HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH WORKING GROUP ON ENFORCED OR INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCES
The Human Rights Council during its midday meeting held an interactive dialogue with the Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances and concluded its clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence and with the Working Group on arbitrary detention.
Ariel Dulitzky, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, said that enforced disappearances were still being used throughout the world, including in conflict situations or to fight terrorism. Even though the resolution of disappeared cases was fundamental to provide victims with closure and justice, there were still thousands of cases of enforced disappearances that had not been solved. Mr. Dulitzky encouraged States to improve their forensic tools for a better and faster resolution of pending cases.
Spain spoke as a concerned country. Defensor del Pueblo de Espana, the Spanish national human rights institution, also spoke in a video statement.
In the ensuing discussion, speakers agreed that enforced disappearances were not a crime of the past and said that new strategies were needed to fight and eradicate this practice. The activities of the Working Group were valuable for families who struggled to piece together the truth and delegations hoped that it would continue its precious work to resolve enforced or involuntary disappearances.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue were the European Union, Costa Rica on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Morocco, Cuba, Japan, Bahrain, China, Serbia, Latvia, Venezuela, Croatia, United States, Belgium, Iran, Australia, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Chile, Nepal, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, France, Rwanda, Russia, Ireland, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Panama, and Argentina.
Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations: International Service for Human Rights, Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain Inc, Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, African Technology Development Link, Alsalam Foundation, African Technical Association
At the beginning of its noon meeting, the Council concluded its clustered interactive dialogue with Pablo de Grieff, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, and Mads Andenas, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention.
In the discussion, speakers said that the right to truth, justice, reparation and guarantee of non-recurrence implied raising awareness of all stakeholders to recognize victims as rights-holders and not just instruments in criminal investigations. They agreed that States must not grant amnesty to those responsible for serious international crimes, emphasizing that establishing robust criminal justice processes could ensure that justice was served, victims were given recognition and truth was restored – giving the best chance for non-recurrence. Prosecutions of perpetrators of gross human rights violations should focus on those who ordered the acts, as prosecuting junior soldiers did little to guarantee non-recurrence.
With regard to arbitrary detention, speakers expressed concern about the increased number of armed conflicts around the world, and wondered which existing legal framework could be used to address arbitrary detention by non-State actors who operated across internationally recognized borders. Speakers also asked the Working Group about its view on pre-trial detention, habeas corpus in states of emergency and the rights of child detainees.
Speaking were Latvia, Ecuador, France, Cuba, Tunisia, Nepal, Egypt, Italy, State of Palestine, Australia, Ireland, Morocco and Nigeria.
The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Connectas Direitos Humanos, Colombian Commission of Jurists, International Institute for Peace, Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales, Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, Amnesty International, Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, Alsalam Foundation, International Muslim Women’s Union, Human Rights Now, International Educational Development, France-Libertés, Human Rights House Foundation, Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain, and Liberation.
In concluding remarks, Mr. de Grieff said that the development of a prosecutorial strategy as a tool in the fight against impunity and for accountability was important because it sent the message that no one was above the law. The International Criminal Court had such a strategy with an eye to its own particular obligations, allowing it to select for prosecution cases in a way that differed from the obligations of national prosecutorial strategies. Victim participation had awakened a great deal of support, and it would ensure more effective ways to respond to the needs of women, of marginalized groups, and those of children.
Mr. Andenas in his closing remarks said that there was an increase in new forms of arbitrary detention and expressed concern about the increase of the use of pre-trial detention, detention of migrants and asylum seekers. With regard to non-State actors arbitrarily detaining people, Mr. Andenas reiterated that international law contained obligations for groups and companies as well as State officials not to contribute in any way to human rights violations.
The Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence and the Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention presented their reports on Wednesday, 10 September, and a summary of their presentations, as well as the beginning of the interactive dialogue with them can be found here.
The Council is holding a full day of meetings today. At 4 p.m., it will hear the presentation of the report of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the right to development and the presentation of the thematic reports of the Secretary-General, the High Commissioner and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, followed by a general debate.
Interactive Dialogue with Special Rapporteur on Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non-recurrence and Chairperson of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Latvia was concerned about the increased number of armed conflicts around the world, and the arbitrary detention by non-State actors who acted across internationally recognized borders and asked how to approach such cases within existing legal frameworks. Ecuador was convinced that the right to truth, justice, reparation and guarantee of non-recurrence implied raising awareness of all stakeholders to recognize victims as rights-holders and not just instruments in criminal investigations. France would continue to support the activities of the International Criminal Court and asked about obstacles to the participation of victims in international criminal procedures. France asked whether the practice of arbitrary detention was on the increase or was stabilizing.
Cuba said that the significant body of work which underpinned the right to truth, justice and reconciliation should be organized in order to continue its development. Cuba asked for the opinion of the Working Group on arbitrary detention about the non-compliance of the United States with the opinion 19/2005. Tunisia said it would study the conclusions and recommendations on the establishment of priorities for prosecution, which was very relevant for Tunisia in the light on a large number of cases before its Truth and Dignity Commission. Tunisia was looking forward to the finalization of the basic principles and guidelines on remedies and procedures related to the right of any person deprived of liberty to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in court. Nepal was committed to move ahead with the establishment of a transitional justice mechanism in line with its international obligations and said that there would be no blanket amnesty for any crimes of serious nature.
Egypt said as a transitional country taking its first steps towards transitional justice it was particularly interested in the work of the Special Rapporteur, but said a reference in paragraph 82 of the Special Rapporteur’s report to a court case tried in Egypt earlier this year was based on imprecise or incomplete information, noting that the Egyptian judiciary undertook its functions with utmost respect for the rule of law. Australia agreed that States must not grant amnesty to those responsible for serious international crimes, emphasizing that establishing robust criminal justice processes could ensure that justice was served, victims were given recognition and truth was restored – giving the best chance for non-recurrence.
State of Palestine said they had and continued to experience the widest campaign of arbitrary arrest in the world. Israel, the occupying power, had arbitrarily arrested some 800,000 Palestinians since 1967 as a form of collective punishment to break the will of the Palestinian people. How could justice ever be brought while Palestinian civilians were systematically tried by Israel’s illegal military court system? Ireland asked the Special Rapporteur his view on the extent to which victim participation could and should shape prosecutorial strategy. Ireland commended the Working Group on arbitrary detention and asked its view on pre-trial detention, habeus corpus in states of emergency and the rights of child detainees. Italy spoke about the Chair of the Working Group’s follow-up visit to Italy in July and the value of the ‘follow-up visit’ as a tool, urging all States to actively engage with Special Procedures with regard to follow-up visits and mechanisms.
Nigeria recalled its participation in the truth and justice regional consultation convened by the Special Rapporteur in Kampala, Uganda, in November 2013, where healthy deliberations on transitional justice procedures took place. It urged the Special Rapporteur to continue to create such consultative platforms in the pursuit of his mandate, and to enable international humanitarian law in domestic statutes of States. Morocco noted the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation for regional and international cooperation, and spoke about how the recommendations of Morocco’s Equity and Reconciliation Commission formed part of its new constitution, as well as cooperation to ensure justice for victims and establishment of guarantees of non-recurrence in North Africa.
Connectas Direitos Humanos drew the attention of the Council to the grave situation of arbitrary detention in Brazil. The Working Group had raised crucial issues and made clear the need for strengthening alternative measures to detention. Brazil had the fourth largest prison population in the world. International Institute for Peace said Gilgit Baltistan was a region occupied by Pakistan and ruled like a colony. The aspirations of the people were almost completely ignored and the region was exploited by Pakistan for itself and its strategic partners. It had also been Pakistan’s staging ground for Pakistan’s Kargil misadventure. Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik said that attempts at bringing about a process emphasizing victims’ participation in Spain had been a source of encouragement. In September 1988 more than 5,000 political prisoners had been executed all over Iran within a period of weeks. It was concerned that substantial further work was needed in amplifying the work of the Special Rapporteur.
Colombian Commission of Jurists underlined the international obligation to investigate and judge crimes against humanity and the important role that criminal law played in massive violations, as in the Colombian context. There were a series of principles that had to be adapted to military courts. Amnesty International urged the authorities of Morocco to take into account the Working Group’s recommendations on the current judicial reform process. Investigations had to meet international standards of impartiality. The authorities were encouraged to implement the recommendations of the Working Group without delay. Centro de Estudios Legales Sociales believed the approach to criminal proceedings and in particular prioritizing strategies at the national level, to be most pertinent. It was worried by the lack of mechanisms dealing with sexual violence, arbitrary detention and torture during Uruguay’s dictatorship.
Commission to Study the Organization of Peace said if there was one region in the world today where arbitrary detention coupled with torture and killing at the behest of the State was the norm, it was Baluchistan. The kill and dump policy in Baluchistan needed to stop and culprits had to be punished. Alsalam Foundation, in a joint statement, highlighted arbitrary detention in Bahrain which represented the broad pattern of arbitrary arrest and detention that was prevalent in the country, where some 4,000 prisoners had been detained in relation to the defence of human rights. Human Rights House Foundation said Azerbaijan was leading an unprecedented crackdown against civil society by arresting, one by one, key critics of the country’s leadership. It listed the names of members of civil society who had been arbitrarily detained, such as Hilal Mammadov and other human rights defenders. A detention, even if authorized by law, may still be considered arbitrary if premised upon an arbitrary piece of legislation or was inherently unjust or discriminatory.
International Muslim Women’s Union recommended that the practice of protective custody be eliminated and replaced with alternative measures that ensured the protection of women and girls without jeopardizing their liberty. In particular, it asked India when the Working Group on arbitrary detention could visit the occupied Jammu Kashmir region. France-Libertés spoke about members of Sahraouis of Western Sahara, and allegations of their arbitrary detention, torture and unfair trials by military courts, thanking the Working Group for its recommendations relating to the Western Sahara.
International Educational Development, in a joint statement, said prosecutions of perpetrators of gross human rights violations should focus on those who ordered the acts, as prosecuting junior soldiers did little to guarantee non-recurrence, as in Sri Lanka, where many war crimes were ordered by the highest authorities. Human Rights Now regretted that Japan’s response to the military sexual slavery issue was contrary to the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur. It suggested that a new mechanism be established to enable the Council to effectively prevent Member States, particularly Council members, from concealing or denying the facts relating to grave violations of human rights.
Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain said a recent study had found that the Working Group had submitted allegations regarding more than 60 individuals in Bahrain since February 2011, including three cases alleged in the latest joint communications report. This showed that arbitrary detention was a systemic practice in Bahrain. Liberation highlighted concern regarding Sri Lanka’s repeated refusal to cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the investigation of mass atrocities. It had denied visas to United Nations investigators and publicly discussed possible punitive action against those who worked with the United Nations, which was deeply alarming.
Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non-recurrence and the Chairperson of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
PABLO DE GRIEFF, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, in concluding remarks reiterated his willingness to engage in further discussion and conversation on the issues raised. The importance of the development of a prosecutorial strategy as a tool in the fight against impunity and for accountability was important because it sent the message that no one was above the law. It was better to engage in the debate thinking about strategies that could in fact be developed. The International Criminal Court was one of the stakeholders that had in fact developed an explicit prosecutorial strategy, with an eye to its own particular obligations, allowing it to select for the prosecution of cases in a way that differed from the obligations of national prosecutorial strategies, which of course were different from those to the Court. Lots of questions had been raised about the issue of victim participation. It was the sort of topic that awakened a great deal of support for very good reasons. The degree of support however was not reflected in the amount of knowledge and information available about the topic. This was an issue on which the mandate was working. Increasing the participation of victims would make, among other things, more effective ways of responding to the needs of women, of marginalized groups, and those of children.
MADS ANDENAS, Chairperson of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, in response to the question from France on whether arbitrary detention was on the rise at the international level, said that there was an increase of many new forms of arbitrary detention. Deprivations of liberty had to be necessary and proportionate, and States had a large margin of appreciation. The Working Group was concerned about the increase of the use of pre-trial detention, as well as the detention of migrants and asylum seekers. Post conflict and conflict situations led to a large number of arbitrary detentions. Hastily drafted legislation often did not take human rights standards into account. Many countries welcomed the review provided by international and regional institutions on detention conditions. With regards to the principle of guidelines mentioned by many delegations, the Working Group had been given a precise mandate to work on arbitrary detention and develop principles and guidelines. The Working Group would also attempt to provide guidance on how international guidance could be implemented, including through identifying best practices.
Latvia and some other countries had mentioned the issue of armed conflict and the responsibility of non-State actors. On this, the Working Group had a clear position that international law contained obligations for groups and companies as well as State officials not to contribute in any way to human rights violations. The remedy side had however to be implemented by States. When authorities of a State complied with international law, that would normally satisfy the proportionality requirement for using detention sentences. Mr. Andenas thanked the Governments that had cooperated or had committed to cooperate with the Working Group, and encouraged more governments to extend invitations for visits to the Working Group. In response to the European Union’s question on the protection of journalists, he said that journalists’ detentions had to be particularly scrutinised by international bodies. The Working Group was looking at international customary law, its implementation and best practices that went beyond basic requirements of the dispositions of international treaties.
Documentation
The Council has before it the report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (A/HRC/27/49)
The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances - Mission to Spain (A/HRC/27/49/Add.1)
The Council has before it an addendum to the report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances - Argentina and Bosnia and Herzegovina (A/HRC/27/49/Add.2)
Interactive Dialogue with the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
Introduction by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
ARIEL DULITZKY, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, said that enforced disappearances were still being used throughout the world, including in conflict situations or to fight terrorism. Enforced disappearances were a flagrant violation of human rights and could not be justified to address such challenges. Thousands of cases of enforced disappearances had still not been solved. The Working Group’s experience showed that the resolution of cases of disappearances was fundamental to provide victims with closure and justice. The resolution of pending cases had to be accompanied by measures to prevent enforced disappearances from occurring. States also had to improve their forensic tools for a better and faster resolution of pending cases. Country visits were a key part of the Working Group’s mandate, and were one of the most efficient tools for dialogue and cooperation with Governments. The Working Group welcomed that Sudan had invited it to visit the country. The lack of financial resources was a problem for the efficiency of the Working Group’s activities. The Working Group was collaborating efficiently with the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, and Mr. Dulitzky underlined the benefits of having two bodies working on this issue at the international level.
On the Working Group’s recent visit to Spain, the Chair-Rapporteur regretted that few efforts had been made to resolve the cases pending since the civil war. Spain had to play a leading role in undertaking initiatives in order to overcome challenges that still persisted. On the Working Group’s visit to Argentina, he welcomed that Argentina had made great efforts to address cases, including through commitment and cooperation. With regards to the Working Group’s visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina, he welcomed the cooperation of countries in the Balkan region to resolve disappearance cases. Mr. Dulitzky welcomed the arrival of a new female member in the Working Group. New initiatives and innovative measures had to be developed and implemented.
Statement by Concerned Country
Spain, speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Working Group for its report but said it did not agree with certain parts of the report on the mission to Spain, notably the excessive scope of the competencies of the Working Group. Spain did not believe that the Working Group had a competence to examine facts from the past, from periods prior even to the founding of the United Nations. It was surprising that the group adopted that position when it did not accept individual communications prior to 1945. Spain said it had always tried to respond to the situation described in the report and spoke about its success in that regard. The Working Group’s recommendation to typify enforced disappearance as a criminal offence was currently being debated in Parliament, and its recommendation to improve public access to achieves was also valid, as while there was no formal impediment to access, there were difficulties. The recommendation regarding training of law enforcement officers would also be used. There was a strong social and political consensus behind the Amnesty Act of 1977 which showed Spain wished to be reconciled with itself; something only possible through pardon and forgetting. Spain was aware of its obligations and neither this Government or another would sleep easily while somebody was buried in a gutter, whichever side of the civil war he was on.
National Human Rights Institution Of Spain, speaking via video-link, clarified its structure, explaining it was elected by a parliamentary majority, and that the Ombudsman did not answer to the Government and was absolutely independent. The Ombudsman had received the top mark from the United Nations Accreditation Sub-Committee on Human Rights. The Ombudsman had excellent relations with other Ombudsmen which were correct and regulated by an act of parliament. That was the situation on the independence and characteristics of the Spanish Institution of the Ombudsman, it concluded.
Interactive Dialogue with the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
European Union said that the practice of enforced disappearances was not a crime of the past and urged States to stop such practices without delay, and also called on all States to extend cooperation to the Working Group. The European Union called on the Working Group to focus its attention on the major crises. Costa Rica, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, welcomed the meeting of experts on the links between enforced disappearances and economic, social and cultural rights and encouraged the Working Group to continue with its good work. Morocco expressed its appreciation for the efforts of the Working Group to improve its working methods and said it was aware of the difficulties it faced because of the lack of resources, including delays in dealing with communications.
Cuba said that the scourge of enforced or involuntary disappearances had been eradicated by the revolution in 1959 and there were no such cases, or cases of torture and ill-treatment in Cuba. Japan said that the activities of the Working Group were valuable for families who struggled to piece together the truth and hoped that it would continue its precious work to resolve enforced or involuntary disappearances, including those in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Bahrain said that its legal framework protected against enforced disappearances by granting detainees access to lawyers, allowing visits to places of detention, the right to judicial procedures and others. The procedures of the Working Group were lengthy and its working methods should be improved.
China said enforced disappearances were a grave human rights violation, and it hoped the Working Group would abide by its mandate, improve communications with Governments and engage in dialogue and cooperation, basing itself on true and reliable information. Latvia said a major problem was under-reporting and asked the Working Group how it could engage individuals in order to receive more information about missing individuals. Why was the number of enforced disappearance cases declining?
Serbia thanked the Working Group for its ongoing engagement in the Balkans and particularly its visit to Serbia, Montenegro and Croatia. The Mostar Declaration was an important step to find the remaining disappeared persons, a highest priority for the Government of Serbia. Croatia said more than 1,600 people were still missing following the war, and the Government was committed to discovering the fate of every one of them. It thanked the Working Group for its visit to Croatia and neighbouring countries, and looked forward to the follow-up report.
United States said it was disturbed by reports that some 40 bodies wrapped in plastic were found by Burundian fishermen in a lake bordering Rwanda and Burundi last August. The United States urgently requested the Working Group to encourage Burundi to conduct a full investigation, including with DNA technology, in coordination with Rwanda as appropriate. Venezuela said its constitution and criminal code prohibited the practice of enforced disappearance, even in situations of a state of emergency. Venezuela recognized its debt to its people and had passed an act to punish crimes of enforced disappearance during the cruelly repressive period of 1958 to 1998.
Belgium shared concerns that some States had not replied to requests by the Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances and stressed that country visits were an integral part of the Working Group’s mandate. Belgium underlined the importance of solving disappearance cases as part of efforts to ensure accountability, and called on States to ratify the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Iran said that it would continue to cooperate with the Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances, but said that the names provided to Iran by the Working Group on alleged cases were ambiguous and based on false information.
Response by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
ARIEL DULITZKY, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, said that amnesty laws did not preclude the obligation for States to investigate cases of enforced disappearances. He then called on States to ratify the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. In response to the question raised by Croatia on complementarity, he said that the mandates of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances and of the Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances were different and complementary. The Working Group’s mandate was more humanitarian. On the question on why the number of reported cases was decreasing, he said that underreporting to the Working Group was due to a lack of knowledge, fear, and a lack of support to the work of the Working Group. State-centred policies had to be replaced by more victim-centred policies.
Interactive Dialogue with the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
Australia shared the Working Group’s concerns regarding the scale of enforced disappearances in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and called on the authorities of that country to collaborate with the Working Group. Australia also expressed concerns about enforced disappearances in Syria, and called on the Working Group to address these cases. Iraq said its constitution guaranteed the right to life and to live in security for everybody. Iraq’s national legislation was being reviewed to ensure that it was in line with the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Iraq had investigated and was continuing to investigate cases of disappearances. With regards to allegations of disappearances in Iraq referred to in the report, Iraq said that nothing had been proven. Sri Lanka said that it had taken measures and made considerable progress in investigating cases of disappearances in the country. The Commission of Inquiry on disappearances of Sri Lanka had received individual requests, and its mandate had recently been broadened by Presidential decree to better address these allegations.
Chile said that enforced disappearances were not a crime of the past and new strategies were needed to fight and eradicate them, and asked about mechanisms that would help bolster the cooperation on forensic investigations. Nepal reiterated its commitment to continue the search for those who had disappeared during the decade-long conflict and provide reparation to victims within the framework of its transitional justice mechanism. Bosnia and Herzegovina said that in 2012 it had ratified the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and had launched several initiatives to support victims’ families.
Montenegro commended the Balkan Regional Initiative which produced a declaration in August 2014 on finding persons disappeared during the Balkan wars. More than 43,000 cases of enforced disappearances remained unclarified and Montenegro asked what could be done to expedite claims of enforced disappearances by families and human rights defenders, particularly in emergency situations. France took note of the many obstacles to fully implementing the Working Group’s humanitarian mandate, including lack of cooperation by some States and the reluctance of families to report cases, and shared the concern about the extent of enforced disappearances, particularly in Syria and in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Rwanda remained ready to assist any investigation into the case of bodies found in the Lake Rweru and reiterated commitment to cooperate with Burundi in this matter.
Ireland said that it acknowledged the important work of the Working Group and supported the report’s conclusion that regrettably, enforced disappearance was not a crime of the past. No circumstances whatsoever may be used to invoke enforced disappearances. Russia said that all requests of the Working Group were thoroughly addressed and that it supported the extension of its mandate. Unfortunately, the practice of enforced disappearance took place all around the world, particularly in conflict areas. Russia shared concern over the worsening situation in Ukraine.
Panama said that enforced disappearances were a crime in Panama in the Criminal Code, and had been so since 1992. It had a policy to respect rights and fundamental guarantees, and was a democratic State that had made a commitment and had a vocation to safeguard the right to life and human dignity. Democratic People's Republic of Korea recalled that its Government had provided enough replies to clarify the cases in a number of letters addressed to the Chair Rapporteur of the Working Group. Determining the fate of millions of Koreans forcefully abducted by Japan was an important pending issue to be resolved. Argentina said that it had submitted updated and additional information to the Working Group. The Public Prosecution Office now had a systematic approach to bring to trial cases of enforced disappearances. The progress in different trials had allowed the Prosecution’s Office to undertake a deeper analysis of specific issues.
International Service for Human Rights said that it was clear that enforced disappearances were not a crime of the past, and continued to be perpetrated against human rights defenders. It strongly supported the call for the establishment of a United Nations-wide senior focal point to combat intimidation and reprisals.
Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain Inc, in a joint statement, said that Saudi Arabia had repeatedly violated the due process rights of disappeared detainees, arbitrarily depriving them of their liberty and refusing to disclose their whereabouts. On 15 April, Saudi Arabia disappeared attorney Waleed Abu al-Khair. It called on Saudi Arabia to release all political prisoners and arrange a visit by the Working Group. Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network expressed concerns about cases of enforced disappearances in China, and asked China to respond positively to the Working Group and other Special Procedures’ requests to visit the country. It urged the Working Group to work on the unresolved case of the disappearance of the Eleventh Panchen Lama and his family members. Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights was concerned about enforced disappearances in China, particularly against Tibetans. In the Tibetan Autonomous Region, there had been at least 41 cases of individuals feared disappeared last year. It asked the Chinese Government to reply positively to the Working Group’s request to visit the country.
African Technology Development Link said that enforced disappearance was a particularly cruel human rights violation that was widespread in Pakistan, particularly in the Baluchistan province. There, the Taliban and affiliated groups targeted civilians, and the Pakistani police abused Baluch nationalists. Alsalam Foundation, in a joint statement, said the Government of Bahrain was responsible for dozens of enforced disappearances of human rights defenders, bloggers, journalists, and others, including 22-year-old Ahmed al-Arab. It asked the Working Group to comment on enforced disappearances in Bahrain and to request a visit to the country. African Technical Association, in a joint statement, called on Pakistan to stop disappearing persons, particularly political activists, journalists and lawyers, in the Baluchistan province. None of the perpetrators had been held to justice, and legislation had been adopted to justify arbitrary detention. There were also allegations of organ trafficking there.
Concluding Remarks by the Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
ARIEL DULITZKY, Chair Rapporteur of the Working Ground on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, said that many delegations had spoken about the ratification of the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and the adoption of legislation. The Working Group welcomed both the ratification of the Convention and the individual initiatives as well. The Working Group particularly insisted on all criminal codes to have a stand-alone crime of enforced disappearance. An effective implementation was needed in the everyday business of public policy, ensuring the prevention and eradication of enforced disappearances. Chile had asked a question about how to facilitate international cooperation when it came to searching for the disappeared. Any search for a disappeared person had to start with a search for living persons. Secondly, it had to be ensured that there were real, coordinated State policies, as well as genetic databases. Databases were essential when it came to identifying any possible human remains.
There had to be assistance and support for witnesses and victims and this had to be legal, psychological, social and financial. Judges also had to be given all they needed to act independently and impartially and gender perspective had to be integrated. The invaluable role of women was important; they were leading the fight against impunity. There had to be much more attention on non-State actors. On prevention and the role of civil society, this was important in two different sectors. The associations of families of victims, and the more standard associations providing support in general to victims. Both were essential. They could help provide training for public officials, and provide information on how to act for early warning. Enforced disappearances were not a thing of the past. There were more than 40,000 cases of enforced disappearances now and new notifications were received every week. A new commitment and a new strategy were needed to prevent and eradicate enforced disappearances. It was not enough to say that legislation was being promulgated and treaties ratified. There was a need to specifically ensure that the rights to truth, justice, reparation, memory and the guarantee of non-repetition were fully exercised by all of the families of all victims of enforced disappearances.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC14/115E