Experts of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances Commend the Gambia on Reparations Act, Ask Questions on Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission and the Timeline for Victim Compensation
The Committee on Enforced Disappearances today concluded its consideration of the initial report of the Gambia, with Committee Experts commending the State on the reparations act, while raising questions on the work of the county’s Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission and the timeline for victims to receive compensation.
Milica Kolakovic-Bojovic, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee was pleased to receive information that the Gambia had passed the reparations act 2024, which established the Reparations Commission and the Victims Fund, and also to hear that the Truth Commission had already provided some victims with reparations. Ms. Kolakovic-Bojovic asked for further details on the provisions of the Act.
Ms. Kolakovic-Bojovic said the Committee recognised the importance of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission act 2018, which stipulated that the work of the Commission would result in recommendations for establishing appropriate preventive mechanisms, to be monitored by the National Human Rights Commission and its annual reports. Olivier de Frouville, Committee Chairperson and Country Rapporteur, asked how the State party was implementing the recommendations of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission for prosecutions?
A Committee Expert said real cases of enforced disappearances had taken place in the country, involving the Junglers from the former regime, and it was likely they would be prosecuted. The victims were known and were still dealing with their suffering. Would those victims have to wait until the cases were prosecuted and the perpetrators convicted? It was likely the reparations would not be paid by the Junglers but rather the State. Should victims have to wait until the completion of the trials for compensation or reparations?
The delegation said the programme for the recommendations of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission was ambitious, and the State planned to implement these within five years. Apart from the few cases prosecuted, including those of the nine intelligence officers, the State had taken a decision to do away with the piecemeal approach, until the Special Prosecutor was appointed and the Special Court was ready. The advertisement for the recruitment of the Special Prosecutor would soon be launched. All materials from the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission would then be handed over to the Prosecutor, and they would decide on future prosecutions, including the former President.
Victims did not have to wait for perpetrators to be prosecuted to receive reparations, the delegation said. As they were known, there was nothing they needed to prove. The State understood the process of justice was a different ballgame from recognising someone’s victimhood. There was a set criterion to determine who was a victim, and those who fit this criterion were entitled to everything a victim was entitled to.
Introducing the report, Dawda A. Jallow, Attorney General and Minister of Justice of the Republic of the Gambia and head of the delegation, said the history of the Gambia had been shaped by a painful past, in which enforced disappearances were systematically used as a tool of oppression. With the democratic transition in 2017, the Gambia made a firm commitment to break from the past and ensure that such atrocities never happened again. The Gambia ratified the Convention in 2018, and at the First World Conference on Enforced Disappearances in January 2025, the State pledged to finalise the enforced disappearance bill by 2026, ensuring the full domestication of the Convention into the country’s legal framework.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Jallow thanked the Committee for the dialogue which had provided a valuable platform to reflect on progress made under the Convention. The Gambia was committed to strengthening legislation for enforced disappearances, protecting victims and their families, bringing perpetrators of these violations to justice, and ensuring justice and redress for all effected individuals.
Horacio Ravenna, Committee Vice Chair, thanked all those who were involved in the dialogue. Later in the session, the Committee would adopt concluding observations on the Gambia. The Committee looked forward to the Gambia’s goodwill, and the State could count on support from the Committee.
The delegation of the Gambia consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Interior; the Gambia Armed Forces; the Gambia Prison Service; the Gambia Police Force; the State Intelligence Service; and the Permanent Mission of the Gambia to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. Webcasts of the meetings of the session can be found here , and meetings summaries can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 19 March, to begin its consideration of the initial report of the Central African Republic (CED/C/CAF/QAR/1).
Report
The Committee has before it the initial report of the Gambia (CED/C/GMB/1).
Presentation of Report
DAWDA A. JALLOW, Attorney General and Minister of Justice of the Republic of the Gambia and head of the delegation, said the history of the Gambia had been shaped by a painful past, in which enforced disappearances were systematically used as a tool of oppression. Under the former regime, political opponents, journalists, security personnel, and ordinary citizens were forcibly taken, detained in secret locations, subjected to torture, and, in many cases, executed extrajudicially, with their families denied the basic right to know the fate of their loved ones. These grave violations occurred with impunity, silencing victims and discouraging any form of dissent.
With the democratic transition in 2017, the Gambia made a firm commitment to break from the past and ensure that such atrocities never happened again. The Gambia ratified the Convention in 2018, and at the First World Conference on Enforced Disappearances in January 2025, the State pledged to finalise the enforced disappearance bill by 2026, ensuring the full domestication of the Convention into the country’s legal framework.
Since ratifying the Convention, the Gambia had taken significant steps to prevent, investigate, and address enforced disappearances. The draft enforced disappearance bill sought to criminalise enforced disappearance as a distinct offence, ensure legal safeguards against secret detentions, and provide clear avenues for victims and their families to seek justice. Additionally, the access to information act of 2021 guaranteed families the right to obtain official records concerning missing persons, reinforcing transparency and accountability.
The Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission, established in 2018, played a pivotal role in uncovering the full scale of past atrocities, revealing that enforced disappearances were State-sanctioned and systematically carried out by security forces and the Junglers, a paramilitary death squad operating on direct orders from the former President. The Government had committed to implementing the Commission’s key recommendations, which included prosecuting perpetrators, ensuring reparations for victims and families, strengthening institutional safeguards to prevent recurrence, and conducting forensic investigations to locate and identify the remains of the disappeared.
To this end, the victims reparations act was enacted in 2024, providing a structured framework for reparations and support to those affected by past human rights violations; and the Victims Reparations Fund was established, ensuring that victims received meaningful compensation and psychological support. The Gambia had also established a Special Tribunal dedicated to prosecuting individuals responsible for human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, which would work in tandem with the Special Prosecutor’s Office, ensuring justice was served.
Since 2017, there had been zero reported cases of enforced disappearances under the current administration, marking a critical departure from the past. The National Human Rights Commission played a pivotal role in ensuring independent oversight of detention facilities, investigating complaints, and monitoring compliance with human rights obligations.
The pursuit of justice extended beyond the Gambia’s national borders. Through active international cooperation, there had been concrete progress in prosecuting those responsible for past human rights violations. This included the life imprisonment of Bai Lowe in Germany in November 2023 for his involvement in the Junglers; the sentencing to 20 years in prison of Ousman Sonko in Switzerland for crimes against humanity he committed as Interior Minister; and ongoing legal proceedings against Michael Sang Corea in the United States. The Gambia’s mutual legal assistance in criminal matters act (2023) provided a structured framework for enhanced international cooperation in criminal investigations and prosecutions, enabling effective collaboration with foreign law enforcement agencies in obtaining evidence, securing witness testimonies, and facilitating extraditions. These cases and legal reforms sent a strong message that impunity would not be tolerated.
Despite the significant progress made, challenges remained. Top priorities of the State included the finalisation of the enforced disappearance bill; obtaining sustainable resources to support victim reparations, witness protection, and long-term institutional reforms; strengthening the operational capacity of the judiciary and law enforcement agencies; and the ongoing pursuit for perpetrators outside the Gambia. The Gambia welcomed the Committee’s recommendations and looked forward to a meaningful and constructive dialogue.
Questions by Committee Experts
MILICA KOLAKOVIC-BOJOVIC, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the Gambia’s initial steps to implement the Convention were appreciated by the Committee. Were any standardised procedures in place aimed at ensuring civil society inclusiveness? If so, could this be described? Could more information on the consultations to recognise the Committee’s competence to receive and consider individual and inter-State communication be provided? How long would the process take?
The Committee recognised the importance of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission act 2018, which stipulated that the work of the Commission would result in recommendations for establishing appropriate preventive mechanisms, to be monitored by the National Human Rights Commission and its annual reports. The National Human Rights Commission submitted an annual report to the National Assembly on the status of the implementation of the recommendations of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission.
The second report, which covered the period from May 2023 to May 2024, indicated that 16 recommendations were fully implemented, 192 were ongoing, and 55 were not implemented. Could this data be confirmed? What were the main positive aspects in terms of the implementation of the recommendations? What were the main challenges in implementing the recommendations? Could more information be provided on the National Human Rights Commission’s capacity, including staffing, resources and expertise?
The State party informed of several weaknesses of the 1997 Constitution, caused by multiple amendments. The Government had renewed the constitutional process, with the Constitution of the Republic of the Gambia (promulgation) bill, in August 2024. How did the new draft Constitution remove identified weaknesses, especially in terms of the domestication of the Convention?
The report informed that enforced disappearance was not yet treated as a separate criminal offence in the Gambia, with the State working on the comprehensive legislative reform. The Government had recruited a consultant, with the support of the International Committee of the Red Cross, to draft an autonomous bill on enforced disappearances. What would be the scope of this separate law? How would coherency between the provisions of the amended penal legislation and the new law be ensured? Was the State party planning to wait with the adoption of the amended penal legislation until the development of the new law on enforced disappearances? What was the current state of play in terms of the legislative reform; what were the obstacles to adopting the new laws after having them in the procedure for a few years?
The Committee had adopted its first general comment on enforced disappearance in the context of migration in 2023; had the State party’s officials familiarised themselves with the Comment? Would it be incorporated into public policies?
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Chairperson and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee was reassured that the statute of limitations did not apply to the offences currently applicable on enforced disappearances, and it was noted that the State party had provided for the exclusion of the statute of limitations for enforced disappearances. Did standalone cases of enforced disappearance also apply here? Could more information be provided on measures taken by the State to strengthen the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and to combat corruption within the judiciary? How was access to justice being facilitated through legal aid?
Could the State party provide more information on the jurisdiction of military courts? The Committee welcomed that a decision was adopted recently to establish the Special Court for the Gambia. Could more information be provided, including about its statutes and whether the offence of enforced disappearance fell under its competence? Could more information be provided on the Special Prosecutor who provided support to the court?
How many complaints had been filed for enforced disappearances between 1994 and 2017 and beyond? How many investigations had been conducted, how many persons had been prosecuted to date, and what sanctions had been applied? Had any of these cases occurred in the context of trafficking or migration? The State party had recalled the procedures carried out abroad in Germany, Switzerland and the United States. Were there any other cases underway abroad? In which countries and on what grounds? What did the Working Group on Missing Persons, under the Office of the Inspector General of Police, handle? What was the complementary nature between this Office and the joint investigation team by the Gambian Armed Forces and the police?
How was the State party implementing the recommendations of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission for prosecutions? What investigations had been carried out in the case of the 50 migrants killed by the security forces in 2009, and what was the status of the follow-up?
Which authorities were responsible for investigating enforced disappearances that may have taken place before 1994 or after 2017? How could the opening of an investigation be guaranteed even in the absence of a formal complaint? How was access to the archives of the former National Intelligence Agency provided? According to the Working Group on Enforced Disappearances in the report on the follow-up to its visit, an overall human rights vetting should be applied to all personnel of the security sector to guarantee respect and protection of human rights. What was the update regarding this vetting process? What measures were in place to enable victims’ participation, including family members, in investigations of enforced disappearance?
A Committee Expert said court of the Economic Community of West African States was established in 2024; was there a statute to this special court? Why had the President not been accused in the context of enforced disappearances? What was preventing this from occurring?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the report was prepared through a multisectoral approach. There was an umbrella organization “Tango”, which was an apex body for all civil society organizations in the Gambia. Typically, this organization was contacted to ascertain which organizations could provide appropriate input. The programme for the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission recommendations was ambitious, and the State planned to implement these within five years. Steady progress was being made and it was hoped the pace of implementation would be picked up this year. Currently the 2024 promulgation bill was already in Parliament. The second reading had been delayed until the June National Assembly to allow for further dialogue. The Government was optimistic that the passing of the 2024 Constitution would go a long way in addressing some of the inadequacies in the 1997 Constitution.
The draft law on enforced disappearances was intended to be a comprehensive, one stop shop. The Government was aware of corruption within the judiciary and took these issues seriously, and currently two city magistrates were being prosecuted in the Gambia. Significant progress had been made in ensuring judicial independence and impartiality. Currently, military tribunals did not have jurisdiction to try enforced disappearances.
The Working Group for Enforced Disappearances was functional and comprised of a variety of stakeholders from different sectors. The Group worked closely with the Red Cross and would oversee all issues pertaining to enforced disappearances, including investigations and victims’ affairs. The court of the Economic Community of West African States would be able to invoke customary law. The statute which created this court recognised enforced disappearance as an offence. Regarding the 53 West African migrants killed in the Gambia, this issue was awaiting the appointment of the Special Prosecutor’s Office.
Apart from the few cases prosecuted, including those of the nine intelligence officers, the State had taken a decision to do away with the piecemeal approach, until the Special Prosecutor was appointed and the Special Court was ready. The advertisement for the recruitment of the Special Prosecutor would soon be launched. All materials from the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission would then be handed over to the Prosecutor, and they would decide on future prosecutions, including the former President. There would also be a department of special investigations under the Special Prosecutor to investigate all alleged cases of enforced disappearance between 1994 and 2017.
The Gambia continued to invoke the mutual legal assistance framework and was pursuing fugitives abroad with partner countries. In one case, an arrest had been made and the Gambia was cooperating with that country. There was no specific prosecution strategy for enforced disappearances, but there was a strategy for crimes under the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission. The court of the Economic Community of West African States had commended the Gambia for being one of the most compliant in implementing their decisions. More than 90 per cent of decisions handed down had been implemented.
Victims of enforced disappearances were periodically consulted, and when investigations and prosecutions recommenced, they would play a key role. Since the commencement of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission findings, the archives of the Intelligence Services were handed over completely to the Commission.
Questions by Committee Experts
MILICA KOLAKOVIC-BOJOVIC, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said there was a draft Criminal Code with provisions on enforced disappearances. What were the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code? Did the Gambia intend to extend an open invitation for United Nations Special Procedures to visit the country?
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Chairperson and Country Rapporteur, asked if enforced disappearances were part of the work of the court of Economic Community of West African States? Could more information be provided on rulings dealing with enforced disappearances?
An Expert asked where the Special Court was located? Was it in Africa? Would the protection of victims and witnesses be ensured? Had the Government established reparations for victims who had been recognised but had not received judicial recourse?
A Committee Expert asked what was meant by “Gambianisation” of the judiciary? Did this extend to other institutions? Was it correct that the military did not have jurisdiction over enforced disappearances at present, as well in the anticipated legal instruments which would result from the legislative reforms?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Gambia was carefully considering its position regarding article 31 and 32 on individual communications and would update the Committee in due time. It was hoped the new Penal Code would be passed next week. Enforced disappearance was not covered in the Criminal Code, but the State intended to have specialised legislation to deal with enforced disappearances. The judgment of the convicted nine intelligence officials was available.
The Special Court could change its location within the Economic Community of West African States sub-region as needed. After 20 years of dictatorship, many institutions in the country suffered, including the judiciary, which was manned by non-Gambians. When the country transitioned back to democratic rule, they had coined the word “Gambiansation” in this regard. The Government had a deliberate policy of repopulating the bench with Gambians. There were now full benches at the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal where all were Gambians.
The State was optimistic that investigations of enforced disappearance would progress quickly once they commenced. There were several categories of recommendations from the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission, including those pertaining to prosecution. It was under this component that a Special Prosecutor was being recruited and a Special Court was being developed. Another set of recommendations looked at reforms, and there was a whole reform agenda. A Victims Commission was created, with members expecting to be sworn in by the end of the month, as part of the recommendations relating to victims’ matters.
Questions by Committee Experts
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Chairperson and Country Rapporteur, thanked the Gambia for the information on the extradition procedure. It was hoped that the law on enforced disappearances would include a specific provision in accordance with article 13 of the Convention. Were there safeguards in place to ensure no one was deported or expelled to a country where they could be the victim of an enforced disappearance? Were there mechanisms which allowed for lodging an appeal regarding a deportation order, or the suspension of such an order? What was the status of the reform of the Criminal Procedure Code, in particular making the registration of any deprivation of liberty compulsory? Were there legislative provisions in place that ensured that all persons deprived of their liberty had access to the services of a lawyer, could be visited by their relatives or any other person of their choice and, in the case of foreign nationals, could communicate with their consular authorities? Would this provision be provided in the law on enforced disappearances?
According to information received from the Working Group on Enforced Disappearance, many people had remained in pre-trial detention for many years, without their families receiving information about them. Similarly, there were allegations that foreigners had been detained for many years without the possibility of communicating with their families or accessing the advisory authorities. What was the situation today? What were the conditions? How many people were held in prisons? Was there overcrowding? Did the State party intend to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture? What was being done to improve the registration of persons who had been deprived of their liberty? What was the status of a project for a centralised register of detentions? What measures had been enacted to punish those who falsified information in a prison register? Were there examples of sanctions which had been directly applied?
Could information on the application of habeas corpus law be provided? Could the State provide examples of the implementation of the law on access to information? What was the status of the creation of the Independent Commission on Access to Information? Could examples of cases be provided where information had been refused? Had any provisions been implemented to ensure that information was provided in a speedy manner? Were there sanctions for those who hindered the provision of information? What was the content of the modules in the joint training with the Committee of the Red Cross? What specific modules were used to train on the Convention?
MILICA KOLAKOVIC-BOJOVIC, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee was pleased to receive information that the Gambia had passed the reparations act 2024, which established the Reparations Commission and the Victims Fund, and also to hear that the Truth Commission had already provided some victims with reparation. Did the reparation act address just victims from the past, or could it be applied to future cases? What definition of “enforced disappearances” and “victims” had been used by the act? This would determine the scope of reparation measures provided to the victims. How many victims had been provided with reparations by the Truth Commission? What kind of reparations had they received? What was the current state of play in regard to the institutionalisation of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission? Had Commissioners been appointed? Could the composition of the Commission be described? What resources were allocated to the Commission for its work? It would be useful to know the division of competencies between the Reconciliation Commission and the Reparation Commission.
Family members had a right to know the truth. What were the existing procedures to search for, locate and release disappeared persons, as well as to identify and return their remains in the case of death? What were the protocols to be applied for such procedures and by whom? The Gambia was working on a Special Tribunal which would enhance efforts to achieving accountability. It was important to involve family members in this process.
The evidence act 1994 presumed a person was dead if they had not been seen for seven years. Was a death certificate required under the provisions of legislation dealing with economic and social rights to access those rights? Was there a possibility for the relatives to request issuing a declaration of absence and to access the rights without being forced to declare their disappeared relatives dead? This was an important mechanism to ensure fulfilment of the State party’s obligation to continue the investigation into an enforced disappearance until the fate of the disappeared person had been clarified.
What procedures were in place to ensure the specific needs of women and children who were relatives of the disappeared were adequately addressed? Would the wrongful removal of children be incorporated as a separate crime within the new law on enforced disappearances, or through the criminal offences act? Could information on the system of adoption or other forms of placements of children be provided? Did domestic legislation establish any legal procedures to review adoption or annul any adoption, placement or guardianship which had originated through an enforced disappearance? Could information be provided about the procedure of the identification of newborn babies at the time of birth? Could the State elaborate on the practice of informal adoptions?
A Committee Expert said real cases of enforced disappearances had taken place in the country, involving the Junglers from the former regime, and it was likely they would be prosecuted. The victims were known and were still dealing with their suffering. Would those victims have to wait until the cases were prosecuted and the perpetrators convicted? It was likely the reparations would not be paid by the Junglers but rather the State. Should victims have to wait until the completion of the trials for compensation or reparations? There had been serious cases of prolonged pretrial detention; was there a legal provision determining the maximum duration of pretrial detention in police custody which would trigger the habeas corpus procedure? Did Gambia have any kind of extradition treaty with Guinea regarding the President?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that non-Gambians who were convicted of criminal activity could be deported as part of their sentencing. Any non-criminals and non-nationals who faced deportation were entitled to lawyers and appeals, the same as any other citizen. Secret detention did not operate any more in the Gambia, and detailed provisions in the Constitution guaranteed people’s right to personal liberty. Anyone who was required to be detained beyond 72 hours needed to have the order approved by a court of law. The new law on enforced disappearances sought to expressly prohibit secret detention.
Complaints were registered in prisons in the Gambia and were sent to police officers every three months. If a person was arrested, their information was noted immediately, and police were informed. In the Gambia, there were only three official prisons, which had a centralised online registry. Police stations were slightly more manual, with arrests recorded in diaries and fed into a database. There was no centralised online registry in police stations, but the State was working towards this.
Once someone was detained in the Gambia, they were entitled to access lawyers, or to consular visits if they were non-Gambians. The State was working diligently on the matter of the Optional Protocol and hoped to ratify it soon. The enforced disappearance bill would elaborate on the issue further, but it was currently an offence to falsify public records.
The national security advisor had developed training models for all security services, which included the human rights model. It was a mandatory module within trainings for law enforcement officers. Many officers had been trained and were now familiar with human rights issues. The Gambia would reach out to the Committee for assistance in extending these trainings to security services.
The reparations act and the Commission established under it had a five-year mandate. If they were not able to complete the assignment, there was a possibility to extend their mandate. The act was only meant to look at past enforced disappearances cases. Victims were defined as those who suffered, or their relatives. Out of around 1,009 victims, 108 received partial financial reparations of around 1,000 dollars. There were more than 700 payments of over 50,000 dollars. The Reparations Commission would take over this process and develop a best practice standard for a compensation and reparations procedure. They would create a new victims database and allow victims who had yet to receive compensation to register and appear before the Commission. There were seven members of the Commission, two of which were from the victim community and the rest from civil society.
Once the specialised legislation on enforced disappearances was developed, this would deal with accountability for the family. Currently, victims and their right to participate were guaranteed under the State legislation. A death certificate was required for families to access economic and social rights. Wrongful removal of children was not adequately covered in the current Criminal Code, but would be covered extensively under the enforced disappearance legislation. There was a children’s act in the Gambia which was compliant with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Informal adoption was part of the tradition and culture in the Gambia and there was no legislation regulating this. This informal adoption was mainly limited to families and was not extended to strangers; for example, if someone’s relative passed away, they would take care of their relative’s children and assume the role of the parent.
Victims did not have to wait for perpetrators to be prosecuted to receive reparations. As they were known., there was nothing they needed to prove. The State understood the process of justice was a different ballgame from recognising someone’s victimhood. There was a set criterion to determine who was a victim, and those who fit this criterion were entitled to everything a victim was entitled to.
Any detention beyond 72 hours without bail was illegal, and the State could be taken to court if this occurred. Civil society visited and talked to prisoners and wrote to the judiciary in regard to those whose trials were taking too long. There was also a prison visiting committee within the Parliament which dealt with long remand prisoners.
Questions by Committee Experts
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Chairperson and Country Rapporteur, said the centralised database was interesting and might be able to draw lessons learned from other countries. If someone was detained for too long, by whom could an appeal to the High Court be triggered; was it only a detainee themselves or by a family member? The Gambia had been struck off the list for international adoptions by the Belgian authorities; how did the State interpret this decision?
MILICA KOLAKOVIC-BOJOVIC, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said there seemed to be a gap between the legal regime applicable to the past and the future regime. Could more details on the general legal regime applicable to crime victims to receive compensation be provided? Would other forms of reparation, such as support, also be provided? It was nice to hear that family members took care of children; were there any kinds of initiatives to govern the rights of guardians in national legislation?
An Expert said the timeframe of pretrial detention could be quite lengthy; what was a reasonable timeframe? Was this established in the Criminal Procedure Code? How long could a person languish in detention without a trial? How had human rights and international humanitarian law been incorporated into the State’s operations? How was a gender perspective being incorporated when reparations were being determined? Was the fate of women victims taken into account? Had the State disseminated the guidelines for searching for disappeared persons which were adopted by the Committee in 2019? Were they taken into account and used when designing search strategies?
A Committee Expert said the former regime still had followers in the country and their voices were heard. In anticipation to the legal proceedings regarding enforced disappearance, was there a witness or victim protection programme put in place? Was there a judicial precedent prescribing a reasonable time frame of pretrial detention? The findings of the Truth Commission had established that people were victims; was it anticipated that these findings would be used within the judicial process? There were concerns that the proceedings would take too long. Would the Gambia use a hybrid process where the case was ready before trial?
Another Expert asked if more information could be provided on the content of the human rights training provided to security agencies? What were the limitations that security agencies had when it came to investigating human rights cases?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that data on appeals was not readily available. The State would be interested in developing a DNA database and was working closely with the International Committee of the Red Cross and other partners. Belgium’s sovereign decisions in regard to adoption needed to be respected. There were many documents which needed to be shown to the court to adopt a child in the Gambia, including a clean criminal record and economic means. The current Criminal Code was very old and did not adequately cover compensation for victims of crime. It was hoped the revised Criminal and Procedural Codes would be passed next week, to allow the courts to compensate victims of crime.
Reparation was defined under the act to include restitution, satisfaction, compensation, guarantees of nonrecurrence, and rehabilitation. They would all be utilised by the Commission as and when appropriate.
Criminal cases could not be adjourned beyond two weeks. An agency had been established to provide legal aid for those charged with capital offences who could not provide their own lawyer. If long detention was due to the prosecution not taking their work seriously, the court had the discretion to strike out the matter at any time they considered unreasonable, and judge the accused person. This had been happening.
The National Human Rights Commission had recently concluded developing a syllabus for training security services, which included victim and gender sensitive criteria.
The former regime was in the country. Adequate victim and protection support units were established under the State’s legislation. What was obtained in court with respect to perpetrators would have no bearing on victim status. The State would ensure cases before the trial to expedite the proceedings as much as possible.
Concluding Remarks
DAWDA A. JALLOW, Attorney General and Minister of Justice of the Republic of the Gambia and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the dialogue which had provided a valuable platform to reflect on progress made under the Convention. The Gambia was committed to strengthening legislation for enforced disappearances, protecting victims and their families, bringing perpetrators of these violations to justice, and ensuring justice and redress for all effected individuals. The Gambia would carefully consider the Committee’s observations and recommendations and remained open to further dialogue, technical assistance and cooperation. Mr. Jallow extended thanks to all those involved in the dialogue.
HORACIO RAVENNA, Committee Vice Chair, thanked all those who were involved in the dialogue. The Gambia had 48 hours to send any additional useful information to the Committee. Later in the session, the Committee would adopt concluding observations on the Gambia. The Committee looked forward to the Gambia’s goodwill, and the State could count on support from the Committee.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CED25.003E