A 'gruesome' form of rights violations: enforced or involuntary disappearances.

Enforced or involuntary disappearances "constitute the most comprehensive denial of human rights in our time, bringing boundless agony to the victims, ruinous consequences to the families ... and moral havoc to the societies in which they occur", stated a report (E/CN.4/1985/15) issued by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.

"It is indeed a gruesome form of human rights violation that warrants the continued attention of the international community and in particular that of the Commission on Human Rights", added the report, which was reviewed by the Commission on Human Rights during its recent session at Geneva.

The report--the fifth since the Group's inception--recalled that in many cases, disappearances had followed internal disturbances in the countries concerned as the Governments and other forces involved had deliberately employed the "technique of disappearances" as a means of solving their political problems. Although the phenomenon had ceased in some countries, it had appeared in others and still remained a constant feature of the overall human rights situation in the world.

Recommendations

The Group recommended that the Commission on Human Rights: appeal to Governments of countries where the phenomenon of enforced or involuntary disappearances had reached "alarming proportions" to consider setting up "national organs" to investigate reports of missing persons; appeal to Governments to respond to requests from the Group for information on the measures they had taken to investigate disappearances in pursuance of Assembly resolution 33/173; consider drafting an international instrument on enforced or involuntary disappearances; and consider renewing the Group's mandate for two years.

The report said the Group had received some 2,900 reports on enforced or involuntary disappearances in 1984. At the end of that year, some 1,800 cases containing sufficient information for "meaningful investigations" had been transmitted to "the various Governments concerned".

Also during 1984, the Group said, it had received numerous reports of persons who had been arrested or abducted and had been missing for one, two or three weeks or even months, and then had reappeared one day in a public place. According to the relatives reporting those cases, no explanation had been given by the authorities of the reasons for the arrest or abduction or the reappearance of their family members. Such cases had been normally submitted to the Group after the persons concerned had reappeared and, given the terms of its mandate, the Group had taken no action. The Group was, however, concerned that that type of disappearance seemed to have increased during the period under review. Although subsequently such persons had reappeared, the practice as such and the total lack of legal guarantees for the victims could "by no means be condoned". The Group had also taken note of a number of cases of persons who had been reported to have disappeared and had been found dead after some weeks or months.

The Group said it had transmitted reports of more than 20 cases of enforced or involuntary disappearances to each of 14 Governments: Argentina, Bolivia, Cyprus, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines and Uruguay.

Reports concerning fewer than 20 cases each were transmitted to the Governments of Angola, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Guinea, Haiti, Mexico, Morocco, Sri Lanka, the Syrian Arab Republic and Uganda. During the period October to December 1984 the Group also transmitted reports to the Governments of Chad, Dominican Republic, Iraq and Togo, each involving one reported disappearance.

The report also contained information concerning enforced or involuntary disappearances in South Africa and Namibia.

The report recalled that at its first session in 1980, the Group had authorized its Chairman to transmit any urgent reports of enforced or involuntary disappearances received between the Group's sessions immediately by means of a cable to the Government of the countru concerned. That "urgent action procedure" had proved effective in many cases. Since its creation, the Group had transmitted to the Governments concerned 1,121 cases under the urgent action procedure, and it had been possible to clarify 216 of those cases--"a considerably higher percentage than the clarifications obtained on transmissions under the ordinary procedure". In many instances several cases had been transmitted in a single cable.

The members of the Group were Ivan Tosevski (Yugoslavia), Chairman/Rapporteur; Toine van Dongen (Netherlands); Jonas K.D. Foli (Ghana); Agha Hilaly (Pakistan); and Luis A. Varela Quiros (Costa Rica).

Governments set pattern

Once the technique was introduced in certain political situations, it usually spread beyond the Government agencies and tended to become a practice followed by other participants in national political life, the report observed. "It is therefore evident that Governments are primarily responsible not only for their own policies, but also for the introduction of the practice within society as a whole."

The Group said "It cannot be claimed that a major breakthrough has been achieved in the effort to eradicate the occurrence of enforced disappearances." In countries where the problem had been rampant for many years, the trend had "by no means been reversed". In countries where the phenomemon was almost exclusively connected with a specific political structure of the past, "hardly any noticeable" progress had been made in clarifying outstanding cases. In others, where disappearances were still considered "an incipient phenomemon" at the time when the Group's mandate was extended last year, the situation had in the meantime reached "alarming proportions".

In some countries, the report stated, where changed of Government had led to a more co-operative attitude towards the Group, few "concrete achievements" had been recorded despite "genuine efforts" to investigate reported cases. From the Group's point of view those facts were all the more disheartening as they provided little comfort to the relatives of missing persons--an important element of the Group's work.

The Group stressed that the co-operation of Governments remained vital for the clarification of most of the cases brought to its attention. The core of its activities, the Group pointed out, consisted in the "formal transmission" of well-documented cases to the Governments in question. Even though the Group insisted on a thorough investigation in each case and asked to be informed of its results, basically it was only the public authorities in the respective countries who could provide a conclusive answer to requests for information on persons who had disappeared.

The Group say the holding of regular sessions outside Geneva or New York as an "important variation" in its methods of work. Its session in San Jose, Costa Rica, from 3 to 11 October 1984 had made that clear. It was generally felt that the Group's presence there had bridged the distance between those who suffered and what they themselves often perceived as "some far-off intangible" United Nations organ. In addition, because of reduced travelling distances, more organizations representing relatives were able to come and testify, thus adding to the information available to the Group. Furthermore, regional publicity for such sessions not only enhanced public awareness of the role of the United Nations with regard to disappearances, it also drew the attention of government authorities to the problem.

The Group also considered missions or visits an "efficient tool on its workshop". Such visits significantly improved the quality and quantity of information and greatly enhanced the general understanding the Group must have of the different country situations. Such visits had the added advantage of facilitating direct contacts with all levels of Government, and enabled the Group to provide moral encouragement to relatives or friends of missing persons.

Argentive statement

The report said that during the Group's San Jose session, a representative of the Argentine Government had stated that the creation of the National Commission was one of the first steps taken by the Government to clarify the problem of disappearances. Other measures were being taken to prevent the recurrence of the phenomenon, and proceedings had been initiated before a civilian court against members of the previous military governments.

Among other measures, the present Government had declared unconstitutional the military government's abolition of penal measures for all criminal acts committed to combat terrorism or subversion during the period from 25 May 1973 to 14 June 1982. It had also cancelled all sentences pronounced against civilians by military courts.

The report observed that, in placing the phenomenon of disappearances in the context of the late 1970s in Argentina, the representative had explained that the doctrine of national security had provided an ideological justification for the practice of State terrorism in Argentina. The armed forces had thus become an occupying army "in their own country". The repression, and in particular the practice of disappearances, had been the consequence of a political decision. The work of the present Government was aimed at eradicating abuse of the doctrine of national security and Argentina had proposed to the Economic and Social Council in May 1984 that it should be condemned at the international level.