: elimination of violations of human rights.

In the meeting with civil society representatives, Mr. Decaux said that the twenty-seventh meeting of Chairpersons had taken place in San Jose, Costa Rica and adopted guidelines on reprisals. At that meeting, the Committee had also adopted a roadmap in order to bring the new guidelines into life.

The National Human Rights Council of Morocco underlined the need to pay close attention to the issue of institutionalisation of enforced disappearances.

One non-governmental organization, Committees of Relatives of Migrants of Central Honduras, spoke about the disappearance of migrants and other missing persons, and available mechanisms to guarantee the search for those disappeared.

Mr. Decaux said that was the first time the Committee had reviewed cases on a disappearance of migrant persons. The scope of the issue was not the duty of the Committee only, but also of other international organisations and bodies.

The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Friday, 18 September to adopt its concluding observations and recommendations on the reports of Iraq and Montenegro and close the session.

Meeting with States Parties

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Chairperson of the Committee, said that the Committee had held two constructive dialogues, with Iraq and Montenegro. With Belize and Ukraine, the total number of States who had ratified the Convention had increased to 50. As more States were ratifying the Convention, there was a hope of universality in the near future.

Argentina thanked for the opportunity to exchange the views, and reaffirmed its commitment to the Convention and support for the work of the Committee. Argentina was extremely happy to see new ratifications. Although each country had its unique situation, the aim was the same: the elimination of the violations of human rights. Argentina inquired about the relationship between the Committee and the Working Group on Enforced Disappearances, especially as there was an increase in the number of ratifications.

Mr. Decaux said that the Committee and the Working Group were exchanging views and setting priorities. Each body had its own mandate and was free to pick its priorities. However, he underlined, there should be no black holes left regarding the issue of disappearances.

Spain commended the Committee and its members for their work and reassured the Committee of its ongoing support. It asked about the reprisals and coordination between human rights treaty bodies.

The Chairperson responded that the twenty-seventh meeting of Chairpersons had taken place in San Jose, Costa Rica, where the guidelines on reprisals had been adopted. As he had taken the Chairpersonship of the ten Committee Chairpersons, the issue was of particular importance for him. The guidelines were based on clear principles, but they needed to be implemented.

A Committee Expert thanked all States parties for making the Convention diverse and helping make it universal. To maintain the appropriate momentum, States parties needed to submit their reports in time and respect the decision-making competency of the Committee.

Another Expert highlighted the need to encourage all other States to become parties to the Convention. They also needed to understand the competence of the Committee in receiving individual complaints.


Meeting with National Human Rights Institutions

Mr. Decaux said that the Committee had adopted a roadmap in order to bring the new guidelines on reprisals into life. An increasing cooperation had been developing between human rights treaty bodies. However, the Committee needed more partners to ensure the implementation of the guidelines, which was why it was very important for the Committee to cooperate with the national human rights institutions.

International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights stated that the Committee should encourage all States to ratify the Convention and to strengthen their national institutions for the promotion of human rights. The International Coordinating Committee and its regional networks were working to build the capacity of national human rights institutions through training, peer support and the exchange of good practices amongst its members. Feedback from the Committee was expected on the best ways those institutions could engage with the Committee and support its work.

Mr. Decaux said that it was hard to understand why some States had not yet ratified the Convention. However, the role of national human rights institutions was the key to understanding the problem. National human rights institutions should consider organizing live webcast screenings, at their premises, of the Committee’s interactive dialogues with States parties. Regional and local commissions also had a role to play in States. Sometimes national institutions with “B” status worked in more difficult conditions than those with status “A”, which also had to be taken into consideration.

A Committee Expert stated that sometimes national human rights institutions were not independent, even though they claimed that they were. He explored the possible ways to monitor those institutions. He asked what kind of measures should be taken to ensure the effectivity of follow-up mechanisms.

The National Human Rights Council of Morocco called on all States parties to pay close attention to the issue of institutionalisation of enforced disappearances as their national legislations had to be in line with the Convention. The National Human Rights Council of Morocco had been involved in the identification of such cases and their work had encouraged the Government take necessary measures on the issue. Their work had also helped the Government to include “human rights” in the newest Constitution and to penalise the enforced displacement.

International Coordinating Committee asked for a better inclusion of national institutions in the work of the Committee.

Mr. Decaux said that the Committee was trying to be as transparent as possible, regularly uploading news and development, as well as documents and reports on its website.

Meeting with Non-Governmental Organizations

Committees of Relatives of Migrants of Central Honduras inquired whether the Committee could develop a general recommendation on the protection of migrants and refugees. Central American committees of families of disappeared migrants on migration routes had promoted the creation of a transnational mechanism to guarantee the search of disappeared migrants. Also, the implementation of Article 17 was a matter of urgency. It was, therefore, necessary that States of origin of disappeared migrants and missing persons had accessibility and up-to-date registries of those persons in order to facilitate the search. Further, all States needed to have a single shared registry to localise missing persons.

Article 24 of the Convention described the obligation of each State party to take all necessary measures to search for, locate and release disappeared persons. Accordingly, the organisation asked the Committee to call on all States to facilitate the entry of families of disappeared persons into the concerning State.

Mr. Decaux said that it was the first time that the Committee had reviewed cases on the disappearances of migrants. Duty to protect was part of the Committee’s mandate; however, the scope of that issue exceeded the responsibility of the Committee, and covered other international organisations’ and bodies’ mandates as well.

An Expert stated that the Committee attached great importance to the issue of migration. One of the possibilities to raise the profile of the issue was to cooperate with the Government of Mexico in an open way. Another Expert described the issue as a “humanitarian situation”, highlighting the importance of family members to the information.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CED15/012E