COMMITTEE ON ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES MEETS WITH MEMBER STATES AND CIVIL SOCIETY

The Committee on Enforced Disappearances this afternoon held separate meetings with Member States of the United Nations and one non-governmental organization.

Meeting with States Parties

SANTIAGO CORCUERA CABEZUT, Chairperson of the Committee, called upon all States that were not party to the Convention to ratify it. He stressed that the Convention had celebrated its tenth birthday. A plenary had been held in 2016 during the General Assembly with the purpose of celebrating that anniversary. On that occasion, the High Commissioner for Human Rights had sent a video message to call States that were not yet parties to the Convention to ratify it as fast as possible. The High Commissioner had set the bold goal to double the number of States parties to the Convention in the coming five years. Of the 56 States parties to the Convention, only 22 recognized the competence of the Committee to examine individual complaints. Mr. Corcuera Cabezut urged all to recognize that mechanism. In order to double the number of ratifications, he encouraged all the present actors to present any innovative idea that could convince States to ratify. He particularly stressed the need to reach out to Asian countries. Legislative changes had to be made in order to put domestic law in line with international instruments, and report fatigue should not be a pretext not to ratify the Convention, which, he recalled, did not imply the need for State parties to present periodical reports.

An Expert said that, in order to achieve the goal of doubling the number of ratifications in the coming five years, a strong communication strategy was needed to disseminate information on the Convention and directly reach out to State authorities, non-governmental organizations and citizens.

Switzerland said that it had ratified the Convention recently, in December 2016. It fully supported the Committee’s goal to reach increased ratifications.

Argentina stated that it highly valued the work of the Committee which had reached a rigorous pace since its creation, bringing answers to effectively address the complex issued of enforced disappearances. For that reason, Argentina, together with France and Japan, had fully supported the elaboration of the Convention and the creation of the Committee, and was strongly committed to its provisions. Argentina congratulated Switzerland and the Czech Republic for recently ratifying the Convention, and presented its national candidate for the Committee for the upcoming period.

Japan stressed that the decision taken last year to maintain the Committee alive was as a recognition of enforced disappearances as a specific crime. It was necessary to continue to encourage countries to join this Convention through international mechanisms in the area of human rights, such as during the Universal Periodic Review. Japan highlighted that countries often used the pretext that they had other priorities than fighting that particular crime, or that that crime was already covered by other Conventions. In order to counter such arguments, the Committee had to present concrete cases of enforced disappearances. It was important to reach out to Asian countries. Japan asked what mechanism would be put in place to deal with the increase in the number of State parties, which could prevent the Committee from digging out deeper into the numerous and complex issues related to enforced disappearances.

Peru said that it fully supported the Committee’s work, and highlighted that the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance was absolutely crucial. It specifically shed light on painful historical episodes in Latin American countries. However, enforced disappearances were a universal phenomenon that should be prevented an never repeated. Peru voiced concern that several States thought that addressing enforced disappearances and human rights issues in general could be in contradiction with their geopolitical interests.

Mexico stated that it fully supported the Committee’s commitment to address and provide legal ways to sanction the crime of enforced disappearance. Mexico hoped that the domestic pressure the Committee put on States would bear fruit little by little. In Mexico there was still a need to harmonize the definition of this crime through all the States of the federal country. Mexico was worried that several States would refuse to ratify the Convention out of fear of being criticized.

Iraq congratulated Switzerland for recently ratifying the Convention, and stressed that the mandate of the Convention was universal and filled an important vacuum in the international legislation. Iraq encouraged Asian States to join the Convention and stressed that the fact that States parties to the Convention were not obliged to provide reports periodically was one of the main incentives for the States to join in. Iraq was concerned that the increase in the number of States parties would impede the Committee from analyzing problems in more depth.

Togo said that it had signed the Convention in 2010, become a member in 2014 and fully supported the work of the Committee. Togo stressed that some States could be reticent to ratify the Convention because of the lack of capacities and a question of priorities.

Brazil congratulated the Committee for its work and embraced the challenge of broadening the membership of the Convention that was particularly important for Latin American countries, which had gone through difficult episodes of enforced disappearances in the past.

Libya stressed that it was not ready to ratify the Convention because it was suffering from a lack of administrative and economic capacity due to institutional and political instability. The Government was still struggling to get legitimacy of the Parliament that was divided on that matter. Libya hoped that the restoration of stability in the country would one day allow it to ratify the Convention.

An Expert highlighted that even if the Convention was heavily “Latin America weighted”, which could sometimes give the impression that the issue of enforced disappearance was concentrated in a peculiar region of the world, it was a universal crime against human rights. Furthermore, it was also important to outline that the Convention not only provided for measures of judicial proceedings and sanctions, but also for preventive instruments that would be useful for every State in order to avoid cases of enforced disappearances.

Another Expert highlighted that, although it was a recent Committee, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances had fostered the criminalization of a new specific crime and created a new right, the right not to disappear.

An Expert highlighted the unique nature of the Convention, putting the emphasis on the fact that even if prior Conventions indirectly dealt with enforced disappearances, it was necessary to specifically criminalize the crime of enforced disappearance in order to adopt effective preventive measures and avoid impunity.


Meeting with Non-governmental Organizations

Geneva for Human Rights welcomed the work done by the Committee. After resuming the history of the Convention, it stressed the encouraging goal of doubling the number of ratifications to the Convention in the next five years. Next September, Geneva for Human Rights would organize a workshop on enforced disappearances.

The Committee will hold private meetings until Friday, 17 March at 3 p.m, when it will hold a public closing of the session.



For use of the information media; not an official record

CED17.006E