Jurisprudence Database
The Jurisprudence Database sets out leading judgments and commentary by international and domestic legal mechanisms in the field of enforced disappearances. It summarises factual and legal findings and identifies common themes and search terms allowing for a comparative cross-jurisdictional analysis of this area of law. Users can search the source bank through a filter-based or key-term search and access text in English, Spanish, Russian and French.
Search the PDF content in documents uploaded to the Enforced Disappearance Legal Database.
Filter by Show Filters
Country
Case Decision Year
Keywords
Key Judgment
Types of Source
Authority
Themes
General Comment on enforced disappearance as a crime against humanity
The General Comment explains situations and circumstances when acts of enforced disappearance amount to crimes against humanity. In doing so, the Working Group relies on various provisions under the international law and case law of the international criminal and hybrid tribunals. Provisions of the Declaration and specifically, claims of enforced disappearance as a crime against humanity are assessed though criteria listed in the Article 7 of the Rome Statute.
Crimes Against Humanity
Ibragimov and Others v. Russia
The Court was satisfied that the victim was apprehended by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation. Taking into account the absence of any news of the victim for several years, and reiterating that in conflict situations when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without any acknowledgment this can be regarded as life-threatening, it also held that the victim must be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention and that his death can be attributed to the State. The Court also found that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the victim's disappearance. ...click to read more
Right to Know the Truth | State/Non-State Agents | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Reparations | Burden of Proof | Deprivation of Liberty | Evidence | Systemic Practice | Relatives as Victims
Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia
Among other violations, the Court considered that the enforced disappearance of Mr. Renato Ticona Estrada represented a risk to his life, a situation aggravated by the systematic pattern of human rights violations in Bolivia at the time of the events. This systematic pattern was characterized by a planned policy of intimidation, harassment and extermination deployed against members of the National Left Movement and other opponents, using irregular armed groups or paramilitaries.
Right to Know the Truth | Deprivation of Liberty | Judicial Protection
Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala
The Court emphasised the jus cogens nature of the State’s the duty to investigate and punish those responsible for enforced disappearances, and highlighted the differentiated impact of impunity on indigenous communities, as well as the social and cultural obstacles such communities face in accessing judicial mechanisms. The judgment highlights that in order to guarantee access to justice for indigenous communities, it is essential to take into account their economic and social characteristics, as well as their special situation of vulnerability, their common law, values, uses and customs. The Court noted that the discriminatory practices of those working in the justice ...click to read more
Indigenous Peoples | Judicial Protection | Duty to Investigate | Children/Youth
Madoui v. Algeria
The Committee made a finding of inhuman treatment with respect to the victim's disappearance. It also made a finding of inhuman treatment with respect to the victim’s mother, noting the anguish and distress that the disappearance caused her. The Committee also held that the victim's arrest and subsequent incommunicado detention were arbitrary and illegal, finding a violation of the victim's right to liberty and security. Finally, the Committee found a violation of the victim's right to be recognised as a person before the law, recalling that if a person is arrested by the authorities and there is subsequently no news ...click to read more
Burden of Proof | Deprivation of Liberty | Judicial Protection | Juridical Personality | Refusal to Disclose Fate | Relatives as Victims | Right to Know the Truth | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate
Sharma v. Nepal
The Committee made a finding of inhuman treatment both with respect to the victim, in light of the fact that he was kept in captivity and prevented from communicating with his family and the outside world, and with respect to his wife, noting the anguish and stress that the disappearance caused her. It further found a violation of the victim’s right to liberty and security, in light of the fact that he was arrested by uniformed army personnel without a warrant, held incommunicado without being informed of the reasons for his arrest or the charges against him, and never brought ...click to read more
Evidence | Refusal to Disclose Fate | Relatives as Victims | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute | Burden of Proof | Deprivation of Liberty
Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama
The Court found that although Panama had accepted the Court's jurisdiction in May 1990 (after the disappearance took place), since Mr. Heliodoro Portugal's remains had not been identified until August 2000, the Court was competent to examine the state’s responsibility regarding the victim’s initial deprivation of liberty and the state’s failure to investigate. In relation to domestic law and practice, the Court made explicit the fact that the judiciary must - under the principle of convention control, or control of conventionality - ensure the application of Convention obligations domestically. It also found that Panama breached its obligations by not enacting ...click to read more
Obligation to Criminalise | Judicial Protection | Juridical Personality | Relatives as Victims | Right to Know the Truth | Admissibility | Effective Remedy | Statute of Limitations | Duty to Investigate
Chief Ebrimah Manneh v. Republic of The Gambia
The Court outlined the nature of special, general, and punitive damages. Regarding punitive damages, it held that they were not generally awarded to compensate, but to reform or deter from pursuing a particular course of action. It identified no record showing the award of punitive damages in a human rights case and held that it was not the object of the African Charter to award punitive damages.
Deprivation of Liberty | Refusal to Disclose Fate | Right to Know the Truth | Punishment | Reparations | Guarantees of Non-Repetition
Kukayev v. Russia
The Court was satisfied that the victim was apprehended by State agents in the course of a special operation. In light of the fact that it was established that the victim was killed on the same date he was taken into custody, and that there was no information that he had been released shortly after being apprehended, the Court concluded that the victim died whilst being detained by federal forces, and found the State responsible for it. The Court held that, for the almost five months during which the victim remained missing before his body was found, his father suffered ...click to read more
Duty to Prosecute | Reparations | Burden of Proof | Deprivation of Liberty | Evidence | Relatives as Victims | State/Non-State Agents | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate
Osmanoglu v. Turkey
Observing that the victim's abduction showed many similarities with the disappearances of other persons in south-east Turkey at the relevant time, and taking into account that no information had come to light on his whereabouts for more than 11 years, the Court held that the victim must be presumed dead. It also confirmed that the disappearance of a person in life-threatening circumstances requires the State to take operational measures to protect their right to life, especially when they had previously been threatened. The Court highlighted a number of steps which could have been taken by the investigating authorities: (a) an ...click to read more
Deprivation of Liberty | Evidence | Relatives as Victims | State/Non-State Agents | Duty to Investigate | Obligation to Prevent