a To 1 April 2021

B.Process after registration of urgent action requests: developments observed since the eighteenth session (to 1 April 2021)

44.The Committee maintains constant contact with States parties through their permanent missions and with the authors of requests for urgent action through notes, letters, meetings and telephone calls. The Committee also relies heavily on the cooperation of OHCHR and United Nations field presences that often relay information between the authors of requests for urgent action (mainly relatives of disappeared persons) and the Committee.

45.The information provided in the context of the urgent action procedure confirms a number of the trends identified in the reports adopted by the Committee at its eleventh to nineteenth sessions (CED/C/11/3, CED/C/12/2, CED/C/13/3, CED/C/14/2, CED/C/15/3, CED/C/16/3, CED/C/17/2 and CED/C/19/2). Since the eighteenth session, most of the cases with regard to which the Committee has registered requests for urgent action relate to events in Iraq and Mexico. For the period covered by the present report, the Committee wishes to highlight the following trends relating to the States parties concerned.

1.General trends

46.During the period under review, the Committee identified the following general issues with respect to the information received in the context of the urgent action procedure:

(a)No reply from the States parties concerned or the authors of the requests for urgent action

47.Regarding the majority of the requests for urgent action registered to date, the Committee sent reminders to the States parties concerned or the authors for a reply to the Committee’s recommendations and requests. According to current practice, up to four reminders are sent to authors and States parties when they fail to respond to the Committee’s request for information. States parties usually reply after one, two or three reminders, as has been the case for Cambodia, Colombia, Mexico and Tunisia. When the State party fails to reply after the third reminder, as has been the case for half of the requests for urgent action transmitted to Iraq, a final reminder is sent, noting the lack of compliance by the State party with its obligations under article 30 of the Convention and indicating that the situation may be brought to the attention of the General Assembly.

(b)Lack of a search and investigation strategy suited to each case

48.In more than 95 per cent of the requests for urgent action registered, the Committee raised its concerns with regard to the failure by the State party authorities to define and implement a strategy for the search for the disappeared persons and the investigation of their disappearance. Despite the efforts observed in some cases, it seems that searches and investigations are usually conducted in an improvised manner that mainly depends on the availability of information and means, rather than on a comprehensive strategy. In its follow-up notes, the Committee therefore reminded the States parties concerned of their obligations under articles 12 and 24 of the Convention. In such cases, it requested the State party to ensure the design and implementation of a strategy for all stages of the search and investigation process in compliance with the principles of due diligence – including the immediacy and exhaustiveness of the ex officio investigation and the competence and independence of the professionals in charge – and with principle 8 of the guiding principles for the search for disappeared persons (CED/C/7, annex). In this way, the strategy adopted must determine the activities and due diligence to be carried out in an integrated manner, and its implementation must entail the means and procedures necessary to locate the disappeared persons and to investigate their disappearance. The Committee also requested the States parties concerned to assess the established strategy periodically. Such recommendations were sent to Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Honduras, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Lithuania and Mexico.

(c)Lack of coordination between search and investigation

49.A trend involving lack of coordination between search and investigation has been observed in the majority of requests for urgent action registered. Such a lack of coordination is usually due to the failure of the competent State authorities to share the information and evidence that they have obtained in fulfilling their respective mandates, or their failure to do so in a systematic manner. In such cases, the Committee has observed various consequences: in some cases, the authorities in charge of the search and those in charge of the investigation duplicate activities, and in others, the authorities do not have access to information that could be highly relevant in their respective functions. In all circumstances, however, the fragmentation and lack of coordination lead to considerable delays in the procedures.

50.Another form of lack of coordination has been observed in the case of Colombia, where the Commission on the Search for Disappeared Persons has been in charge of coordinating the replies provided by the State party to the requests for urgent action registered. In a number of its replies, the Commission made reference to its mandate to implement the national search plan and to guide the victims of disappearance. The Commission also indicated, however, its inability to reply to the concerns and recommendations of the Committee insofar as “they did not fall within its mandate”. The Committee noted the information provided, but also noted with regret that, despite its role in coordinating the implementation of the national search plan, the Commission had not taken into account the relevant information in order to reply to the Committee’s concerns and recommendations relating to issues of relevance to the State party authorities concerned. In this case, and in cases relating to other States parties, such as Brazil and Mexico, the Committee requested the State party to ensure that relevant information relating to searches and investigations was made available to all the authorities involved in the process.

(d)Challenges observed in cases of disappearance in the context of migration

51.Currently, 13 of the urgent actions that remain open relate to cases of disappearance in the context of migration between Honduras and the United States of America. The Committee recommended the States parties concerned to adopt search and investigation strategies suited to the specific circumstances of each case, in accordance with principle 9 (2) of the guiding principles for the search for disappeared persons. Under that principle, States that send and receive migrants and refugees should adopt specific search mechanisms that take account of the difficulties associated with migration situations, and should offer guarantees and safe conditions to persons who can give testimony about enforced disappearances linked to migration. The Committee also recalled the obligation of States parties to afford one another the greatest measure of mutual assistance and cooperation, in compliance with article 15 of the Convention, through the development of cooperation agreements and the establishment of competent authorities to enable effective coordination in the search for disappeared persons at each stage of migration. Search authorities in countries of origin, transit and destination should cooperate to ensure the rapid and secure exchange of information and documentation that could help to locate disappeared persons in the country of transit or destination. States parties should ensure that the registration of migrants at border controls includes the individual examination of all applications for entry so as to allow for an effective search in the event of a person’s disappearance. The Committee further included recommendations on ensuring that the relatives and representatives of disappeared migrants had the necessary support to gain access to information relevant to their case, and that they could participate in search processes.

(e)Arbitrary and/or incommunicado detention as the standard context of enforced disappearance

52.In 12 of the requests for urgent action registered during the reporting period, the disappeared person was located after his or her release from a place of detention not officially recognized (eight cases in Iraq and one in Mexico), or after the authorities of the State party revealed the current location of the disappeared person in a place of detention (three cases in Cuba). The Committee, acting in accordance with article 30 (4) of the Convention, closed these urgent actions and requested the State party to take all measures necessary to investigate the disappearance from the date of arrest to the date of release. In cases where the person remained in detention, the Committee discontinued the urgent action and requested the State party to allow the person on whose behalf the urgent action had been lodged to receive periodic visits and to have contact with the outside world, in compliance with article 17 (2) of the Convention. In that context, the Committee informed the authors of the request for urgent action about the possibility of reporting the case to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

53.The Committee followed the same reasoning and procedure with regard to four requests for urgent action registered in relation to the disappearance of Turkish nationals who had been extradited from Cambodia, Iraq and Kazakhstan, respectively, to Turkey, at the request of the Government of Turkey. In these cases, the authors alleged that the Government of Turkey had succeeded in the forcible return of persons accused of political opposition, who had then been subjected to enforced disappearance and detained incommunicado for days or weeks. Following the identification of the place of detention by the State party concerned, and the confirmation of that information by the authors of the request for urgent action, the Committee closed the relevant urgent actions. In that context, it informed the authors of the request about the possibility of reporting the case to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. In the case relating to Cambodia, the Committee sent the State party a note verbale requesting it to take all measures necessary to search for, locate and protect the disappeared person, a national from Turkey and Mexico. It requested the State party to ensure cooperation and to afford the greatest measure of mutual assistance with Mexico, in compliance with article 15 of the Convention. To facilitate such cooperation, the note verbale was also shared for information with the authorities of Mexico. The Rapporteurs on urgent action note with satisfaction that Mexico provided a reply to the note verbale, demonstrating its intention to cooperate with the search.

(f)De facto or de jure archiving of investigations or closure of searches due to lack of a result

54.The Committee expresses its concern at decisions of competent authorities to abandon searches or investigations in various cases. Cases are usually subject to de facto archiving several years following the disappearance of a person, when the authorities in charge of the search and investigation no longer take any action. In such circumstances, the relatives of the disappeared person become the sole parties responsible for any progress in the case. If they do not take any action, owing to lack of knowledge as to how to proceed or for fear of reprisals, the authorities sometimes accuse them of not having done “what was necessary”. In such cases, the replies sent by the State party tend to repeat the same information, without replying to the concerns expressed and recommendations made by the Committee.

55.Cases are subject to de jure archiving when a formal decision to archive the case is taken by the competent authorities: for example, in one request for urgent action registered with regard to cases in Colombia, the prosecutor decided to archive the case “owing to lack of cause or factual circumstances indicating the commission of a crime, or its possible existence as such”. After being informed about the decision of the prosecutor, the Committee recalled that, in accordance with article 24 (6) of the Convention, the State party has the obligation to pursue an investigation until the fate of the disappeared person has been clarified. The Committee also recalled principle 7 of the guiding principles for the search for disappeared persons, according to which the search for a disappeared person should continue until his or her fate and/or whereabouts have been determined with certainty. The Committee therefore requested the State party to reopen immediately the file corresponding to the case of the disappeared person, to ensure that all activities to search for the disappeared person were conducted in compliance with the recommendations made by the Committee, and to inform the Committee about the action taken to that end.

(g)Use of forensic evidence and the role of DNA

56.In the requests for urgent action registered by the Committee, the use of forensic sciences in search and investigation strategies featured in around 65 per cent of cases. In most of them, the role of forensic sciences was at the core of the process. Victims tend to see forensic sciences as the main source of reliable information. Such a view can lead to challenges, depending on the context of the specific urgent action. One key element is the reliability of the authorities in charge of the forensic evidence: if the authorities have the required resources and training, and fulfil their functions in a comprehensive and technical manner and with due diligence, forensic evidence can be considered reliable. In such cases, confidence is established between the authorities and the victims, who are informed about the various actions taken, and about the potential and limits of forensic evidence. Victims are also informed about the measures that they can take should they wish to obtain a second opinion. When, on the contrary, the authorities in charge of forensic evidence do not have the required resources and training and do not fulfil their functions with due diligence, and accountability mechanisms are not available, the reliability of any forensic evidence is frequently questioned and the evidence may be manipulated in searches and investigations. Clear examples can be found in the requests for urgent action relating to cases in Argentina, Cambodia and Mexico, where the authors of the requests alleged that the results of the forensic evidence had been manipulated. The legitimacy of the whole process is brought into question, and victims then face difficulties in obtaining a second opinion, whether in terms of identifying specialists and having them admitted by the competent national authorities or in terms of paying the cost of such intervention.

57.In such circumstances, the difficulty of gaining access to forensic evidence is frequently presented by the authorities as an excuse for not taking any further action. They refer to the cost of obtaining the evidence, the lack of adequate laboratories or trained human resources at the national level, and the resulting need to send the evidence abroad as the main reasons for their incapacity to take further action.

58.In its recommendations in such cases, the Committee has recalled that (a) the development of scientific evidence is an integral part of the strategy for the search for disappeared persons and for the investigation of their disappearance; (b) such evidence is not limited to DNA, and must be handled with due diligence and by competent authorities equipped with the necessary human and material resources; (c) reliable mechanisms of accountability must be established; and (d) where there are questions as to the accuracy of the DNA tests performed, an alternative DNA test should be conducted with the assistance of an independent international non-governmental organization specialized in DNA analysis, in order to ensure that the located remains are properly explored and analysed, in compliance with the relevant international standards. The Committee has also granted interim measures to protect pieces of evidence until the resources necessary have been made available for their analysis.

(h)Main challenges with regard to the implementation of interim measures requested by the Committee

59.During the period under review, the Committee was informed that relatives of disappeared persons had been the targets of threats and intimidation after pressing for the investigation of their enforced disappearance. Such threats had the same characteristics as in previous review periods, taking various forms, such as death threats, patrols around people’s homes and procedural decisions that affected the protection granted to the persons concerned. In such cases, the Committee requested the State party concerned to take the interim measures necessary to protect the life and safety of the persons affected and to allow them to search for the disappeared persons without being subjected to violence or harassment. The Committee also emphasized the importance of revising protection plans periodically in consultation with their beneficiaries, in order to ensure the suitability of the measures taken and the full confidence of the beneficiaries. Unfortunately, in a number of the requests for urgent action, the authors reported that when the beneficiaries of interim measures had presented the Committee’s decision to the competent authorities, they had been informed that such measures had no binding character, or that no action would be taken to implement them. In such circumstances, the Committee reminded the State party concerned that the interim measures prescribed by the Committee were legally binding and imposed an international legal obligation on the State party to comply. The Committee also recalled its own role as the expert body established under the Convention to monitor States parties’ implementation of their obligations, and reminded the State party that any failure to implement the interim measures would be incompatible with its obligation to respect in good faith the Committee’s urgent action procedure. To date, such notes have been sent to Colombia and Mexico.

2.Developments relating to Iraq and Mexico

(a)Iraq

60.The Committee remains deeply concerned by the failure of the State party, despite repeated reminders, to reply to the majority of the registered requests for urgent action concerning cases of disappearance reported in its territory. During the period under review, the Committee sent four reminders to the State party, in relation to 272 registered requests for urgent action, despite which no response has been received to date. The Committee has already raised the lack of compliance by Iraq with its obligations under article 30 of the Convention in its past three reports to the General Assembly (A/73/56, A/74/56 and A/75/56). Where the State party submitted replies to the Committee, they followed the same trend observed by the Committee in its previous reports, namely that the State party did not provide any information on action taken to search for disappeared persons or to investigate their alleged enforced disappearance. Furthermore, the State party failed to clarify the procedures available to victims.

61.In several of its replies, the State party, as previously, simply asserted that the alleged victims were affiliated with terrorist groups, without providing any further information about any specific criminal charges brought, proceedings initiated or arrest warrants issued against them. In these cases, the Committee reminded the State party that the duty to search for disappeared persons and to investigate their disappearance applied irrespective of their profile or political affiliation.

62.In its report on requests for urgent action adopted at its nineteenth session, the Committee reported on 28 requests for urgent action with regard to the disappearance of persons who had participated in the protests that had begun in October 2019 in Baghdad, or who had provided some kind of support to participants. The authors of those requests also indicated that, according to witnesses or in view of the context of the disappearances, it was likely that the persons had been disappeared by “militias acting with the authorization, support, acquiescence or approval of the State party” or by “members of pro-Government forces, including State-sponsored militias, or State intelligence services”. The Committee welcomes as a positive development the fact that 12 of these urgent actions have been closed after the persons were located and released. However, as at 1 April 2021, the State party had yet to provide a reply to 13 of those requests.

(b)Mexico

63.The Committee welcomes the increase in the number of responses provided by the State party regarding registered requests for urgent action, although reminders were still sent for approximately half of the cases.

64.The Committee was frequently informed of a lack of coordination between federal and state authorities in charge of search and investigation in Mexico, creating obstacles to or even preventing progress. In some cases, the Committee was informed that state authorities had refused to collaborate with federal authorities. In these cases, the Committee sent follow-up notes requesting that the authorities in charge at the various levels of administration clearly define and coordinate their respective functions.

65.In its recommendations to Mexico, the Committee has also highlighted on various occasions the State party’s obligation under the Convention to ensure that victims are periodically informed about the steps taken by the authorities in charge of the search and investigation, and to make them part of the process. During the period under review, progress made remained highly dependent on the initiatives of the relatives of the disappeared persons. The possibility for victims to interact with the State party authorities in charge of the search and investigation was key in several cases to enabling some progress. Nonetheless, authors of requests for urgent action frequently signalled the challenges that they faced to ensure that the authorities took into account with due diligence the information that they provided. They also often expressed regret that on-site investigations and comprehensive analyses of the available evidence were frequently lacking.

66.The Committee is concerned at information that it frequently received alleging that State authorities were directly or indirectly involved in the events surrounding the disappearances and that search and investigation efforts had come to a halt. When the events had occurred several years previously, authors repeatedly pointed to the responsibility of State party authorities in terms of their lack of diligence, considering their inaction to have become an additional factor of responsibility for the alleged enforced disappearance. In such cases, the Committee emphasized to the State party the importance of establishing mechanisms for holding to account the State officials in charge of search and investigation, and requested the State party to investigate allegations that such officials had hindered proceedings.

67.During the period covered by the report on requests for urgent action adopted at its twentieth session, the Committee received 45 requests for urgent action referring to cases of alleged disappearance in the State of Nayarit, with the direct or indirect participation of staff of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Nayarit State. In these requests, it was alleged that the former Prosecutor General of Nayarit, Edgar Veytia, who had been convicted of drug trafficking in the United States of America, maintained links to organized crime and had himself been involved in numerous cases of enforced disappearance and other human rights violations in the state. In some of the requests for urgent action, it was further alleged that current staff members of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Disappeared Persons of Nayarit State had been involved in the cases of enforced disappearance or had worked closely with Mr. Veytia. In these cases, the Committee requested the State party to take the measures necessary to investigate and punish any activity or intervention by authorities that was aimed at hindering effective search and investigation in the context of enforced disappearance, and, in particular, to investigate staff members of the Office of the Prosecutor who might have had links with Mr. Veytia in order to determine their possible involvement in the disappearances in question. The Committee further requested the State party to ensure the competence and independence of the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

68.Authors of requests for urgent action also frequently referred to the challenges faced by the relatives of disappeared persons to gain access to the support to which they are entitled. In such cases, the Committee indicated to the State party the measures required depending on the needs of the relatives concerned, regarding, for example, access to food, education, housing or health services. The Committee also recalled the obligation of the competent State party authorities to inform the relatives of the disappeared persons about the content, scope and time frame of the support to which they were entitled from those authorities. The Committee requested the State party to ensure that the beneficiaries’ situation and needs were duly taken into account by the Executive Commission for Victim Support when formulating and revising support plans.

3.Other States parties

69.There were too few requests for urgent action relating to other States parties for the Committee to identify any trends. Nevertheless, the Committee wishes to highlight certain elements of some of the requests received.

(a)Burkina Faso

70.During the reporting period, the Committee registered the first request for urgent action with respect to Burkina Faso. The request concerned the alleged enforced disappearance of a member of the Peul ethnic group after having been arrested by members of the Gendarmerie.

(b)Paraguay

71.The Committee also registered the first request for urgent action with respect to Paraguay. The request concerned the alleged enforced disappearance of a girl in the context of an operation led by a joint police and military task force set up to combat the Ejército del Pueblo Paraguayo (Paraguayan People’s Army), a guerrilla organization.

(c)Peru

72.The Committee registered 13 requests for urgent action with respect to Peru. The requests concerned the alleged enforced disappearance of participants in protests against the former president that had taken place in Lima in November 2020. These cases were closed after the detainees were located and released.

C.Urgent actions discontinued, closed or kept open for the protection of persons for whom interim measures have been taken

73.In accordance with the criteria adopted in plenary by the Committee at its eighth session:

(a)An urgent action is discontinued when the disappeared person has been located but is still detained; this step is taken because the person in question is particularly vulnerable to being subjected to a further enforced disappearance and to being placed outside the protection of the law;

(b)An urgent action is closed when the disappeared person has been found at liberty or located and released, or has been found dead, provided that the relatives and/or authors do not contest these facts;

(c)An urgent action is kept open when the disappeared person has been located but the persons for whom interim measures have been taken in the context of the urgent action are still under threat; in such cases, the action taken by the Committee is limited to following up on the interim measures.

74.In addition to these criteria, the Committee adopted the following new category of cases at its twentieth session:

(d)An urgent action, and the Committee’s follow-up to it, is suspended when the author of the request for urgent action has lost contact with the family members of the disappeared person and can no longer provide follow-up information; a suspended urgent action may be reopened if the author informs the Committee that he or she has resumed contact with the family members.

75.As at 1 April 2021, the Committee had closed 88 urgent action cases, discontinued 15 cases and suspended 96 cases. A total of 813 urgent action cases remained open.

76.In three urgent action cases (two cases relating to Mexico and one case relating to Colombia), it has been determined that the disappeared persons have been found dead but the urgent action cases remain open because the persons for whom interim measures were taken are still under threat.

77.The Committee is particularly satisfied that, as at 1 April 2021, 106 disappeared persons on whose behalf an urgent action request had been registered have been located.

D.Decisions taken by the Committee at its nineteenth and twentieth sessions

78.The Committee reiterates that, in view of the constant increase in the number of requests for urgent action that have been registered, there is an urgent need for an increase in the number of staff members in the OHCHR secretariat who are dedicated to processing those requests.

79.The Committee increased the size of the working group on urgent actions by one member. The distribution of tasks within the working group remained by working language.

80.The Committee decided to publish its reports on requests for urgent action on the Committee’s main web page, in addition to the web page of the relevant session, with a view to increasing their visibility, and, where relevant, to issue press releases on the reports and on the impact of requests for urgent action.

Chapter XICommunications procedure under article 31 of the Convention

81.No new individual complaints have been registered by the Committee over the period covered by the present report.

82.At its nineteenth session, the Committee examined E.L.A. v. France (CED/C/19/D/3/2019). The Committee found that the author’s return to Sri Lanka would give rise to a violation by the State party of article 16 of the Convention (non-refoulement). It concluded that the State party authorities had failed to conduct a thorough assessment of the risk of enforced disappearance that the author would face if returned to Sri Lanka, and had failed to take due account of the author’s personal circumstances into account, in particular his brother’s enforced disappearance and the general context of enforced disappearance in Sri Lanka. The Committee urged the State party to re-examine the author’s asylum request and to refrain from deporting him to Sri Lanka while domestic proceedings were pending.

83.Also at its nineteenth session, the Committee adopted its follow-up progress report on individual communications, in which it decided to continue the follow-up procedure regarding Yrusta and Del Valle Yrusta v. Argentina.

Chapter XIIVisits under article 33 of the Convention

84.Over the reporting period, the Committee sent four reminders to Mexico, requesting the formalization of the State party’s acceptance of the Committee’s request to visit the country, as the State party had announced at various public events. The Committee highlighted its willingness to maintain a fluid, transparent and permanent dialogue with the State party, with a view to cooperating and supporting its efforts to eradicate and prevent enforced disappearance. During the Committee’s twentieth session, the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva requested a meeting with the Committee. At the meeting, held on 16 April 2021, the Permanent Representative of Mexico informed the Committee that the State party agreed to a visit in November 2021, if the sanitary conditions so allowed, and that the State party would send a note verbale to formalize the agreement. The Committee welcomed that information, and hopes that the note verbale will be received shortly.

85.During its twentieth session, the Committee decided to confirm its request for a visit to Iraq. A note verbale was sent to the State party, in which the Committee recalled that a written agreement should be provided to enable to Committee to plan the visit. The Committee further decided to embark on the initial phase of the visit process under article 33 for Colombia, and sent a note verbale to inform the State party accordingly.

Chapter XIIIGuiding principles for the search for disappeared persons

86.Over the reporting period, the Committee has made frequent reference to the guiding principles for the search for disappeared persons in the context of its urgent action procedure, and in the concluding observations adopted under articles 29 (1) and 29 (4) of the Convention. During the nineteenth session, the Committee and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances organized two joint webinars on search and investigation of enforced disappearances to mark the fortieth anniversary of the establishment of the Working Group and the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention, at which the guiding principles were presented as a reference document.

87.The guiding principles have given rise to a social media campaign organized by the OHCHR Office in Mexico in Spanish and promoted by the Committee in French and English in the context of events to mark the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention. In addition to translations into German and Nepalese, the guiding principles have now also been translated into Serbian.

Annex

States parties to the Convention as at 7 May 2021 and their reporting status

State party (in order of ratification)	Ratification/accession	Entry into force	Deadline for reporting under art. 29 (1)	Report submitted
Albania*	8 Nov. 2007	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	11 Nov. 2015
Argentina*	14 Dec. 2007	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	21 Dec. 2012
Mexico*	18 Mar. 2008	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	11 Mar. 2014
Honduras	1 Apr. 2008	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	4 Feb. 2016
France*	23 Sept. 2008	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	21 Dec. 2012
Senegal	11 Dec. 2008	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	28 Apr. 2015
Bolivia ( Plurinational State of)	17 Dec. 2008	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	28 Sept. 2018
Cuba	2 Feb. 2009	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	24 Apr. 2015
Kazakhstan	27 Feb. 2009	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	3 June 2014
Uruguay*	4 Mar. 2009	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	4 Sept. 2012
Mali*	1 July 2009	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	5 Nov. 2020
Japan*	23 July 2009	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	22 July 2016
Nigeria	27 July 2009	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	26 Mar. 2021
Spain*	24 Sept. 2009	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	26 Dec. 2012
Germany*	24 Sept. 2009	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	25 Mar. 2013
Ecuador*	20 Oct. 2009	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	5 June 2015
Burkina Faso	3 Dec. 2009	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	7 Oct. 2014
Chile*	8 Dec. 2009	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	1 Dec. 2017
Paraguay	3 Aug. 2010	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	28 Aug. 2013
Iraq	23 Nov. 2010	23 Dec. 2010	23 Dec. 2012	26 June 2014
Brazil	29 Nov. 2010	29 Dec. 2010	29 Dec. 2012	30 June 2019
Gabon	19 Jan. 2011	18 Feb. 2011	18 Feb. 2013	10 June 2015
Armenia	24 Jan. 2011	23 Feb. 2011	23 Feb. 2013	14 Oct. 2013
Netherlands*	23 Mar. 2011	22 Apr. 2011	22 Apr. 2013	11 June 2013
Zambia	4 Apr. 2011	4 May 2011	4 May 2013
Serbia*	18 May 2011	17 June 2011	17 June 2013	30 Dec. 2013
Belgium*	2 June 2011	2 July 2011	2 July 2013	8 July 2013
Panama	24 June 2011	24 July 2011	24 July 2013	30 June 2019
Tunisia	29 June 2011	29 July 2011	29 July 2013	25 Sept. 2014
Montenegro*	20 Sept. 2011	20 Oct. 2011	20 Oct. 2013	30 Jan. 2014
Costa Rica	16 Feb. 2012	17 Mar. 2012	17 Mar. 2014	7 May 2020
Bosnia and Herzegovina*	30 Mar. 2012	29 Apr. 2012	29 Apr. 2014	26 Jan. 2015
Austria*	7 June 2012	7 July 2012	7 July 2014	31 May 2016
Colombia	11 July 2012	10 Aug. 2012	10 Aug. 2014	17 Dec. 2014
Peru*	26 Sept. 2012	26 Oct. 2012	26 Oct. 2014	8 Aug. 2016
Mauritania	3 Oct. 2012	2 Nov. 2012	2 Nov. 2014	29 Dec. 2020
Samoa	27 Nov. 2012	27 Dec. 2012	27 Dec. 2014
Morocco	14 May 2013	13 June 2013	13 June 2015
Cambodia	27 June 2013	27 July 2013	27 July 2015
Lithuania*	14 Aug. 2013	13 Sept. 2013	13 Sept. 2015	6 Oct. 2015
Lesotho	6 Dec. 2013	5 Jan. 2014	5 Jan. 2016
Portugal*	27 Jan. 2014	26 Feb. 2014	26 Feb. 2016	22 June 2016
Togo	21 July 2014	20 Aug. 2014	20 Aug. 2016
Slovakia*	15 Dec. 2014	14 Jan. 2015	14 Jan. 2017	26 Apr. 2018
Mongolia	12 Feb. 2015	14 Mar. 2015	14 Mar. 2017	27 Dec. 2018
Malta	27 Mar. 2015	26 Apr. 2015	26 Apr. 2017
Greece	9 July 2015	8 Aug. 2015	8 Aug. 2017	1 Feb. 2019
Niger	24 July 2015	23 Aug. 2015	23 Aug. 2017	1 Aug. 2019
Belize	14 Aug. 2015	13 Sept. 2015	13 Sept. 2017
Ukraine*	14 Aug. 2015	13 Sept. 2015	13 Sept. 2017
Italy	8 Oct. 2015	7 Nov. 2015	7 Nov. 2017	22 Dec. 2017
Sri Lanka	25 May 2016	24 June 2016	24 June 2018
Central African Republic	11 Oct. 2016	10 Nov. 2016	10 Nov. 2018
Switzerland*	2 Dec. 2016	1 Jan. 2017	1 Jan. 2019	21 Dec. 2018
Seychelles	18 Jan. 2017	17 Feb. 2017	17 Feb. 2019
Czechia*	8 Feb. 2017	10 Mar. 2017	10 Mar. 2019	22 May 2019
Malawi*	14 July 2017	13 Aug. 2017	13 Aug. 2019
Benin	2 Nov. 2017	2 Dec. 2017	2 Dec. 2019
Gambia	28 Sept. 2018	28 Oct. 2018	28 Oct. 2020	15 Mar. 2021
Dominica	13 May 2019	12 June 2019	12 June 2021
Fiji	19 Aug. 2019	18 Sept. 2019	18 Sept. 2021
Norway	22 Aug. 2019	21 Aug. 2019	21 Aug. 2021
Oman	12 June 2020	12 July 2020	12 July 2022

Note : States parties marked with an asterisk have made declarations recognizing the competence of the Committee under articles 31 and /or 32 of the Convention. The full text of declarations and reservations made by States Parties is available at https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src= TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-16&chapter=4&clang=_en .