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
Grioua v. Algeria
The Committee confirmed that the burden of proof cannot rest on applicants alone, holding that credible allegations of disappearance are to be considered sufficiently substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanations to the contrary presented by the State. The Committee made a finding of inhuman treatment both with respect to Mr. Grioua, in light of the fact that he was abducted and prevented from contacting his family, and with respect to his mother, due to the anguish and distress caused by her son’s disappearance and her continued uncertainty as to his fate. Finally, the Committee held that intentionally ...click to read more
State/Non-State Agents | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute | Amnesties | Deprivation of Liberty | Burden of Proof | Evidence | Judicial Protection | Refusal to Disclose Fate | Relatives as Victims
Kimouche v. Algeria
The Committee found a violation of the victim's right to liberty and security due to the fact that he was arrested and held incommunicado without any possibility of access to a lawyer or of challenging the lawfulness of his detention. It further made a finding of inhuman treatment both respect to the victim, in light of the suffering involved in being held indefinitely without contact with the outside world, of the circumstances of his disappearance and of the allegation that he was tortured. The Committee also made such a finding with respect to his family, due to the anguish and ...click to read more
Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute | Amnesties | Burden of Proof | Interim/Urgent Measures | Deprivation of Liberty | Judicial Protection | Refusal to Disclose Fate | Relatives as Victims | Effective Remedy
Rabindra Prasad Dhakal v. Nepal
The Court held that the situation of armed conflict did not exempt the State from its responsibility to protect its nationals, arguing that in time of conflict the State needs to be more responsive in light of the greater risk of violation of human rights. It added that such responsibility is further increased when an arrest is carried out with the involvement of the authorities. The Court found that disappearances violate fundamental rights such as the right to life, freedom and justice. It also found that investigation and proceedings on cases of disappearance are to be considered as a part ...click to read more
Interim/Urgent Measures | Systemic Practice | Refusal to Disclose Fate | Relatives as Victims | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute | Reparations | Deprivation of Liberty | Obligation to Criminalise | Judicial Protection | Obligation to Prevent | Juridical Personality
Luluyev and Others v. Russia
The Court made a finding of inhuman treatment with respect to the victim's relatives despite the fact that the victim was later found dead, due to the long time during which they sustained uncertainty, anguish and distress caused by the victim's disappearance before her body was found. It added that their suffering was aggravated by the manner in which their complaints have been dealt with by the authorities and by their exclusion from monitoring the progress of the investigation. The Court also found that the victim was held in unacknowledged detention in complete absence of the safeguards contained in Article ...click to read more
State/Non-State Agents | Duty to Investigate | Obligation to Prevent | Women and Girls | Deprivation of Liberty | Relatives as Victims
La Cantuta v. Peru
The Court found that although there was no specific evidence of ill-treatment whilst in detention, the Court could infer from the nature of the detention - including the systemic state practices and the failure to investigate - that the detainees were subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment including feelings of fear for their life and well-being. Further, although it could be inferred from the discovery of other remains and personal belongings in clandestine graves that those victims whose remains had not yet been found had also deprived of their lives, the Court held that until their remains were duly ...click to read more
Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute | Guarantees Against Impunity | Amnesties | Obligation to Criminalise | Admissibility | Deprivation of Liberty | Guarantees of Non-Repetition | Evidence | Obligation to Prevent | Jus Cogens | Systemic Practice
Imakayeva v. Russia
The Court noted that, in the context of the conflict between Russia and Chechnya that occurred between 1999 - 2006, there existed a phenomenon of disappearances. It found that it could be presumed that, during this time period, when a person was detained by unidentified servicemen in Chechnya without subsequent acknowledgement of the detention, their detention could be regarded as life-threatening. It also applied the principle of the reversal of the burden of proof and found that it could draw inferences from the Government's failure to disclose pertinent information and failure to provide any plausible alternative explanation of what happened ...click to read more
Evidence | Systemic Practice | Burden of Proof
Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay
The Court pronounced for the first time that the prohibition of enforced disappearances and the obligation to investigate and punish those responsible has attained the status of jus cogens. The facts of the case occurred within a context of systematic human rights violations, which included lack of investigation into such abuses, contributing to impunity, which the Court stated must be combatted by determining both the general responsibility of the state and the specific criminal responsibility of those involved. It also stated that access to justice is a peremptory norm of international law, giving rise to a state obligation to adopt ...click to read more
Jus Cogens | Systemic Practice | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute | Extraterritorial Jurisdiction | Guarantees Against Impunity | Judicial Protection | Punishment | Juridical Personality | Reparations
Bazorkina v. Russia
The Court reiterated and applied the principle that, in cases where the events in question lie within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of death that may have occurred while the victim was in state control. It also noted and applied the principle that the "burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation" of what happened to someone who was within their control finding that the state in this case had failed to provide any plausible explanation as to what happened to ...click to read more
Evidence | Burden of Proof
Medjnoune v. Algeria
The Committee reaffirmed that the burden of proof cannot rest on applicants alone, holding that credible allegations are to be considered sufficiently substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanations to the contrary presented by the State. It made a finding of inhuman treatment and torture of the victim due to the fact that his continued captivity prevented him from communicating with his family and with the outside world, and in light of the circumstances surrounding his apprehension and the testimony that he was tortured. The Committee also found a violation of the victim's right to liberty and security, ...click to read more
Deprivation of Liberty | Evidence | Burden of Proof
Prosecutor v. Šimšić (First Instance)
The Court made a finding of aiding and abetting enforced disappearances as a crime against humanity. However, since the accused had in certain occasions helped some of the victims, it did not make a finding of discriminatory intent to perpetrate these offences against the Bosniak civilian population, dropping the charge of persecution as a crime against humanity.
Deprivation of Liberty | Systemic Practice | Crimes Against Humanity