COMMITTEE ON ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES HOLDS EVENT TO MARK THE TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CONVENTION
The Committee on Enforced Disappearances this afternoon marked the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance by holding a panel discussion on contemporary challenges.
Opening the discussion, Ibrahim Salama, Director of the Human Rights Treaties Division at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, noted that the adoption of the Convention had been the result of a long struggle over some forty years, led by both the families of disappeared persons and the international community.
Elisabeth Laurin, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Office at Geneva, emphasized that over the years France had demonstrated great commitment to combating enforced disappearance.
Mohamed Auajjar, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Morocco to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the Convention was still a young instrument that had not been ratified by almost three quarters of the Member States of the United Nations.
Louis Joinet, Honorary Attorney-General to the French Cassation Court and former president of the Human Rights Sub-Commission, recalled that at the time of drafting of the Convention it had been hard to find a common ground for the crime of enforced disappearance.
Emmanuel Décaux, Chairperson of the Committee, stressed that gratitude, solidarity and were the key words that had marked the spirit of the Committee. The Convention provided a legal imperative for the fight against enforced disappearances.
The opening statements were followed by two panel discussions. The first panel discussion, entitled “The Convention on Enforced Disappearances: a Unique and Innovative Instrument”, was moderated by Suela Janina, Committee Vice-chairperson. The panellists were Solomon Sacco, Legal Advisor at the Amnesty International on Punishment of the crime of enforced disappearance; Andrew Clapham, Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights; and Fabian Salvioli, Chairperson of the Human Right Committee.
The second panel discussion - “The Convention on Enforced Disappearances and the Rights of Victims” - was moderated by Santiago Corcuera, Committee Vice-chairperson. The panellists were: Houria Es-Slami, Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; Mary Aileen Bacalso, President of the International Coalition Against Enforced Disappearances; Antoine Bernard, Executive director of the International Federation of Human Rights; and Federico Andreu, International Commission of Jurists.
In concluding remarks, Alberto Pedro d'Alloto, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Argentina to the United Nations Office at Geneva, paid tribute to the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo and their courage. Junichi Ihara, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations Office at Geneva, called upon all countries to accede to the Convention. Emmanuel Décaux, Chairperson of the Committee, identified ratification of the Convention by an increased number of countries as the main priority.
Ghana, Algeria, Morocco and several non-governmental organizations also took floor in the panel discussions.
The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 18 March, at 3 p.m. to conclude its tenth session.
Opening Statements
IBRAHIM SALAMA, Director of the Human Rights Treaties Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the adoption of the Convention had been the result of a long struggle over some forty years, led by both the families of disappeared persons and the international community. He paid tribute to those States that had supported the Convention, notably to France and Argentina who had promoted the Convention during the negotiations and who had, along with Morocco and Japan, initiated the organization of today’s event. Enforced disappearances appeared in the context of internal conflicts, generalized violence and humanitarian crisis, fight against organised crime and terrorism. Many people, including civilian hostages and migrants, could become victims. He called upon countries to ratify the Convention, since thus far only 51 countries had done so, and only 19 had recognised the competence of the Committee to receive individual complaints.
ELISABETH LAURIN, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Office at Geneva, stated that France had been included in the fight against enforced disappearances since the first General Assembly resolution on that topic. She acknowledged the invaluable role of individuals such as Bernard Kessedjian and Louis Joinet, whose expertise and efforts had made the Convention possible. The Committee conducted exemplary work and enabled greater visibility of the Convention, at the same time meeting the needs of the families of victims of enforced disappearances. The Convention was a legal tool for protection, not only against past but also against current manifestations of enforced disappearance, such as the systematic use of enforced disappearances in Syria, or the mass abductions in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Convention had fulfilled the legal void in the international system, and States, experts and civil society organizations all had a collective responsibility to play in strengthening its implementation.
MOHAMED AUAJJAR, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Morocco to the United Nations Office at Geneva, informed that Morocco had initiated the panel discussion and marking of commemoration, along with the countries of the Core group, consisting of Argentina, France and Japan. The crime of enforced disappearances was ever growing, as witnessed by the numerous crises in the world. An especially worrying trend was the rise of non-state actors and terrorists. Nevertheless, almost three quarters of the Member States of the United Nations had not yet acceded to the Convention. Morocco had its own past of enforced disappearances. One of the results of the Commission for Truth, Equality and Reconciliation, established in 2004, was the ratification of the Convention. As a consequence, in the period from 2004 to 2005 over 17,000 cases of enforced disappearances had been studied, and reparations had been provided to more than 9,000 victims.
LOUIS JOINET, Honorary Attorney-General to the French Cassation Court, and former president of the Human Rights Sub-Commission, recalled the role that the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo played in the struggle for creation of legal framework on enforced disappearances. The then Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Office in Geneva Bernard Kessedjian had also played an invaluable role in the process. At the time of the drafting of the Convention, many Member States had been unaware of the grave danger that enforced disappearances represented. It was hard to find a common legal basis for combating enforced disappearances or to agree on a definition. Still, solutions had been found and the Convention had been adopted. Mr. Joinet thanked all the partners and civil society organizations for their contribution in advocacy work and raising awareness activities.
EMMANUEL DÉCAUX, Chairperson of the Committee, expressed his gratitude to the Ambassador of four Member States for taking the initiative to organize the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the Convention, but also for their support and efforts over the past ten years. It was of great importance to mark today’s occasion in Geneva, where a pioneering work on the Convention had been conducted.
Panel I: The Convention on Enforced Disappearances: a Unique and Innovative Instrument
FABIAN SALVIOLI, Chairperson of the Human Right Committee, stated that the crime of enforced disappearance had gone hand in hand with torture, thus requiring a comprehensive approach to tackle the issue. The crime of enforced disappearance was of very complex nature and dealing with it implied going through numerous challenges. The laws had to be interpreted, while cases and evidence provided had to be carefully analysed in a given context since contemporary practices of enforced disappearance were disguised in other forms of crime, including secret detention. Mr Salvioli noted that treaty bodies had to improve their work in the fight against enforced disappearances.
SOLOMON SACCO, Legal Advisor at the Amnesty International, said that enforced disappearance was one of the most deliberately cruel forms of intimidation that had ever occurred in history, from certain operations in the Second World War to military dictatorships in South American States and systematic disappearances during the Balkan conflicts. There was a complex web of international standards and laws dealing with the offence of enforced disappearance. However, for further ratification of the Convention, it was necessary to ensure that enforced disappreances had been fully criminalised across the entire world. There were still a number of obstacles in the implementation of the Convention, so the Amnesty International was lobbying across the world for improved implementation and fight against enforced disappearance. The Amnesty International urged all States Parties to ensure that enforced disappearance constituted an offence under their criminal laws; to enact legislation providing for reparations to victims; to eliminate all obstacles over extradition; and to recognize the competence of the Committee under articles 31 and 32 of the Convention.
ANDREW CLAPHAM, Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, focused on the application of the Convention during the times of armed conflict. The Convention identified non-state actors as perpetrators and Mr. Clapham said that two fears could be identified in the contemporary discourse. First, there was the “legitimacy fear” that if the international community were to start talking about human rights obligations to armed groups, it would make them look as a legitimate international players. The second fear was that of dilution, which implied that by addressing the non-state players too extensively, States could be let off the hook.
Ghana said that it had signed but had not yet ratified the Convention and a question was raised if there had been a template that the Committee could provide to countries, in order to make the process easier. Question was also raised on what could be done with regard to enforced disappearances in cases where governments denied their association with militias, during the armed conflicts. A representative of a non-governmental organization asked about the role of the Committee in territories that did not enjoy self-determination, such as Western Sahara. There had been over 400 cases of enforced disappearances and the Government of Morocco acknowledged most of those disappearances, but no further actions had been taken. Another non-governmental organization presented the situation in Western Sahara, saying that some reparations had been made for enforced disappearances that had occurred in the 1970s, but the overall transitional justice system was still underdeveloped. Algeria brought attention to the specific case of an enforced disappearance in refugee camp in Tindouf in Algeria, which went unacknowledged by the international community.
Panel II: The Convention on Enforced Disappearances and the Rights of Victims
HOURIA ES-SLAMI, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, underscored the importance of the Working Group established in 1980, which still continued to receive complaints from families from all over the world. The difference between the Committee and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances was explained. Their mandates were complementary, but while the Committee was dealing with reports of the State Parties, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances was directly taking complaints from citizens. Over the course of the past thirty six years, the number of unresolved cases amounted to 43,000. The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances was conducting visits to States and publishing thematic reports. The next thematic report would be focused on enforced disappearance of migrants, a complex problem that had a transnational dimension. Another issue taken by the Working Group was short term disappearances, an increase of which had been seen in recent years.
MARY AILEEN BACALSO, President of the International Coalition Against Enforced Disappearances, noted that enforced disappearance were currently taking place in eighty-eight countries of the world. She recalled the initial struggle for codification of enforced disappearance and said that the Convention had initially been just a dream of family members of victims of the disappeared in Latin America. However, the steadfast determination of those families and civil society organizations had led to the adoption of the Convention. There was a strong sense of ownership of the Convention. Examples of positive practice were then presented. In Peru, the Convention had been part of the campaign for justice. Some progress had been noted in the States that had signed, but had not ratified the Convention. In Kashmir, 8,000 persons had disappeared in the previous twenty-five years. India had been accused as using disappearance as a tactic of war, but since the signing of the Convention, the number of disappearances had significantly decreased. In Pakistan, secret detention had been legalized and civilians could be tried in military courts. In Nepal, the ratification of the Convention was strongly needed to deal with consequences of a decade-long internal conflict.
ANTOINE BERNARD, Executive Director of the International Federation of Human Rights, informed about the current efforts and various means of action that the Federation had been undertaking worldwide to fight against enforced disappearances and to support the rights of victims. The Federation was committed to combating the impunity of perpetrators and advocating with the authorities to urge them to ratify the Convention. They were also working on strengthening the United Nations’ and regional mechanisms by contributing to reports during the Universal Periodic Review. It was emphasized that civil society’s participation was a cornerstone of the Committee’s work. Local non-governmental organizations had valuable findings. Victims, family members of victims and associations of victims had to play their role and the Committee’s work had to involve civil society as much as possible. Finally, webcasting of the Committee’s sessions was suggested as a way to increase the visibility of the Committee’s work.
FEDERICO ANDREU, International Commission of Jurists, noted that the Convention took into particular account the rights of victims, which were disseminated throughout the entire text of the Convention. According to the Convention, different sets of rights were provided for victims. The rights included: the right to prevention, the right to information and communication to family members, the right of family members to access to detention registers, the right to habeas corpus, the right to investigation, the right to formally report and request investigation, and the right of people to create associations to search for the disappeared. In addition, the right to truth was present in the preamble and repeated in two articles, while the right to reparations was central to ensuring the compensations for the harm committed. The Committee had three important instruments to ensure that the enlisted rights were ensured: the observations made to the States parties, decisions on individual communication and general comments that could be issued by the Committee.
Algeria asked for further information on the link between migrants and enforced disappearances. It was a particularly challenging issue to investigate, since the migrants were transiting through several countries, so it would involve responsibility of several countries. Were there studies commissioned about migrants and enforced disappearances that would further investigate legal possibilities of how to approach that complex issue? Algeria also asked what the international community, including the Committee and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, had done for victims that had disappeared in Mauritania, Mali, Algeria and Morocco. Morocco asked how the Committee would deal with the enforced disappearances in the refugee camp in Tindouf. Would the responsibility be assigned to Morocco or Algeria?
Concluding Remarks
ALBERTO PEDRO D’ALLOTO, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Argentina to the United Nations Office at Geneva, paid his tribute to mothers and grandmothers of Placa de Mayo and their courage. The instruments were now available to prevent new violence from occurring. Authoritarian leaders were aware that their actions could be sanctioned. Nonetheless, the practice of enforced disappearances continued, not just in armed conflicts, but also as a result of drug trafficking, organized crime and terrorism. The Committee and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances would need to join their efforts to try to put an end to the scourge of enforced disappearances.
JUNICHI IHARA, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations Office at Geneva, expressed his hope that the panel discussions brought a new understanding of the Convention to all of the participants. The Convention was an innovative instrument and Mr. Ihara called upon all States to accede to it. Closer cooperation between States parties, the Committee and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances was needed in order to achieve greater visibility and understanding of the Convention.
EMMANUEL DÉCAUX, Chairperson of the Committee, thanked all the participants and speakers for their contribution. The main priority was that countries from all the continents needed to ratify the Convention. Many countries from Latin America had acceded to the Convention, but other countries were not well represented. The second priority was that, once the Convention had been ratified, States parties would need to submit their reports to the Committee in due time.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CED16/006E