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
Jit Man Basnet and Top Bahadur Basnet v. Nepal
Taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, the Committee made a finding of inhuman treatment with respect to the victim's cousin due to the fact that during the period of the disappearance he took over the responsibility as head of the victim's family, that he and the victim had a very close relationship since they grew up living in the same house, and that he addressed himself to several authorities in order to establish the victim's whereabouts. The Committee also found a violation of the victim's right to liberty and security, as well as a violation of his ...click to read more
Juridical Personality | Refusal to Disclose Fate | Relatives as Victims | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute | Deprivation of Liberty | Judicial Protection
Ram Kumar Bhandari v. Nepal
The Committee held that the State did not sufficiently explain the specific circumstances of the victim's detention and alleged death, finding a violation of the duty to protect his life. The Committee also made a finding of inhuman treatment with respect to the victim, due to the fact that he was subjected to acts of torture and incommunicado detention. It also made this finding with respect to his family, in light of the fact that they had not received an adequate explanation of the circumstances of his alleged death, nor did they receive his remains. The Committee held that the ...click to read more
Judicial Protection | Refusal to Disclose Fate | Relatives as Victims | Right to Know the Truth | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Reparations | Deprivation of Liberty
Tija Hero, Ermina Hero, Armin Hero v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Committee recognized the difficulties that a State may face in investigating crimes that may have been committed on its territory by the hostile forces of a foreign State. It thus held that the fact that the fate or whereabouts of the missing have not been clarified and that the culprits have not been brought to justice is not sufficient in itself to find a breach of Article 2(3). However, the Committee found a violation of the obligation to provide an effective remedy as a result of the State's failure to take any steps to pursue an investigation, and the ...click to read more
Reparations | Obligation to Prevent | Deprivation of Liberty | Relatives as Victims | Right to Know the Truth | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute
Emina Kožljak and Sinan Kožljak v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Committee recalled that the term “enforced disappearance” may include to disappearances initiated by forces independent of or hostile to a State, and holding that in such a case the State may face particular difficulties in investigating crimes that may have been committed on its territory. The Committee thus found that the fact that the victim's fate had not yet been clarified and the culprits had not yet been brought to justice was not sufficient in itself to find a violation of the obligation to investigate allegations of enforced disappearances. However, in light of the fact that the authorities did ...click to read more
Systemic Practice | Relatives as Victims | State/Non-State Agents | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Duty to Prosecute
Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador
The State of El Salvador acknowledged its international responsibility, which included full acceptance of the facts. The Court stated that it was the State's responsibility to protect the civilian population in the armed conflict and especially children, who are in a situation of greater vulnerability and at risk of seeing their rights affected. In this case, state agents used state structures and facilities to perpetrate the enforced disappearance of the children. The agents removed them from their homes and held them illegally, violating their right to remain with their nuclear family. The Court found that this impacted their right to ...click to read more
Systemic Practice | Right to Know the Truth | Obligation to Prevent | Children/Youth | Deprivation of Liberty | Juridical Personality
Prosecutor v. Nuon and Khieu
The Chamber held that "other inhumane acts" had been established as a crime against humanity under customary international law before the events took place. It also found that the conduct of enforced disappearance was of sufficient gravity to amount to "other inhumane act" as a crime against humanity under the Laws on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. The Chamber highlighted that moving populations in this case was characterised by the deprivation of the individuals’ liberty by State agents. This was because Khmer Rouge soldiers and officials ordered people to depart, transported them under ...click to read more
Evidence | Systemic Practice | Refusal to Disclose Fate | Relatives as Victims | Crimes Against Humanity | Deprivation of Liberty
Durić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Committee held that the term “enforced disappearance” may be used in an extended sense, referring to disappearances initiated by forces independent of, or hostile to, a State party, and not only in relation to disappearances attributable to a State party, comparing the different definitions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. In light of the fact that the State did not provide information as to the status of the investigation into the victim's disappearance and did not comply with the Constitutional Court's decision, the ...click to read more
Duty to Prosecute | Relatives as Victims | Right to Know the Truth | State/Non-State Agents | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate
Fazlic and Others v. Bosnia (Admissibility)
The Court found that, taking into account the special circumstances prevailing in Bosnia and Herzegovina up until 2005 and the large number of war crimes cases still pending before local courts, the State did not infringe the minimum standard requiring the authorities to conduct investigations into claims that a person who was last seen in their custody subsequently disappeared in a life-threatening context. In particular, the Court referred to the fact that a number of persons were convicted for the crimes committed in the relevant area at the time of the events, and emphasised that the procedural obligation under Article ...click to read more
Relatives as Victims | Duty to Investigate | Admissibility
Veliz Franco v. Guatemala
The Court held that the duty to guarantee human rights takes on special significance concerning girls, giving rise to a duty on the part of the State to act with strict diligence to fulfil that obligation. The Court determined that the State knew or should have known that the reported disappearance was part of increasing homicidal violence against women; as such, its failure to carry out search actions amounted to a breach of the State's duty to prevent rights violations of girls. The Court established that the authorities failed to collect relevant evidence to establish sexual violence or collected it ...click to read more
Right to Know the Truth | Duty to Investigate | Reparations | Obligation to Prevent | Children/Youth | Women and Girls | Evidence
Cyprus v. Turkey (Just Satisfaction)
The Court found the claim admissible and reiterated that just satisfaction in principle applies to inter-State cases but needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. It held that since it is the individual, and not the State, who is directly or indirectly harmed by a violation of the Convention, just satisfaction should be awarded for the benefit of individual victims even in inter-State cases. The Court awarded just satisfaction to the applicant State in light of the fact that it had submitted claims in respect of sufficiently precise and objectively identifiable groups of victims, who undoubtedly suffered protracted feelings ...click to read more
Relatives as Victims | Reparations | Admissibility