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
Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico
The Court affirmed that the military authorities who detained Mr. Radilla Pacheco were responsible for his custody and for the protection of his rights. It recalled that bringing detainees before repressive official bodies, agents of the State, or private individuals who act with their acquiescence or tolerance and who practice torture and homicide represents, in itself, a breach of the duty to prevent violations of the rights to humane treatment and to life. This is so even if the acts of torture and or deprivation of life cannot be proven. The Court reiterated that the "historical truth" documented in the ...click to read more
Deprivation of Liberty | Judicial Protection | Juridical Personality | Effective Remedy
Gómez Virula et al. v. Guatemala
The Court found that there were no elements in the facts to establish that State agents were responsible for the disappearance and death of Mr. Gómez Virula. It also stated that it had not been demonstrated that the State knew or should have known that there was a situation of real and imminent risk against the trade unionists prior to the report of Mr. Gómez Virula's disappearance. Nonetheless, it did find Guatemala responsible for violating the right to judicial protection since the State failed to act with due diligence to investigate the disappearance even though it knew the victim was a ...click to read more
Deprivation of Liberty | Evidence | Judicial Protection
Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico
The Court reiterated that it is legitimate to rely upon circumstantial evidence, suggestions and presumptions in order to prove the elements of an enforced disappearance. The Court also reaffirmed that maintaining internal public order and safety should be primarily reserved for civil police forces, and that when the armed forces exceptionally intervene in security tasks, their participation must be: (a) Exceptional, justified, temporary and restricted to what is strictly necessary in the circumstances of the case; b) Subordinate and supplementary to the work of civil forces; c) Regulated through legal mechanisms and protocols on using force; and d) Supervised by competent, independent and technically ...click to read more
Relatives as Victims | Right to Know the Truth | Duty to Investigate | Obligation to Prevent
Padilla et al. v. Mexico
The Committee was satisfied that the victim was subjected to enforced disappearance, particularly in light of the background of similar human rights violations happening at the relevant time and place. The Committee found a violation of the victim's right to life, due to the fact that the State failed to take any measures to preserve his life when he was detained by the authorities. It also made a finding of inhuman treatment with respect to the victim due to the suffering, uncertainty and infringement of his physical and psychological integrity which resulted from the enforced disappearance. It also made such ...click to read more
Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute | Deprivation of Liberty | Burden of Proof | Evidence | Judicial Protection | Juridical Personality | Systemic Practice | Refusal to Disclose Fate | Relatives as Victims
Arrom Suhurt et al. v. Paraguay
The Court did not establish the international responsibility of the State as it considered that the evidence presented before it was insufficient to conclude that the victims were deprived of their liberty by State agents or with their acquiescence. On the duty to initiate an investigation ex officio, the Court found that this case did not fall within the context of a systemic and generalised practice of enforced disappearances. There was also no evidence to demonstrate that the alleged victims were in the hands of State agents before the alleged events occurred. The Court emphasised that the authorities had initiated ...click to read more
Deprivation of Liberty
Guiding principles for the search for disappeared persons
The Committee developed 16 guiding principles based on its accumulated expertise. The guiding principles aim to consolidate good practices in searching for disappeared persons. They identify mechanisms and procedures for carrying out states’ obligation to search for disappeared persons. The principles also reaffirm the important role that victims and their relatives play in the search for disappeared persons.
Children/Youth | Indigenous Peoples | Refugees and Migrants
Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia
The Court concluded that when conducting its investigation, the State did not act with due diligence to follow through on logical lines of inquiry. Furthermore, even though it should have known that the relatives of the victims were at risk, the State failed to provide or offer them protection. The Court found that this omission undermined the victims' participation in the investigative proceedings.
Relatives as Victims | State/Non-State Agents | Effective Remedy | Judicial Protection
Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia
The Court determined that the disappearance occurred from the moment the victim was taken from the prison and not from the very beginning of the detention, which had been formally and legally ordered by a judge. The Court recalled the particular duties States have regarding the protection of persons in the custody of State agents. It also recalled the obligation of States to provide an explanation in cases where the rights of those in custody are violated, such as through sustaining injuries. The Court considered that the lack of a convincing explanation, which would disprove any allegations regarding the responsibility ...click to read more
Right to Know the Truth | State/Non-State Agents | Deprivation of Liberty | Judicial Protection | Juridical Personality
Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru
The Court confirmed that the security force agents had provided support and acquiescence to the perpetrating paramilitary group in relation to the events in this case. The Court found that the guarantee of reasonable time in the investigations was violated in all cases due to unjustified delays. In addition, the State violated its duty to initiate ex officio investigations. Moreover, the Court found that the State was not diligent in the search for the whereabouts of the disappeared victims since it only made sporadic requests for information to different State institutions rather than a systematic investigation. In addition, the State ...click to read more
Right to Know the Truth | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute | Deprivation of Liberty | Judicial Protection | Systemic Practice | Relatives as Victims
Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru
The Court emphasised that the State was in the position of a guarantor, given that the last available information on Mr. Munárriz Escobar was that he was in the custody of the State. Therefore, the State had the burden of providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened to the victim and to refute the presumption of its responsibility. The Court highlighted that the authorities did not provide information regarding the fate of the victim after his detention, and concluded that the State did not carry out investigations or searches with due diligence or within a reasonable time.
Duty to Investigate | Burden of Proof | Obligation to Prevent | Deprivation of Liberty | Refusal to Disclose Fate | Relatives as Victims | Effective Remedy