Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule98_SectionA
Timestamp: 2018-03-18 15:39:03
Document Index: 527602952

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 268', 'art 2', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 6', '§ 5', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 8', '§ 4', '§ 178', '§ 5', '§ 7', '§ 5', '§ 12', '§ 13', '§ 11', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 566', '§ 13', '§ 5', '§ 12', '§ 9', '§ 9', 'art. 9', 'art. 7', 'art. 10', 'art. 6', '§ 9', 'art. 9', 'art. 7', 'art. 10', 'art. 6', '§ 9', '§ 2', 'art. 9', 'art. 7', 'art. 10', 'art. 6', '§ 7', 'art. 9', 'art. 7', 'art. 10', 'art. 6', '§ 7', '§ 6', 'art. 9', 'art. 7', 'art. 10', 'art. 6', '§ 6', '§ 44', '§ 133', '§ 96', '§ 156', '§ 157', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 218', '§ 155', '§ 702']

Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 98. Enforced Disappearance
The preamble to the 1994 Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons states that the “forced disappearance of persons is an affront to the conscience of the Hemisphere and a grave and abominable offence against the inherent dignity of the human being”. The Convention also states: “forced disappearance of persons violates numerous non-derogable and essential human rights” and reaffirms that the systematic practice of disappearance “constitutes a crime against humanity”.
Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, adopted by the Twenty-fourth Regular Session of the OAS General Assembly, Res. 1256 (XXIV-O/94), Belém do Pará, 9 June 1994, preamble.
The field of application of the Convention does not include armed conflicts of an international character that are governed by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
Article 7(1)(i) of the 1998 ICC Statute provides that “[e]nforced disappearance of persons” constitutes a crime against humanity.
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 7(1)(i).
Article 7(2)(i) of the Statute defines enforced disappearance as:
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 7(2)(i).
Considering the right of any person not to be subjected to enforced disappearance, …,
International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 61/177, 20 December 2006, Annex, Preamble and Articles 1–2, 4-5 and 7(1).
Article 9(1)(c) of the 2009 Kampala Convention states: “State Parties shall protect the rights of internally displaced persons regardless of the cause of displacement by refraining from, and preventing, the following acts, amongst others: … enforced disappearance”.
Article 1 of the 1992 UN Declaration on Enforced Disappearance states:
1. Any act of enforced disappearance is an offence to human dignity. It is condemned as a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the UN and as a grave and flagrant violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed and developed in international instruments in this field.
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 47/133, 18 December 1992, Article 1.
Under Section III(2) of the 1994 Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights in Guatemala, the Government of Guatemala undertook to modify the Penal Code so that “enforced or involuntary disappearances … may be characterized as crimes of particular gravity and punished as such”.
Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca, Mexico City, 29 March 1994, annexed to Letter dated 8 April 1994 from the UN Secretary-General to the President of the UN General Assembly and to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. A/48/928-S/1994/448, 19 April 1994, Annex I, Section III(2).
Under Article 18(i) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “[f]orced disappearance of persons” is a crime against humanity.
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Article 18(i).
Article 2(4) of Part III of the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines provides that the Agreement seeks to protect and promote the right to life, especially against involuntary disappearances.
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including crimes against humanity. According to Section 5(1)(i), “[e]nforced disappearance of persons” constitutes a crime against humanity.
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 5(1)(i).
Section 6(2)(i) of the Regulation defines enforced disappearance as:
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(2)(i).
Indonesia’s Directive on Human Rights (1995) in Irian Jaya and Maluku instructs soldiers: “Do not be involved in or permit the disappearance of people.”
Indonesia, Directive concerning Human Rights, issued by the Commander of the Regional Military Command of Irian Jaya and Maluku, 1995, § 8.
Under Armenia’s Penal Code (2003), “kidnapping followed by disappearance” constitutes a crime against humanity.
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the crimes against humanity defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including “enforced disappearances of persons”.
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, § 268.21.
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999), in a provision entitled “Enforced disappearance of persons” provides for the punishment of “the arrest, detention or abduction of persons with the authorization, support or acquiescence of a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of liberty or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons”.
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 110.
Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that the abduction followed by the disappearance of individuals is a crime against the security of mankind.
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 128.
i) Enforced disappearance of persons.
(2) For the purpose of paragraph 1 of this Article, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
h) Enforced disappearance of persons means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with an aim of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 172(1)(i) and (2)(h).
Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) lists “enforced disappearance of persons” as a crime against humanity “when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.”
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 3(i).
Under the Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998), “enforced disappearances”, when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack, are crimes against humanity.
Under France’s Penal Code (1994), abduction of persons followed by their disappearance is a crime against humanity.
France, Penal Code, 1994, Article 212(1).
France’s Penal Code (1994), as amended in 2010, states in its section on war crimes common to international and non-international armed conflicts:
[A]bducting or kidnapping … a person protected by the international law of armed conflict pursuant to the laws and customs of war and to international humanitarian law, is an aggravated offence.
France, Penal Code, 1994, as amended in 2010, Article 461-2.
Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), “enforced disappearance” is a crime against humanity.
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 29(i).
According to Niger’s Penal Code (1961), as amended in 2003, “abduction of persons followed by their disappearance” is a crime against humanity.
Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), crimes against humanity include the crimes defined in Article 7(1)(i) and (2)(i) of the 1998 ICC Statute.
Paraguay’s Penal Code (1997) provides for the punishment of the crime of enforced disappearance.
Paraguay, Penal Code, 1997, Article 236.
Peru, Penal Code , 1988, Article 320.
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the crimes against humanity listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including the “enforced disappearance of persons”.
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 2, § 1(i).
(c) … forceful concealment of any person.
Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a crime against humanity as defined in Article 7(1)(i) and (2)(i) of the 1998 ICC Statute.
In 2007, in the Šimšić case, the Appellate Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated:
The Court found no grounds for the Defence assertion that [enforced] disappearances … were not accepted as crimes against humanity pursuant to customary international law. To wit, the Court notes that the stated actions are indisputably criminal offences which at the time of war acquire the characteristics and the meaning of war crimes …
[T]he Appellate Panel finds that, pursuant to the ICTY jurisprudence, … enforced disappearance of persons [is] listed in the ICTY case law as the offences falling under the category of “other inhumane offences”.
[T]he Appellate Panel notes that the category of “other inhumane acts, as a general category of crimes against humanity”, constitutes part of customary international law.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Šimšić case, Judgment, 7 August 2007, pp. 47–48.
In 1995, during a debate in the UN Security Council on violations of IHL and human rights in the former Yugoslavia, Botswana noted that numerous specific instances of disappearances had been documented and that this confirmed beyond any doubt that massive violations of IHL and human rights had taken place.
Botswana, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3612, 21 December 1995, p. 9.
On 7 January 2001, the Chilean President announced that a special Chilean panel investigating crimes committed during the military regime of General Augusto Pinochet had established the fate of about 180 prisoners who went missing between 1973 and 1990. The President said that the fate of more than 600 other prisoners who disappeared without a trace remained unknown. The data was provided by the Civilian-Military Roundtable, an investigative panel created in 1999, which included representatives of the armed forces, police and various churches. The information was handed over to the Supreme Court to enable it to investigate the disappearances and take legal action.
AFP, Chile: Special panel establishes the fate of 180 missing, 8 January 2001.
In 1995, during a debate in the UN Security Council on violations of IHL and human rights in the former Yugoslavia, Honduras expressed grave concern at the overwhelming evidence of a consistent pattern of large-scale disappearances.
Honduras, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3612, 21 December 1995, p. 10.
In 1995, during a debate in the UN Security Council on violations of IHL and human rights in the former Yugoslavia, Indonesia described the contents of the UN Secretary-General’s report on the situation as “some of the most heinous acts committed against humanity since World War II” and made specific reference to large-scale disappearances.
In 2009, during a debate in the UN Security Council on children and armed conflict, the permanent representative of Mexico stated: “We condemn all acts that jeopardize the integrity of children, such as … abduction”.
Mexico, Statement by the permanent representative of Mexico before the UN Security Council, 6114th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.6114, 29 April 2009, p. 29.
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on violations of IHL and human rights in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council condemned “in particular in the strongest possible terms the violations of international humanitarian law and of human rights … as described in the [Secretary-General’s report] … and showing a consistent pattern of … large-scale disappearances”.
UN Security Council, Res. 1034, 21 December 1995, § 2, voting record: 15-0-0.
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the UN General Assembly expressed “its outrage at the instances of massive and systematic violations of human rights and humanitarian law, including … disappearances”.
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/193, 22 December 1995, § 4, voting record: 144-1-20-20.
In a resolution adopted in 2000 on the Sudan, the UN General Assembly expressed its deep concern at continuing serious violations of human rights and IHL by all parties, in particular the occurrence of cases of forced and involuntary disappearance.
UN General Assembly, Res. 55/116, 4 December 2000, § 2(ii), voting record: 85-32-49-23.
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN General Assembly condemned “the cases of summary or arbitrary execution, disappearance, torture, harassment, unlawful arrest, widespread persecution and arbitrary detention for long periods”.
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/196, 22 December 2003, § 2(e), voting record: 81-2-91-17.
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the question of enforced or involuntary disappearances, the UN General Assembly:
Deeply concerned, in particular, by the intensification of enforced disappearances, including arrest, detention and abduction, where these are part of or amount to enforced disappearances, in various regions of the world and by the growing number of reports concerning the harassment, ill-treatment and intimidation of witnesses of disappearances or relatives of persons who have disappeared,
1. Reaffirms that any act of enforced disappearance is an offence to human dignity and a grave and flagrant violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights1 and reaffirmed and developed in other international instruments in this field, as well as a violation of the rules of international law; and that no State shall practise, permit or tolerate enforced disappearances as proclaimed in the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance;
6. Once again urges the Governments concerned:
(a) To take steps to protect witnesses of enforced disappearances, human rights defenders acting against enforced disappearances, and the lawyers and families of disappeared persons against any intimidation or ill-treatment to which they may be subjected;
(b) To continue their efforts to elucidate the fate of disappeared persons;
(c) To make provision in their legal systems for machinery for victims of enforced or involuntary disappearances or their families to seek fair and adequate reparation;
7. Reaffirms that all persons deprived of liberty must be released in a manner permitting reliable verification that they have actually been released and, further, have been released in conditions in which their physical integrity and ability to exercise their rights are assured.
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/200, 20 December 2004, preamble and §§ 1 and 6–7, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 1979, ECOSOC asked the UN Commission on Human Rights to consider the question of disappeared persons as a matter of priority with a view to making appropriate recommendations. It also asked the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights to consider communications on disappeared persons.
ECOSOC, Res. 1979/38, 10 May 1979, § 3.
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the question of enforced disappearances, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Noting that the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances considers the adoption of the [Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance] to be the most encouraging development since its establishment in respect of efforts to combat enforced disappearances, especially in so far as it recognizes that the systematic practice of such acts “is of the nature of a crime against humanity”,
6. Recalls … that all acts of enforced disappearances are offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their extreme seriousness under criminal law;
15. Further recalls that, if allegations are confirmed, perpetrators should be prosecuted.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1994/39, 4 March 1994, preamble and §§ 6 and 15, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the situation of human rights in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission on Human Rights demanded “immediate, firm and resolute action by the international community to stop all human rights violations, including … enforced and involuntary disappearances”.
In a resolution adopted in 1996, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Condemns in the strongest terms all violations of human rights and IHL during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, … in particular massive and systematic violations, including … disappearances … and reaffirms that all persons who plan, commit or authorize such acts will be held personally responsible and accountable.
In a resolution adopted in 2001 on the question of enforced or involuntary disappearances, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Welcoming the fact that acts of enforced disappearance, as defined in the Rome Statute of the ICC … come within the jurisdiction of the Court as crimes against humanity,
(a) That all acts of enforced or involuntary disappearance are crimes punishable by appropriate penalties which should take due account of their extreme seriousness under penal law.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2001/46, 23 April 2001, preamble and § 5(a), adopted without a vote.
(e) The cases of summary or arbitrary execution, disappearance, torture, harassment, arrest, widespread persecution and arbitrary detention for long periods.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/15, 17 April 2003, preamble and § 3(e), adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the question of enforced or involuntary disappearances, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
(c) To take steps to protect witnesses of enforced or involuntary disappearances and the lawyers and families of disappeared persons against any intimidation or ill-treatment to which they might be subjected;
(d) That have long had many unresolved cases of disappearances, to continue their efforts to shed light on the fate of the individuals concerned and to set appropriate settlement machinery in train with the families of those individuals;
(e) To make provision in their legal systems for machinery for victims of enforced or involuntary disappearances or their families to seek fair and adequate reparation;
(a) That, as proclaimed in article 2 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, no State shall practise, permit or tolerate enforced disappearances;
(b) That all acts of enforced or involuntary disappearance are crimes punishable by appropriate penalties which should take due account of their extreme seriousness under penal law;
(f) That, as proclaimed in article 11 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, all persons deprived of liberty must be released in a manner permitting reliable verification that they have actually been released and, further, have been released in conditions in which their physical integrity and ability to exercise their rights are assured.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/38, 23 April 2003, preamble and §§ 4(c)–(e) and 5(a)–(b) and (f), adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on enforced or involuntary disappearances, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Deeply concerned in particular by the increase in enforced or involuntary disappearances in various regions of the world, including arrest, detention and abduction, when these are part of or amount to enforced disappearances, and by the growing number of reports concerning harassment, illtreatment and intimidation of witnesses of disappearances or relatives of persons who have disappeared,
5. Urges States:
(a) To promote and give full effect to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearance;
6. Urges the Governments concerned:
(b) To take steps to protect witnesses of enforced or involuntary disappearances, human rights defenders acting against enforced disappearances, and the lawyers and families of disappeared persons against any intimidation or illtreatment to which they might be subjected;
(c) To continue their efforts to elucidate the fate of disappeared persons;
(d) To make provision in their legal systems for machinery for victims of enforced or involuntary disappearances or their families to seek fair and adequate reparation;
(e) To address the specific needs of the families of disappeared persons;
7. Reminds States:
(f) That, as proclaimed in article 11 of the Declaration, all persons deprived of liberty must be released in a manner permitting reliable verification that they have actually been released and, further, have been released in conditions in which their physical integrity and ability fully to exercise their rights are assured.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/40, 19 April 2004, preamble and §§ 5(a), 6(b)–(e) and 7(a)–(b) and (f), adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on technical cooperation and advisory services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned “[t]he cases of summary or arbitrary execution [and] disappearance”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/84, 21 April 2004, § 3(c), adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on enforced or involuntary disappearances, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
5. Urges the Governments concerned:
(c) To make provision in their legal systems for victims of enforced or involuntary disappearances or their families to seek fair, prompt and adequate reparation and in addition, where appropriate, to consider symbolic measures recognizing the suffering of victims and restoring their dignity and reputation;
(d) To address the specific needs of the families of disappeared persons;
6. Reminds States:
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/27, 19 April 2005, preamble and §§ 4(a), 5(c)–(d) and 6(a)–(b) and (f), adopted without a vote.
Deeply concerned about the situation of human rights in Nepal, including violations attributed to the security forces, in particular … forced displacement and disappearances … and also deeply concerned about the prevailing situation of impunity,
(a) To take all necessary measures to prevent and put an end to … enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, illegal incommunicado detention as well as torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/78, 20 April 2005, preamble and § 8(a), adopted without a vote.
In 1981, following the discovery of secret graves in Argentina, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights recommended that the International Law Commission be asked to include involuntary disappearances as a crime against humanity when drafting the Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind.
UN Commission on Human Rights (Chairman)
In 1996, in a statement on the situation of human rights in Colombia, the Chairman of the UN Commission on Human Rights noted that the Commission remained deeply preoccupied by the large number of cases of disappearance as shown in the report of the Working Group on the matter.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Chairman’s statement on the situation of human rights in Colombia, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/SR.60, 23 April 1996, p. 12, § 4.
In 1995, in his second report, the Director of MINUGUA recommended that the Government of Guatemala “join in the efforts already under way in the international community, at the level of the United Nations and the Organization of American States, to ensure the recognition of enforced disappearance and extra-legal execution as crimes against humanity”.
MINUGUA, Director, Second report, UN Doc. A/49/929, 29 June 1995, § 178.
In a resolution adopted in 1980 on the situation of human rights in Latin America, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly stated that it was “profoundly alarmed by the disappearance of large numbers of people in such countries [Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Guatemala and Cuba], including many children, pregnant women and foreign nationals” and invited the member countries of the Council of Europe to “promote, in a world context within the United Nations, the conclusion of an international convention designed to prevent and abolish disappearances, in particular by defining the guilt of those responsible for them”.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 722, 1 February 1980, §§ 5 and 11(e).
In a resolution adopted in 1981 on refugees from El Salvador, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly stated that it was
appalled by the dramatic situation of the population suffering from violent and ruthless confrontation in which violence, disappearances and murders follow one another, affecting not only the combatants, but also all those who, one way or another, are caught up in events which do not concern them.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 751, 15 May 1981, § 7.
In a resolution adopted in 1982, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly protested “in particular against the recourse by governments to emergency legislation as a means of covering up their repressive methods and against the practices of forcible disappearance”.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 774, 29 April 1982, § 5.
In a resolution on enforced disappearances adopted in 1984, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly considered that “the recognition of enforced disappearance as a crime against humanity is essential if it is to be prevented and its authors punished”.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 828, 26 September 1984, § 12.
The Assembly called on the governments of member States of the Council of Europe
to support the preparation and adoption by the United Nations of a declaration setting forth the following principles:
i.Enforced disappearance is a crime against humanity which:
1. cannot be considered a political offence and is therefore subject to the extradition laws;
2. is not subject to limitation;
3. may not be covered by amnesty laws.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 828, 26 September 1984, § 13(a).
In a resolution adopted in 1985, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly condemned “the systematic use by military governments and other totalitarian regimes in the subcontinent of brutal methods of repression, including … forced disappearances”.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 835, 30 January 1985, § 11.
In a resolution adopted in 1983 on missing persons in Argentina, the European Parliament urged Foreign Ministers to request from the Argentine Government detailed information on the fate of those who had disappeared, including children.
European Parliament, Resolution on missing persons in Argentina, 13 October 1983, p. 132, § 1(c).
In a resolution adopted in 1993, the European Parliament condemned the many serious human rights abuses in the world, including the alarming number of unresolved politically motivated disappearances, many of which had been perpetrated by paramilitary groups.
European Parliament, Resolution on Human Rights in the world and Community human rights policy for the years 1991/92, 26 April 1993, Article 4.
The 24th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1981 adopted a resolution on forced or involuntary disappearances. In its preamble, the resolution stated that such disappearances implied violations of fundamental human rights such as the right to life, freedom and personal safety, the right not to be submitted to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained, and the right to a just and public trial. The resolution condemned “any action resulting in forced or involuntary disappearances, conducted or perpetrated by governments or with their connivance or consent” and recommended that the ICRC and the Central Tracing Agency take appropriate action to “reveal the fate of missing persons or bring their families relief”.
24th International Conference of the Red Cross, Manila, 7–14 November 1981, Res. II.
The 25th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1986 adopted a resolution on obtaining and transmitting personal data as a means of protection and of preventing disappearances in which it condemned “any act leading to the forced or involuntary disappearance of individuals or groups of individuals”.
25th International Conference of the Red Cross, Geneva, 23–31 October 1986, Res. XIII, § 3.
In the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 expressed its dismay and condemnation that “gross and systematic violations and situations that constitute serious obstacles to the full enjoyment of all human rights continue to occur in all parts of the world, [including] … disappearances”.
The Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003 adopted in 1999 by the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent requested that all parties to an armed conflict take effective measures to ensure that “strict orders are given to prevent all serious violations of international humanitarian law, including … enforced disappearances … and threats to carry out such actions”.
In its judgment in the Kupreškić case in 2000, the ICTY, in defining the constituent offences of the category of “other inhumane acts” as crimes against humanity, held:
Less broad parameters for the interpretation of “other inhumane acts” can instead be identified in international standards on human rights such as those laid down in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948 and the two United Nations Covenants on Human Rights of 1966. Drawing upon the various provisions of these texts, it is possible to identify a set of basic rights appertaining to human beings, the infringement of which may amount, depending on the accompanying circumstances, to a crime against humanity … Similarly, the expression at issue undoubtedly embraces … the enforced disappearance of persons (prohibited by General Assembly Resolution 47/133 of 18 December 1992 and the Inter-American Convention of 9 June 1994). Plainly, all these, and other similar acts, must be carried out in a systematic manner and on a large scale. In other words, they must be as serious as the other classes of crimes provided for in the other provisions of Article 5.
ICTY, Kupreškić case, Judgment, 14 January 2000, § 566.
In those provisions of the Covenant that are not listed in article 4, paragraph 2, there are elements that in the Committee’s opinion cannot be made subject to lawful derogation under article 4. Some illustrative examples are presented below.
The prohibitions against taking of hostages, abductions, or unacknowledged detention are not subject to derogation. The absolute nature of these prohibitions, even in times of emergency, is justified by their status as norms of general international law.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 29 (Article 4 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), 24 July 2001, § 13(b).
In its concluding observations on the first periodic report of Honduras in 2006, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee appreciates the State party’s efforts to identify cases of enforced disappearances, including the publication by the National Human Rights Commissioner of the preliminary report on enforced disappearances in Honduras in 1993, which contains a list of 183 disappeared persons. It is concerned, however, that the fact that enforced disappearance is not qualified as a crime in the Criminal Code has contributed to impunity and that the cases included in the aforementioned list have not yet been investigated, particularly in the light of the time that has elapsed since the publication of the report (articles 2 and 6 of the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]).
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the first periodic report of Honduras, UN Doc. CCPR/C/HND/CO/1, 13 December 2006, § 5.
In Quinteros v. Uruguay in 1983, the Human Rights Committee found that Elena Quinteros was arrested, held in a military detention and subjected to torture, which constituted violations of Articles 7, 9 and 10(1) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Commission further held:
With regard to the violations alleged by the author on her own behalf, the Committee notes that, the statement of the author that she was in Uruguay at the time of the incident regarding her daughter, was not contradicted by the State party. The Committee understands the anguish and stress caused to the mother by the disappearance of her daughter and by the continuing uncertainty concerning her fate and whereabouts. The author has the right to know what has happened to her daughter. In these respects, she too is a victim of the violations of the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] suffered by her daughter in particular, of article 7.
Human Rights Committee, Quinteros v. Uruguay, Views, 21 July 1983, §§ 12.3–14.
In Lyashkevich v. Belarus in 2003, the Human Rights Committee held:
The Committee understands the continued anguish and mental stress caused to the author, as the mother of the condemned prisoner, by the persisting uncertainty of the circumstances that led to his execution, as well as the location of his gravesite. Complete secrecy surrounding the date of execution, and the place of burial and the refusal to hand over the body for burial have the effect of intimidating or punishing families by intentionally leaving them in a state of uncertainty and mental distress. The Committee considers that the authorities’ initial failure to notify the author of the scheduled date for the execution of her son, and their subsequent persistent failure to notify her of the location of her son’s grave amounts to inhuman treatment of the author, in violation of article 7 of the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights].
Human Rights Committee, Lyashkevich v. Belarus, Views, 3 April 2003, § 9.2.
In Sarma v. Sri Lanka in 2003, the Human Rights Committee noted that the State Party had not denied the complainant’s claim that his son had been abducted by an officer of the Sri Lankan Army on 23 June 1990 and had remained unaccounted for since that date. The Human Rights Committee held:
The Committee notes the definition of enforced disappearance contained in article 7, paragraph 2 (i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court “‘Enforced disappearance of persons’ means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time”. Any act of such disappearance constitutes a violation of many of the rights enshrined in the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], including the right to liberty and security of person (article 9), the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (article 7), and the right of all persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (article 10). It also violates or constitutes a grave threat to the right to life (article 6).
Human Rights Committee, Sarma v. Sri Lanka, Views, 31 July 2003, § 9.3.
The Committee recalls the definition of enforced disappearance in article 7, paragraph 2 (i), of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Enforced disappearance of persons means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. Any act of such disappearance constitutes a violation of many of the rights enshrined in the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], including the right to liberty and security of the person (art. 9), the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 7), and the right of all persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (art. 10). It also violates or constitutes a grave threat to the right to life (art. 6).
Human Rights Committee, Bousroual v. Algeria, Views, 24 April 2006, § 9.2.
In Boucherf v. Algeria in 2006, the Human Rights Committee held:
9.2 The Committee recalls the definition of enforced disappearance in article 7, paragraph 2 (i), of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: “Enforced disappearance of persons means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.” Any act of such disappearance constitutes a violation of many of the rights enshrined in the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], including the right to liberty and security of the person (art. 9), the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 7), and the right of all persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (art. 10). It also violates or constitutes a grave threat to the right to life (art. 6) …
9.5 As to the alleged violation of article 9, the information before the Committee reveals that Riad Boucherf was removed from his home by State agents. The State party has not addressed the author’s claims that her son's arrest and detention was arbitrary or illegal, or that he has been unaccounted for since 25 July 1995, other than submitting a general denial to the Committee. Under these circumstances, due regard must be given to the detailed information provided by the author. The Committee recalls that incommunicado detention as such may violate article 9, and again notes the author's claim that her son has been held incommunicado since 25 July 1995, without any possibility of access to a lawyer, or of challenging the lawfulness of his detention. In the absence of any pertinent clarification on this point from the State party, the Committee concludes that article 9 has been violated.
9.6 As to the alleged violation of article 7 of the Covenant, the Committee recognizes the degree of suffering involved in being held indefinitely without contact with the outside world. In this context, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 20, on article 7, which recommends that States parties should make provision against incommunicado detention. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that the disappearance of the author's son and the prevention of contact with his family and with the outside world constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Further, the circumstances surrounding Riad Boucherf's disappearance and the several concordant testimonies that he was repeatedly tortured give rise to a strong inference that he was so treated. Nothing has been submitted to the Committee by the State party to dispel or counter such an inference. The Committee concludes that the treatment of Riad Boucherf amounts to a violation of article 7.
9.7 The Committee also notes the anguish and stress caused to the author by the disappearance of her son and the continued uncertainty concerning his fate and whereabouts. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to the author herself.
Human Rights Committee, Boucherf v. Algeria, Views, 27 April 2006, §§ 9.2 and 9.5–9.7.
In Medjnoune v. Algeria in 2006, the Human Rights Committee noted:
The author states that he lodged a complaint concerning his son's disappearance with the prosecutor in Tizi-Ouzou on 2 October 1999. The complaint was registered as case No. 99/PG/3906. The prosecutor met the author on 15 October and 8 November 1999 and told him that he knew nothing of the abduction. Yet he did not order an investigation as required by law for an offence of that gravity. The son states that he was brought before the prosecutor on 4 March 2000, at the same time as another person (C.H.). He appeared before the same prosecutor a second time on 6 March 2000, again with that person, after which he was taken back to the DRS facility at Ben-Aknoun, where he was held for nearly two months by order of the prosecutor who had received the complaint of disappearance on 2 October 1999. Under Algerian law this constitutes an offence, and complicity in an offence, of abduction and false arrest under the Criminal Code, articles 292, 293 and 293 bis. Throughout this period, the son was held incommunicado in particularly inhumane conditions, for a full 218 days up to 2 May 2000, when he appeared before the examining magistrate of the Tizi-Ouzou court. The author points out that the legal duration of police custody under Algeria’s Code of Criminal Procedure is a maximum of 12 days. The author states that, on 2 May 2000, the examining magistrate charged his son with being an accessory to the murder of the Kabyle singer Matoub Lounès and with membership of an armed group, and that his son was placed in pretrial detention.
Human Rights Committee, Medjnoune v. Algeria, Views, 9 August 2006, § 2.2.
In Grioua v. Algeria in 2007, the Human Rights Committee noted the author’s claim that her son had been arrested and imprisoned by State authorities in May 1996. Since that date there had been no official indication of her son’s whereabouts or fate, nor, indeed, any acknowledgment that he had been detained at all. The Human Rights Committee held:
The Committee recalls the definition of enforced disappearance in article 7, paragraph 2 (i), of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: “Enforced disappearance of persons means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.” Any act leading to such disappearance constitutes a violation of many of the rights enshrined in the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], including the right to liberty and security of the person (art. 9), the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 7), and the right of all persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (art. 10). It also violates or constitutes a grave threat to the right to life (art. 6).
Human Rights Committee, Grioua v. Algeria, Views, 16 August 2007, § 7.2.
In Kimouche v. Algeria in 2007, the Human Rights Committee noted the authors’ claim that their son had been arrested and imprisoned by State authorities in May 1996. Since that date there had been no official indication of the son’s whereabouts or fate, nor, indeed, any acknowledgment that he had been detained at all. The Human Rights Committee held:
Any act leading to such disappearance constitutes a violation of many of the rights enshrined in the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], including the right to liberty and security of the person (art. 9), the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 7), and the right of all persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (art. 10). It also violates or constitutes a grave threat to the right to life (art. 6).
Human Rights Committee, Kimouche v. Algeria, Views, 16 August 2007, § 7.2.
In El Alwani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in 2007, the Human Rights Committee held:
6.2 The Committee recalls the definition of enforced disappearance in article 7, paragraph 2(i), of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: “Enforced disappearance of persons means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.” Any act leading to such disappearance constitutes a violation of many of the rights enshrined in the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], including the right to liberty and security of the person (article 9), the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (article 7), and the right of all persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (article10). It also violates or constitutes a grave threat to the right to life (article 6). …
6.7 With respect to the alleged violation of article 6, paragraph 1, the Committee recalls its General Comment 6 on article 6, which states, inter alia, that “The protection against arbitrary deprivation of life which is explicitly required by the third sentence of article 6 (1) is of paramount importance. The Committee considers that States parties should take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces. The deprivation of life by the authorities of the State is a matter of the utmost gravity. Therefore, the law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life by such authorities.”
6.8 The Committee observes that sometime in 2003, the author was provided with his brother’s death certificate, without any explanation of the exact date, cause or whereabouts of his death or any information on investigations undertaken by the State party. In addition, the State party has not denied that the disappearance and subsequent death of the author’s brother was caused by individuals belonging to the Government's security forces. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that the right to life enshrined in article 6 has been violated by the State party.
Human Rights Committee, El Alwani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views, 29 August 2007, §§ 6.2 and 6.7–6.8.
In El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in 2007, the Human Rights Committee held:
6.6 As to the alleged disappearance of the author’s brother, the Committee recalls the definition of enforced disappearance in article 7, paragraph 2(i), of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: “Enforced disappearance of persons means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.” Any act leading to such disappearance constitutes a violation of many of the rights enshrined in the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], including the right to liberty and security of person (art. 9), the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 7) and the right of all persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (art. 10). It also violates or constitutes a grave threat to the right to life (art. 6).
6.8 In the present case, counsel has informed the Committee that the author’s brother disappeared in June 1996 at Abu Salim prison where he was last seen by the author himself and other detained, and that his family still does not know what has happened to him. In the absence of any comments by the State party on the author’s brother’s disappearance, the Committee considers that this disappearance constitutes a violation of article 7.
Human Rights Committee, El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views, 13 November 2007, § 6.6 and 6.8.
In 2001, in Mouvement Burkinabé des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples v. Burkina Faso, the African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights stated:
Article 5 of the [African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights] guarantees respect for the dignity inherent in the human person and the recognition of his legal status. This text further prohibits all forms of exploitation and degradation of man, particularly slavery, slave trade, torture cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment. The guarantee of the physical integrity and security of the person is also enshrined in Article 6 of the African Charter, as well as in the Declaration on the Protection of all Persons against Forced Disappearances, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in Resolution 47/133 of 18th December 1992, which stipulates in article 1(2) that “any act leading to forced disappearance excludes the victim from the protection of the law and causes grave suffering to the victim and his family. It constitutes a violation of the rules of international law, especially those that guarantee to all the right to the recognition of their legal status, the right to freedom and security of their person and the right not be subjected to torture or any other inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. It also violates the right to life or seriously imperils it”. The disappearances of persons suspected or accused of plotting against the instituted authorities, including Mr. Guillaume Sessouma and a medical student, Dabo Boukary, arrested in May 1990 by the presidential guard and who have not been seen since then constitute a violation of the above-cited texts and principles.
African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights, Mouvement Burkinabé des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples v. Burkina Faso, Decision, 23 April–7 May 2001, § 44.
In Kurt v. Turkey in 1998, the European Court of Human Rights found that, following the disappearance of her son, the applicant was the victim of inhuman treatment. The Court held that she
… has been left with the anguish of knowing that her son had been detained and that there is a complete absence of official information as to his subsequent fate. This anguish has endured over a prolonged period of time.
134. Having regard to the circumstances described above as well as to the fact that the complainant was the mother of the victim of a human rights violation and herself the victim of the authorities’ complacency in the face of her anguish and distress, the Court finds that the respondent State is in breach of Article 3 [of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights] in respect of the applicant.
European Court of Human Rights, Kurt v. Turkey, Judgment, 25 May 1998, §§ 133–134.
In Timurtas v. Turkey in 2000, the European Court of Human Rights, considering the fact that the applicant was the father of the disappeared person, that he proceeded to make many enquiries in order to find out what had happened to his son, that the investigation lacked promptitude and efficiency, and that the applicant’s anguish concerning his son’s fate continued at the time of the judgment, found that the disappearance amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
European Court of Human Rights, Timurtas v. Turkey, Judgment, 13 June 2000, §§ 96–98.
In the Cyprus case in 2001, the European Court of Human Rights stated:
The Court recalls that the question whether a family member of a “disappeared person” is a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 [of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights] will depend on the existence of special factors which give the suffering of the person concerned a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of a victim of a serious human-rights violation. Relevant elements will include the proximity of the family tie – in that context, a certain weight will attach to the parent-child bond –, the particular circumstances of the relationship, the extent to which the family member witnessed the events in question, the involvement of the family member in the attempts to obtain information about the disappeared person and the way in which the authorities responded to those enquiries. The Court further recalls that the essence of such a violation does not so much lie in the fact of the “disappearance” of the family member but rather in the authorities’ reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention. It is especially in respect of the latter that a relative may claim directly to be a victim of the authorities’ conduct.
European Court of Human Rights, Cyprus case, Judgment, 10 May 2001, § 156.
The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (inhuman treatment) in respect of the relatives of the Greek-Cypriot missing persons.
European Court of Human Rights, Cyprus case, Judgment, 10 May 2001, § 157.
In 1980, in a report on the situation of human rights in Argentina, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recommended that the Government of Argentina hand over children who had disappeared to their natural parents or other close family members.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the situation of human rights in Argentina, Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.49, 11 April 1980, p. 7.
The Commission insisted that the government give urgent priority to the investigation of cases involving disappeared children who were apprehended with their parents or who were born during the time of their detention.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report 1980–1981, Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.54, 16 October 1981, p. 13.
In 1987, in a case concerning Peru, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights declared that the disappearance of a mayor following a charge of membership of the Sendero Luminoso (“Shining Path”) constituted a “very serious violation of the right to personal liberty (Article 7) and of the right to life (Article 4) set forth in the American Convention on Human Rights”.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 9466 (Peru), Resolution, 30 June 1987, p. 137, § 2.
In 1988, in a case concerning El Salvador, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights “energetically condemned” the official practice of government security forces involving the forced detention and disappearance of individuals.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 9844 (El Salvador), Resolution, 13 September 1988, p. 144, § 2.
In 1988, in a case concerning Peru, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights informed the Government of Peru that the forced disappearance of two persons, one by the Naval Infantry, the other by the Army Intelligence Service, constituted extremely serious violations of the right to personal freedom and the right to life.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 9786 (Peru), Resolution, 14 September 1988, p. 35, § 2.
In 1999, in a report on the human rights situation in Colombia, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights noted that the forced disappearance of persons violated numerous rights protected under the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights and that the victims of forced disappearances were frequently civilians suspected of playing some role in the armed conflict. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights added that in any case, State agents were absolutely prohibited from causing the disappearance of combatants as well as civilians.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Third report on the human rights situation in Colombia, Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102, 26 February 1999, § 218.
In its judgment in the Velásquez Rodrĭguez case in 1988, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated:
155. The forced disappearance of human beings is a multiple and continuous violation of many rights under the Convention that the States Parties are obligated to respect and guarantee. The kidnapping of a person is an arbitrary deprivation of liberty, an infringement of a detainee’s right to be taken without delay before a judge and to invoke the appropriate procedures to review the legality of the arrest, all in violation of Article 7 of the [1969 American Convention on Human Rights] …
157. The practice of disappearances often involves secret execution without trial, followed by concealment of the body to eliminate any material evidence of the crime and to ensure the impunity of those responsible. This is a flagrant violation of the right to life, recognized in Article 4 of the Convention …
158. The practice of disappearances, in addition to directly violating many provisions of the Convention, such as those noted above, constitutes a radical breach of the treaty in that it shows a crass abandonment of the values which emanate from the concept of human dignity and of the most basic principles of the inter-American system and the Convention.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez case, Judgment, 29 July 1988, §§ 155–158.
The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, adopted and promulgated by the American Law Institute in 1986, provides: “A state violates international law if, as a matter of state policy, it practices, encourages, or condones … (c) the murder or causing the disappearance of individuals”.
The American Law Institute, Restatement Third. Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, American Law Institute Publishers, St. Paul, 1987, § 702(c).
The Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights of Åbo Akademi University in Turku/Åbo, Finland in 1990, states that “practising, permitting or tolerating the involuntary disappearance of individuals” shall remain prohibited.
Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University, Turku/Åbo, 30 November–2 December 1990, Articles 3(2)(d) and 4(1), IRRC, No. 282, 1991, pp. 331 and 332.