Year

Argentina

Armenia

Brazil

Cambodia

Colombia

Honduras

Iraq

Kazakhstan

Mexico

Morocco

Mauritania

Sri Lanka

Total

2012

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

5

—

—

—

5

2013

—

—

—

—

1

—

—

—

6 a

—

—

—

7

2014

—

—

1

1

1

—

5

—

43

—

—

—

51

2015

—

—

—

—

3

—

43

—

165

—

—

—

211

2016

—

—

—

—

4

—

22

—

58

1

—

—

85

2017

2

1

—

—

3

—

43

2

31

2

1

1

86

2018 b

—

—

—

—

6

14

10

—

20

—

—

—

50

Total

2

1

1

1

18

14

123

2

328

3

1

1

495

a Urgent action No. 9/2013 refers to two persons. It is therefore counted as two urgent actions.

b As of 1 June 2018.

B.The process after registration of urgent action requests: developments observed since the twelfth session (up to 1 June 2018)

1.Interaction with States parties

36.The Committee maintains contact with States parties through their respective permanent missions. In order to maximize the impact of the Committee’s recommendations regarding requests for urgent action, the Committee considers it would be necessary to establish more direct contact with the authorities responsible for searching for disappeared persons and investigating their disappearance, so that the Committee’s concerns and recommendations may be communicated to them more directly if necessary.

37.The majority of registered urgent actions are still related to events that have occurred in Mexico and Iraq. With regard to Mexico, at the time of writing, no reply has been received in 70 of the urgent actions registered and the State party has not responded to a number of the follow-up notes (in 20 urgent action cases). Reminders have been sent in these cases.

38.For urgent action cases in which Mexico has responded to the Committee’s requests and recommendations, the following trends may be observed:

(a)In all the urgent action cases, the State party’s observations and the authors’ comments continue to reflect sporadic, isolated actions that do not seem to be part of, or be directed by, a previously defined search and investigation strategy or to reflect the development of an exhaustive search;

(b)Investigative actions by the authorities are frequently not carried out unless relatives, close contacts or representatives of the disappeared persons take the initiative. If relatives, close contacts or representatives are unable to identify leads for the investigators or are unable to persuade the authorities to take action, the cases generally remain deadlocked;

(c)The searches are almost invariably begun by sending official requests for information to hospitals and detention centres. Most of these letters remain unanswered. The Committee has expressed concern that, in such cases, the Public Prosecutor’s Office does not appear to make full use of its authority to employ enforcement measures in order to obtain the requisite information. The Committee has also been informed of cases in which enforcement measures, such as orders of detention, were requested, but no action was taken by the authorities in charge;

(d)In the vast majority of cases, on-site investigations are very rarely carried out. The authors of the urgent action requests frequently inform the Committee that the investigating authorities tell them that they are afraid to go to the locations in which they might be able to collect evidence;

(e)The authors often allege that the authorities in charge of the search and investigation are directly or indirectly involved in the events and that the processes therefore remain deadlocked;

(f)There has been a failure to execute orders to conduct investigations issued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The authorities often fail to take action and it is alleged that they sometimes obstruct searches and investigations. In such cases, the Committee has requested the State party to implement clear and formal mechanisms that would require the teams responsible for searching for missing persons and investigating their enforced disappearance to issue regular and transparent reports on the progress made and difficulties encountered. The State party has also been requested to take all necessary measures to investigate and punish any actions by the State party’s authorities that may have hindered the effectiveness of the search and investigation processes under way;

(g)There is still fragmentation among the investigations by State institutions, and between State and federal institutions. There is also a lack of inter-agency coordination and pursuit of a joint strategy. Given these circumstances, great difficulties have reportedly been encountered in incorporating all the evidence into a single investigation. Fragmentation and lack of coordination tend to cause excessive delays in the investigative procedure.

39.At the time of writing the Committee has registered 123 urgent actions related to events in Iraq. At the twelfth session, a meeting was held between the Permanent Mission of Iraq to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva and the Committee, in which the latter raised its concern at the lack of a reply by the State party to more than 25 urgent actions, even though four reminders had been sent. The Committee recalled that, in its last reminder, it had highlighted that, if no reply were received by the indicated deadline, then the Committee would take note of the lack of compliance by the State party with its obligations under article 30 of the Convention concerning the urgent actions and may decide to make that situation public at its next session through its sessional report on urgent actions and the next report to the General Assembly. During that meeting, the State party undertook to send information in the weeks following the session on the urgent actions in question, which it did. However, at the time of writing, no reply has been received in relation to 18 of the urgent action requests concerning Iraq. When replies have been sent by the State party, the Committee is concerned by their content because of the following issues: (a) the replies request the Committee to provide information on the identity of the disappeared person, which the Committee has already provided in its initial notes of registration of the urgent action requests; and (b) the State party requests the Committee to provide data on the authors of the urgent action or to invite the relatives of the disappeared persons to visit the Human Rights Department at the Office of the Inspector General in the Ministry of the Interior to file a formal request for the search and to give a statement as a means of furthering the ongoing investigations. In response to those notes, the Committee stated that the requested information relating to the identity of the victims had already been provided in the Committee’s previous notes and that the identities of the authors of the requests were confidential. The Committee also expressed concern at the way in which, according to the information available, persons visiting the Human Rights Department following the State party’s request had been treated (in two cases, the Committee had been informed that, when the wife of a disappeared person had gone to the Human Rights Department with a copy of the State party’s note to the Committee, she had been told that she had no reason to be there and that it would be better to go to the morgue to look for her husband). The Committee also highlighted that, through such action, the State party was violating its obligations under the Convention, re-victimizing the victims and violating its own official commitment before the Committee that the person would be received by the Human Rights Department to promote the search for the disappeared person.

40.The State party then started to send batches of replies (respectively referring in one note to 33, 23, 31 and 36 urgent actions), indicating that it did not have information on the persons on behalf of whom the urgent action requests had been registered. In response, the Committee sent notes to the State party indicating that replies of that kind were not in conformity with its treaty obligations, and drawing the State party’s attention to the requests and recommendations contained in the notes issued to register the urgent action requests, in which the competent authorities were asked to adopt search and investigation strategies and take every necessary measure to search for all of the disappeared persons and investigate their disappearances. The Committee also reminded the State party of its obligation to provide information on the actions taken in that regard. A meeting was held during the fourteenth session with the Permanent Mission, in which the Committee highlighted its concern regarding the high number of disappearances that had occurred in the State party and the replies received. The Committee recalled the State party’s obligations as regards searching for disappeared persons and investigating their disappearances, and its particular concern at the extremely high number of cases that remained without any form of action by the State party’s authorities.

41.As regards requests for urgent action addressed to other States parties, the Committee highlights the following:

(a)Argentina:

(i)The urgent action request registered in the case of the minor Valentín Ezequiel Reales is ongoing (urgent action No. 358/2017). The State party continues to deny that the State authorities were involved in the events in question. A follow-up note was sent in which the Committee emphasized the State party’s obligation to investigate every possible hypothesis in the case and any possible cover-ups that may have occurred in the search for the missing child and the investigation of his disappearance;

(ii)With regard to the urgent action registered in the case of Santiago Maldonado (urgent action No. 381/2017): the Committee was informed that, on 20 October 2017, a body located in the Chubut River had been identified as Mr. Maldonado by a team of forensic experts. The family also identified the body. In accordance with article 30 (4) of the Convention, the Committee considered that the purpose of the urgent action, which was to search for and locate the disappeared person, had been fulfilled. On 23 January 2018, the Committee sent a note to the State party to inform it that the request for urgent action had been closed. It also reminded the State party that the fact that Mr. Maldonado’s body had been located did not relieve it of its other obligations under the Convention, including the obligation, enshrined in article 12, to conduct a thorough, impartial and independent investigation into the circumstances of his disappearance between 1 August and 20 October 2017; to ensure the full participation of his relatives and their representatives in the investigative process; to protect the relatives of the disappeared person and their defence counsel, witnesses and any person involved in the investigation from any form of pressure, intimidation or reprisal; and, in the event that Mr. Maldonado was found to have been the victim of an enforced disappearance, to ensure that the perpetrators were duly investigated and punished and to guarantee the victims’ right to reparation. In order to ensure that the closure of the request for urgent action did not give rise to any controversy or misinterpretation, the Committee issued an explanatory note that was published on the Committee’s web page and disseminated to the media.

(b)Armenia: in the case of Ara Khachatryan (urgent action No. 376/2017), the State party sent a response stating that a preliminary investigation had been under way since 2011. This response was shared with the authors of the request for their comments. In the light of the information received, the Committee sent a follow-up note highlighting the State party’s obligations to take concrete actions to search for the disappeared person and ensure that family members, relatives and representatives were duly informed and able to participate in the search and investigation processes;

(c)Brazil: in the case of Davi Santos Fiuza (urgent action No. 61/2014), a follow-up note requesting additional information was sent to the State party on 21 November 2017. The State party requested an extension of the deadline by which it was required to reply, which was extended to 15 December 2017. No reply has been received. Reminders have been sent to the State party;

(d)Cambodia: the urgent action registered on behalf of the minor Khem Sophath (urgent action No. 11/2014) is ongoing. In November 2017, the Committee sent a follow-up note requesting additional information and reminding the State party of its obligation to carry out search and investigation activities based on all existing scenarios in the case, including those pointing to the possible involvement of State agents in the events in question. No reply has been received. Reminders have been sent. The Committee has expressed its concern as to the lack of collaboration of the State party and the need to take specific measures to search for the disappeared person;

(e)Colombia: the information provided by the State party in the registered requests for urgent action indicates that investigations and searches often come to a standstill a few months after they begin. In a number of cases, the authors report that the Committee’s notes have been followed by concrete actions, although such actions are usually isolated and do not form part of a clear-cut search and investigation strategy;

(f)Honduras: a total of 14 urgent action requests have been registered over the reporting period. The allegations submitted relate to two types of circumstances: (a) the disappearance of Manuel de Jesús Bautista Salvador, aged 24 years, which occurred in the context of the curfew adopted by an executive decree starting 1 December 2017 (see urgent action No. 444/2018); and (b) 13 cases of people who were disappeared while migrating (see urgent actions Nos. 454/2018 to 466/2018). In none of these cases is it clear where the events took place. There are only theories regarding possible disappearances in Mexico, Guatemala or the United States of America. However, these theories have never been investigated and it is alleged that the persons could have disappeared at other points along their migratory route. The Committee stated that, according to the information provided, those events could have taken place against a backdrop of violence and crime that directly affected migrants and included frequent unlawful detentions, disappearances and murders, for which State actors might be responsible through their actions, consent or omissions. In the light of this situation, the Committee requested that the State party adopt a comprehensive strategy for conducting thorough searches for missing persons and investigations into their disappearance, taking into account the State party’s responsibility under article 9 of the Convention to take all necessary measures to establish its competence to exercise jurisdiction over the offence of enforced disappearance when the disappeared person was one of its nationals. In view of the circumstances in which the events occurred, the Committee requested the State party to take all necessary measures to promote international legal assistance between it and Guatemala, Mexico and the United States of America in accordance with article 14 of the Convention with a view to establishing the migratory route followed by the victims and the relevant facts. The State party has responded and the Committee is awaiting the authors’ comments to these replies;

(g)Kazakhstan: in the two urgent action requests registered in 2017 on behalf of Zabit Kisi and Enver Kiliç (urgent action Nos. 415/2018 and 416/2018), the State party reported that the persons concerned had been placed on board an aeroplane to be deported to Turkey and that the authorities had heard nothing about their fate or whereabouts since then. In a follow-up note, the Committee stated that, under the Convention, the State party was responsible for searching for and locating the disappeared persons as they had last been seen in the hands of its authorities. In that regard, the Committee evoked articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Convention. The Committee is awaiting a reply from the State party;

(h)Morocco: in the two urgent action requests registered in 2017, the State party informed the Committee of the alleged victims’ place of detention. The information was shared with the authors, who confirmed that they had managed to contact the persons on behalf of whom the requests had been submitted. Following this confirmation, the urgent actions were discontinued, reminding the State party of its obligations under article 17 of the Convention;

(i)Mauritania: the State party informed the Committee of the place where the disappeared person was detained and stated that visits were authorized. This information was confirmed by the authors of the request for urgent action. In the light of the above, the Committee discontinued the request for urgent action, reminding the State party of its obligations under article 17 of the Convention;

(j)Sri Lanka: at the time of writing, the State party had replied neither to the registered request for urgent action, nor to the reminders nor to the invitation to meet the rapporteurs to discuss the procedure provided for under article 30 of the Convention.

42.In all registered requests for urgent action, the Committee continues to emphasize that it is essential for States parties to carry out search actions as soon as possible after the disappearance of the person concerned; to develop strategies for searching for disappeared persons and investigating their disappearance; and to take into account that such investigations are necessary, inter alia, to ensure that the perpetrators are identified, which can be the key to locating disappeared persons.

2.Interaction with authors

43.The Secretariat is in frequent contact with the authors of requests for urgent action, mainly by means of letters sent on behalf of the Committee, but also more directly by email and telephone. On the basis of the Committee’s contact with authors, a few trends may be observed.

44.Authors continue to highlight the importance of the support provided by the Committee, which has proved to be a receptive contact point after several unsuccessful attempts at contacting the national authorities. With the exception of the cases related to events in Iraq, authors of urgent action requests also point out that, when the Committee has sent notes, they have received replies to particular requests, mainly concerning the implementation of specific investigative actions recommended by the Committee.

45.In most of these cases, however, the authors regularly report that such actions are not followed up. Very soon after requests for urgent action have been registered, the authors frequently express frustration at the States’ failure to fulfil their search and investigation duties. They note with concern the failure of the authorities to undertake basic investigative steps to search for and locate missing persons, even when reliable information is available that could be used to advance the search and investigation.

46.The authors of requests for urgent action reiterate that, in older cases, the national authorities are taking less and less action to search for and locate disappeared persons and that they limit themselves to undertaking formal actions or repeating previous investigations. In other cases, the authors have drawn attention to the national authorities’ failure, for instance, to ensure that all witnesses are duly interviewed as soon as possible to facilitate the search for disappeared persons and the investigation into their disappearance, or their failure to conduct relevant analysis of the available evidence (see, for example, those cases in which available telephone or video records have not been analysed until several months after they were submitted to the competent authorities).

47.One of the main trends observed is the difficulties faced by families and relatives of missing persons to participate in the search for the disappeared person and the investigation of their disappearance. These difficulties are mainly caused by the lack of information concerning the ongoing processes. The authors of requests state that, if they do not request information, the authorities do not provide them with any information as to the actions taken, even when activities are being planned in which their participation might be relevant.

48.It has also been noted that, when the authorities have contacted family members and relatives in accordance with their obligations under the Convention, they have done so in a manner that re-victimizes them. In such cases, the Committee has reminded the State party of the content of article 24 (2) of the Convention. It has also emphasized that States parties are responsible for establishing mechanisms for reporting information to the families and relatives of missing persons with the aim of ensuring that they and their representatives can participate actively, and in an informed manner, at all stages of the investigative process, and that they are required to provide family members and relatives with adequate guidance on their rights and how to exercise them.

49.In the case of Mexico, the authors frequently report that support for the families and relatives of disappeared persons is very limited and not adapted to their needs. In cases in which such difficulties have been identified, the Committee has reminded the State party that protection and support measures must be established and implemented in consultation with beneficiaries in order to ensure that they meet their needs.

50.The Committee remains concerned by allegations that authors of requests for urgent action have been subjected to threats, pressure and reprisals, particularly in connection with events occurring in Mexico and Colombia. In these urgent action cases, the Committee requests the State party to adopt interim measures to protect the persons who are in danger. The Committee also emphasizes the importance of ensuring that these interim protective measures are implemented by authorities against which there are no allegations of possible involvement in the disappearance in question, and in coordination with the beneficiaries and their representatives to ensure that the measures fully meet their needs. To this end, the Committee requests the State party to convene regular coordination meetings between the authorities responsible for implementing the interim measures, and the beneficiaries and their representatives.

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

51.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 is 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 missing 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 to whom interim measures have been granted in the context of the urgent action are still under threat. In such cases, the actions taken by the Committee are limited to following up on the interim measures.

52.Whenever informed by the author or the State party that a person has been located, the Committee waits for the confirmation of the information before closing or discontinuing the urgent action.

53.At the time of writing, the Committee had closed a total of 36 urgent action cases: in 15 of these cases the disappeared person had been located and released alive and in 21 cases the disappeared persons had been found dead.

54.In addition, the Committee has discontinued four requests for urgent action because the disappeared persons have been located but remain in detention.

55.In two urgent action cases, it has been determined that the disappeared person has been found dead but the urgent action remains open because the persons who were granted interim measures are still under threat.

D.Actions taken following the decisions adopted by the plenary at the thirteenth session and talking points for the plenary at its fourteenth session

56.At its thirteenth session, the Committee decided to take concrete action, with the support of the Secretariat, to disseminate information on the urgent action procedure, primarily to civil society organizations and State party officials. The rapporteurs and the secretariat have produced a simple information booklet, which is now available in English, French and Spanish.

57.To the same end, the Committee would welcome an increase in opportunities for interacting with and training national authorities on the procedures and objectives of urgent actions, in collaboration with the field offices of OHCHR and the treaty body capacity-building programme, in order to raise awareness on the urgent action procedure.

58.The Committee reiterates that the number of registered urgent actions continues to rise, but that, instead of increasing the number of staff in charge of their registration and follow-up, staff numbers have fallen after the closure of the project funded by Germany. At the time of writing, only one staff member is in charge of the procedure, who is also responsible for the individual complaints for the Committee and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and for supervising staff working on individual complaints for other committees.

Chapter XCommunication procedure under article 31 of the Convention

59.At the thirteenth session, the rapporteur on communications and follow-up to Views presented his report, which was adopted by the plenary. In the report, the rapporteur presents the latest developments related to the implementation by the State party of the Committee’s recommendations in its Views (violation) on communication 1/2013 (Yrusta v. Argentina). The Committee analysed the information provided by the State party and the authors of the communication and decided to maintain the follow-up. The rapporteur sent a follow-up note verbale to the State party, expressing concern at the non-implementation of the Views, and requesting additional information regarding the measures taken by State party’s authorities in that regard. The follow-up procedure is ongoing.

60.An individual complaint was registered by the Committee under article 31 of the Convention against Czechia (communication 2/2017). In April 2018, the author indicated that her daughter had been located. The Committee welcomed this information. Taking into account that the allegations raised by the author were directly linked to the individual situation of her daughter that had been resolved, the Committee considered that the subject matter of the submitted complaint was moot and decided to discontinue its examination of the communication.

Chapter XIVisits under article 33 of the Convention

61.The Committee recalled the previous exchange of correspondence with Mexico, which started in May 2013, regarding the possibility of visiting the State party pursuant to article 33 of the Convention.

62.On 17 May 2018, the State indicated to the Committee in a written submission that it was not in a position to accept the request of the Committee to undertake a visit to the State party. However, it expressed its willingness and commitment to continue the cooperation and dialogue with the Committee. The Committee decided to reiterate its request for a visit to the State party.

Annex I

Membership of the Committee and terms of office as at 1 June 2018

Name of member

State party

Term of office expires

Mohammed Ayat

Morocco

30 June 2021

Moncef Baati

Tunisia

30 June 2021

Emmanuel Decaux

France

30 June 2019

Maria Clara Galvis Patiño

Colombia

30 June 2019

Daniel Figallo Rivadeneyra

Peru

30 June 2019

Rainer Huhle

Germany

30 June 2019

Suela Janina

Albania

30 June 2019

Milica Kolakovic-Bojovic

Serbia

30 June 2021

Horacio Ravenna

Argentina

30 June 2021

Koji Teraya

Japan

30 June 2021

Annex II

List of documents before the Committee at its thirteenth and fourteenth sessions

CED/C/13/1Annotated provisional agenda of the thirteenth session

CED/C/13/4Report on follow-up to concluding observations of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances

CED/C/14/1Annotated provisional agenda of the fourteenth session

CED/C/GAB/1Report submitted by Gabon

CED/C/GAB/Q/1List of issues in relation to the report submitted by Gabon

CED/C/GAB/Q/1/Add.1Replies to the list of issues on the report submitted by Gabon

CED/C/GAB/CO/1Concluding observations on the report submitted by Gabon

CED/C/LTU/1Report submitted by Lithuania

CED/C/LTU/Q/1List of issues in relation to the report submitted by Lithuania

CED/C/LTU/Q/1/Add.1Replies to the list of issues on the report submitted by Lithuania

CED/C/LTU/CO/1Concluding observations on the report submitted by Lithuania

CED/C/ALB/1Report submitted by Albania

CED/C/ALB/Q/1List of issues in relation to the report submitted by Albania

CED/C/ALB/Q/1/Add.1Replies to the list of issues on the report submitted by Albania

CED/C/ALB/CO/1Concluding observations on the report submitted by Albania

CED/C/AUT/1Report submitted by Austria

CED/C/AUT/Q/1List of issues in relation to the report submitted by Austria

CED/C/AUT/Q/1/Add.1Replies to the list of issues on the report submitted by Austria

CED/C/AUT/CO/1Concluding observations on the report submitted by Austria

CED/C/HND/1Report submitted by Honduras

CED/C/HND/Q/1List of issues in relation to the report submitted by Honduras

CED/C/HND/Q/1/Add.1Replies to the list of issues on the report submitted by Honduras

CED/C/HND/CO/1Concluding observations on the report submitted by Honduras

CED/C/1Rules of procedure