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 Article 3 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
The General Comment elaborates on the obligation of states to take appropriate measures to prevent and terminate acts of enforced disappearances. states are required to take all necessary measures within their power and jurisdiction to prevent and terminate disappearances and this obligation is not limited to the example measures set out in Article 3. The main criteria for determining whether measures are suitable is that they are effective in preventing and terminating acts of enforced disappearances.
Guarantees Against Impunity | Obligation to Criminalise | Obligation to Prevent
General Comment on Article 4 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
The General Comment elaborates on state's obligation to criminalise acts of enforced disappearances as separate offences under domestic law. In defining enforced disappearance as a criminal offence, states are required to follow three basic elements: deprivation of liberty against the will of the person, direct or indirect involvement of government officials, and refusal to disclose the fate of the person. The penalties for enforced disappearance shall consider the serious nature of enforced disappearance. The provisions of Article 4 - on mitigating circumstances - must be read in conjunction with Article 18.
Obligation to Criminalise
Bautista de Arellana v. Colombia
The Committee found that purely disciplinary and administrative remedies cannot be deemed to constitute adequate and effective remedies. The Committee stressed that the state party is under an obligation to provide the victim’s family with an appropriate and enforceable remedy.
Punishment | Admissibility | Effective Remedy | Duty to Prosecute
Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia
The Court found that the State conducted a lengthy judicial investigation to find and punish those responsible for the detention and disappearance of the victims, although the investigation was not without shortcomings. Furthermore, The Court found that to comply with the Convention, it is not enough for the State to undertake an investigation to identify and sanction the guilty parties, but it is also necessary to offer reparation to the injured party, which did not happen in this case.
Deprivation of Liberty | Judicial Protection | Relatives as Victims | Effective Remedy | Reparations
Mónaco de Gallicchio v. Argentina
The Committee found that the abduction of the victim, falsification of her birth certificate and her adoption entailed numerous acts of arbitrary and unlawful interference with their privacy and family life. The Committee noted that these acts took place prior to the Convention coming into force in the respective state and it was not in a position ratione temporis to decide in that respect. The Committee could, however, make a finding if the continuing effects were found to constitute violations of the Covenant. As to the visiting rights initially granted to the adopter, the Committee observed that a number of ...click to read more
Relatives as Victims | Effective Remedy | Admissibility | Children/Youth
Mojica v. Dominican Republic
The Committee could not establish whether the victim was actually detained and threatened by military authorities. However, as the State did not provide any evidence against the allegations, the Committee found a violation of the victim's right to liberty and security as well as of his right to life. It argued that the State failed in its duty to protect everyone in its jurisdiction against threats made by authorities, especially in light of the allegations that the victim had been previously threatened by the military. The Committee further held that cases of disappearance are inseparably linked to inhuman treatment, adding ...click to read more
Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Admissibility | Guarantees of Non-Repetition
El-Megreisi v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
The Committee found that being subjected to prolonged incommunicado detention in an unknown location amounted to a form of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment. The Committee also held that though the detention had begun before the Optional Protocol entered into force for the state party, it could consider the communication as the events had continued afterward.
Admissibility | Statute of Limitations | Effective Remedy
Godínez Cruz v. Honduras
The Court noted that the practice of enforced disappearances signifies a radical breach of the American Convention, in that it implies the crass abandonment of the values that emanate from human dignity and of the principles that most profoundly underpin the Inter-American System and the Convention itself. The Court also found that the practice of disappearances creates a climate incompatible with the guarantee of human rights under the Convention, as the practice relaxes, or contravenes, the minimum standards of conduct which should govern security forces. The practice thus allows security forces to violate rights with impunity. The Court recalled that under ...click to read more
Deprivation of Liberty | Judicial Protection
Arévalo Pérez v. Colombia
The Committee found that the victims’ family received indications that their sons had been arrested by state agents and there was no indication that the disappearance was caused by persons other than Government officials. For these reasons, it found the right to life and the right to liberty and security of the person were not protected by the state.
Evidence | Duty to Investigate
Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras
On the question of the State's failure to investigate the case, the Court found that there was insufficient evidence to hold the Honduran Government responsible for the disappearances, due to a certificate produced, showing that the disappeared had entered the territory of Guatemala. Nonetheless, the Court noted that the Honduran State agencies had acted in a contradictory manner, including by providing different responses to the question of whether the victims had entered the territory of Honduras.
Duty to Investigate | Deprivation of Liberty | Evidence | Judicial Protection