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
Liesbeth Zegveld & Mussie Ephrem v. Eritrea
The Commission applied the principle that prolonged incommunicado detention and/or solitary confinement could in itself be held to be a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment in the context of a case where the state recognised the detention of the disappeared victims and noted that they were being held in appropriate detention facilities and would be brought before an appropriate court.
Right to Know the Truth | Effective Remedy | Admissibility | Interim/Urgent Measures | Deprivation of Liberty | Judicial Protection | Refusal to Disclose Fate
Sarma v. Sri Lanka
The Committee held that acts of enforced disappearance pose a threat to the right to life and constitute a violation of several rights enshrined in the Covenant, including the right to liberty and security of the person, the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right of all persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and with respect for their inherent dignity.
Relatives as Victims | Effective Remedy | Admissibility
Tahsin Acar v. Turkey
The Grand Chamber held that for a unilateral declaration to be deemed admissible in cases concerning persons who have disappeared and where there is prima facie evidence supporting allegations that the domestic investigation fell short of what is required by the Convention, the unilateral declaration must, at minimum, contain admission that the investigation fell short of what was required by the Convention and a commitment by the authorities to undertake an effective investigation under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
Staselovich v. Belarus
The Committee held that complete secrecy surrounding the date of execution and the place of burial, as well as 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 held that this amounts to inhuman treatment with respect to family members.
Relatives as Victims | Right to Know the Truth
Orhan v. Turkey
Considering that no information was provided on the whereabouts of the victims for almost 8 years, the Court held that they must be presumed dead following an unacknowledged detention by the security forces, finding the State responsible for their death. In particular, the Court found it possible that an unacknowledged detention could be life-threatening in the context of the situation in south-east Turkey in 1994, which fostered a lack of accountability in regards to members of the security forces for their actions, as evidenced by the fact that the police knew little of the military's activities and exercised no control ...click to read more
Judicial Protection | Refusal to Disclose Fate | Relatives as Victims | State/Non-State Agents | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Reparations | Burden of Proof | Deprivation of Liberty | Obligation to Prevent | Evidence
Coronel et al. v. Colombia
The Committee found that the State was responsible for the victims’ detention and disappearance, holding that it failed in its responsibility to take the necessary measures against the perpetrators. The Committee also found a violation of the right to liberty and security with respect to all of the victims, due to the fact that their detentions were illegal and conducted in the absence of any arrest warrants. Taking into account the circumstances of the victims' disappearances, it also made a finding of ill treatment with respect to four of them, but did not have sufficient information to determine whether the ...click to read more
Children/Youth | Deprivation of Liberty
Juan Carlos Blanco (Quinteros)
The Court found evidence that the events that led to the victim’s disappearance were committed by military officials or police for political motives, and that following the victim's tentative escape the commanders had proceeded to arrest her, deny that they had previously detained her, and make any trace of her disappear. The Court also recalled how Mr. Blanco, as Chancellor of the Republic, was fully aware of the reports of kidnappings, detentions and disappearances of people in Uruguay. It further observed that the military's denial of involvement in the disappearance should not have been considered as undisputed, as the accused ...click to read more
Statute of Limitations | Women and Girls | Deprivation of Liberty
Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia
The State fully acknowledged international responsibility, which the Court accepted. The reparation measures included that the State officially name an educational centre in the city of Santa Cruz after the victim; and that it establish the crime of enforced disappearance of persons as an offence under its domestic law.
Deprivation of Liberty | Judicial Protection | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Reparations | Obligation to Criminalise
Oroza (Case of José Carlos Trujillo)
The Court found that the crime of illegal deprivation of liberty is a permanent crime which continues until the victim’s whereabouts are found, this being the point from which a statute of limitation can start to run. Taking into account that the victim was still disappeared, it held that the case was not out of time due to a statute of limitation. In light of the above, the Court found that the application of the statute of limitations violated the victims’ mother's right to legal certainty, and ordered the continuation of the proceedings against the accused.
Deprivation of Liberty | Relatives as Victims | Statute of Limitations
Cyprus v. Turkey
The Grand Chamber confirmed that a distinction could be made between the procedural obligations in Article 2 (the obligation to undertake an effective investigation) and the substantive obligation for which evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" was required. The Court also found that a violation of Article 5 could be established where, while it was not proven that the victims were in the custody of the state, the state failed to conduct an investigation into the fate of the missing persons when there was an arguable claim that the victims were within its custody at the time of their disappearance.
Duty to Investigate | Extraterritorial Jurisdiction | Burden of Proof | Admissibility | Deprivation of Liberty | Evidence | Systemic Practice | State/Non-State Agents