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
Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa and Others v. Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Commission found that an enforced disappearance gives rise to a violation of the right to life where a long time has elapsed since the incident and the whereabouts of the victim remain unknown. The Commission also found that the burial of the remains of disappeared victims in mass graves amount to a violation of the right to cultural development because the practice undermines African values and traditions requiring the construction of graves to allow relatives to mourn and perform cultural practices understood as essential to put to rest the souls of the deceased.
Economic/Social/Cultural Rights | Right to Know the Truth | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute | Reparations | Guarantees of Non-Repetition
Public Prosecutor v. Hissein Habré
The Chambers found that the victims were voluntarily put outside of the protection of the law, holding that even when the arrest of a person was legitimate this did not justify the failure to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty and the concealment of the person's fate and whereabouts. They found the accused responsible for the kidnapping of persons followed by their enforced disappearance - a crime against humanity.
Deprivation of Liberty | Judicial Protection | Refusal to Disclose Fate | Crimes Against Humanity
Yrusta v. Argentina
The Committee found that deprivation of liberty of a person without providing information about his fate constitutes a form of concealment of the fate and whereabouts of the concerned person. The placement of a person outside the protection of the law is the consequence of the concealment of the detained person’s whereabouts. Such acts amount to enforced disappearance.
Deprivation of Liberty | Judicial Protection | Refusal to Disclose Fate | Relatives as Victims | Admissibility
Nasr and Ghali v. Italy
The Court was satisfied that Italian authorities were aware of the fact that the victim was being subjected to extraordinary rendition by the United States secret services, and reaffirmed that a State is responsible for violations committed on its territory by agents of another State acting under its approval. The Court found a procedural violation of the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment with respect to the victim, due to the fact that the State secured impunity for those responsible by invoking the "state secrets" privilege. It also made a substantive finding of torture and inhuman treatment of the victim, ...click to read more
Relatives as Victims | State/Non-State Agents | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute | Extraterritorial Jurisdiction | Refugees and Migrants | Reparations | Burden of Proof | Deprivation of Liberty | Obligation to Prevent | Evidence
Plazas Vega
The Court held that, although at the time of the events the crime of enforced disappearance was not included in the domestic legislation of the country, it was considered as a crime against humanity by a number of international instruments, jus cogens and international human rights law. These were given priority over domestic law by the Constitution and applied to the case. The Court found that the accused, Colonel Luis Alfonso Plazas Vega, could not be held responsible for the disappearances. The Court found that he could not have been aware of the transfer of people to the interrogation and ...click to read more
Crimes Against Humanity | Evidence | Jus Cogens | Burden of Proof
Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala
The Court determined that in the context of violence against women known to the State, the response of the State authorities was insufficient given the possibility that the personal integrity and life of the victim were in danger. The Court considered that the State did not demonstrate that it had implemented the necessary measures under the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará. In particular, officials responsible for receiving reports of disappearances should have had the capacity and sensitivity to understand the seriousness of such reports in the context of violence against women; and the willingness and training ...click to read more
Guarantees of Non-Repetition | Obligation to Prevent | Systemic Practice | Right to Know the Truth | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate
Milan Mandić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Committee held that, although the acts of the Bosnian Territorial Defence Army were not directly attributable to the State, they were committed in the State's territory during a complex armed conflict in which multiple forces were involved. Holding that in such circumstances the State may face particular difficulties in investigating crimes committed on its territory, the Committee found the fact that the victim's remains had not yet been located and that the culprits had not yet been brought to justice not sufficient in itself to find a violation of the obligation to provide effective remedies. However, in light of ...click to read more
Relatives as Victims | Right to Know the Truth | State/Non-State Agents | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute
Lumbala v. Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Committee found a violation of the victim's right to liberty and security and of his right to be treated with humanity and dignity. The Committee also found an arbitrary and unlawful interference with the victim's privacy, home and family, due to the fact that his arrest was accompanied by acts of violence in the presence of his daughter; that after his escape his home remained under close surveillance and his wife was subjected to intimidation; and that he was forced to flee and to seek refugee status for him and his family. In their individual opinions, some members of the ...click to read more
Deprivation of Liberty | Judicial Protection | Juridical Personality | Systemic Practice | Refusal to Disclose Fate | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute
Mukhitdinov v. Russia
Reaffirming its position that individuals whose extradition was sought by the Uzbek authorities on charges of religiously or politically motivated crimes constituted a vulnerable group, the Court was satisfied that the enforcement of the extradition order and the victim's return to Uzbekistan exposed him to a real risk of ill-treatment. It was also satisfied that State authorities were aware before and after the applicants’ release that he faced a real risk of forcible transfer to the country where he could be subjected to ill-treatment, and found that these circumstances, coupled with the victim's background, would have required appropriate measures of ...click to read more
Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute | Interim/Urgent Measures | Extraterritorial Jurisdiction | Refugees and Migrants | Reparations | Obligation to Prevent | Deprivation of Liberty | Systemic Practice
Rosa Maria Serna and Others v. Colombia
The Committee was satisfied that the victim's disappearance was attributable to the State, in light of the fact that enforced disappearance was a widespread practice used by paramilitary groups in the relevant period with the complicity of the armed forces. The State had also encouraged the establishment of “self-defence” groups and provided them with training, weapons and logistical support. The Committee made a finding of inhuman treatment regarding the victims' families, as they experienced severe stress as a result of the disappearance of their loved ones and the uncertainty surrounding their fate and whereabouts. Finally, the Committee found a violation ...click to read more
Relatives as Victims | State/Non-State Agents | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute | Juridical Personality | Systemic Practice