Submitted by crinadmin on
[GENEVA, 27 June 2006] - At 11:45, Ambassador Bernard KESSEDJIAN, chair and rapporteur of the Working Group to elaborate a draft legally binding normative instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance, took the floor to present the draft Convention on Forced Disappearance and submit it to the Council for approval. Ambassador Kessedjian explained that his report presented a picture of the status of negotiations on the draft Convention now being submitted to the Council for approval. The overall outcome was balanced, he said, taking into account the most important questions debated, although these often gave rise to arduous negotiations. Mr Kessedjian reminded the Council that the starting point for the Convention was the Declaration A/RES/47/133 adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1992, as well as the work of the Sub-Commission on Human Rights aknd the report by Manfred Novak. Mr Kessedjan proceeded to present the contents of the draft Convention: the text, he said, establishes the absolute prohibition of enforced disappearances (with no exception). It presents it as a crime and even a crime against humanity when practiced on a massive scale, as defined in international law. The greatest innovation of the text lies in provisions relating to issues of detention, through a ban on secret prisons. Indeed, enforced disappearance feeds on gaps in laws, and legal detention can easily degenerate if not properly regulated. The right of victims is also given particular attention in the draft text, with particular provisions for families and in particular children of the disappeared. Indeed, Ambassador Kessedjan stressed that not only families but entire communities can be disrupted after a disappearance. Finally, in terms of the rights of victims, he stressed the relevance of the right to know the truth - essential in terms of punishment and reparation. Ambassador Kessedjan went on to say that the draft Convention advances a detailed definition of the concept of "forced disappearance". Enforced disappearance is defined as a State crime. Yet State delegations pointed out that non-State groups were also responsible for disappearances although they sometimes act in cooperation with a State, eg. terrrorist groups, so a sepcific provision was drafted on this issue, without exonerating States of their responsibility to prevent disappearances and provide reparation for victims. The draft Convention also sets out practical provisions on questions such as the establishment of a new Treaty Body (a Committee in charge of monitorin the implementation of the Convention), jurisprudence, applicable penalties, training of judges, etc... Ambassador Bernard Kessedjan finally highlighted that consensus, but not unanimity, had been achieved within the Working Group, as several countries showed disagreement on some issues, but to him it was admirable that those countries decided not to oppose the draft text anyway. Ambassador Kessedjan's statement was followed by a general round of applause, and the Council president, Ambassador Alfonso de Alba thanked him for his impressive work on completing the draft Convention and saluted his personal commitment to the cause. Discussion The following Council member States then took the floor to comment on the draft Convention: Austria/EU, Cuba, Urugay, Mexico, ..., Indonesia, France, Argentina, Morocco, Brazil/GRULAC, Brazil, Russian Federation, Japan, ..., Pakistan, China, Azerbaijan, Algeria, Senegal, Bangladesh, and Cameroon. All permanent representatives expressed their gratitude to and esteem for Ambassador Kessedjan for his work and urged the Council to endorse the draft text of the Convention in order to submit it to the General Assembly for adoption at its next session. Some countries (Urugay, Brazil for GRULAC) showed their particularly concern about adequate penal sanctions where children are victims of disappearances or when their parents are disappeared or when they are born while their mother is disappeared. Others (Russia, Algeria) expressed their satisfaction that the draft text concerned non-State actors and terrorist groups as well as States. A statement by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) followed. The ICRC supports efforts to adopt the draft and stressed that forced disappearances constituted a denial of the right to family life. Once a person disappears, then it is often too late, and so preventive action must also take place. Non-State member followed with statements from Costa Rica, Spain?, Chile, Belgium, the US and Greece. Among NGO statements, the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights stressed the right of children not to be disappeared and linked article 25 of the draft Convention on Forced Disappearance (on the right of children) to article 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the right to an identity and the duty of States to"preserve the child's identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference". Chair Kessedjan then took the floor again. He thanked speakers for the high quality of the discussion and welcomed the general consensus on the adoption of the draft text for the Convention. He ended the discussion by stressing that the Convention was the fruit of a "magnificient collaborative work". The meeting was adjourned at 2pm and will resume at 2:30pm. Further information Article 25 of the draft Convention (on children) 1. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to prevent and punish under its criminal law: (a) The wrongful removal of children who are subjected to enforced disappearance, children whose father, mother or legal guardian is subjected to enforced disappearance or children born during the captivity of a mother subjected to enforced disappearance; (b) The falsification, concealment or destruction of documents attesting to the true identity of the children referred to in subparagraph (a). 2. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to search for and identify the children referred to in paragraph 1 (a) and to return them to their families of origin, in accordance with legal procedures and applicable international agreements. 3. States Parties shall assist one another in searching for, identifying and locating the children referred to in paragraph 1 (a). 4. Given the need to protect the best interests of the children referred to in paragraph 1 (a) and their right to preserve, or to have re-established, their identity, including their nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law, States Parties which recognize a system of adoption or other form of placement of children shall have legal procedures in place to review the adoption or placement procedure, and, where appropriate, to annul any adoption or placement of children that stemmed from an enforced disappearance. 5. In all cases, and in particular in all matters relating to this article, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration, and a child who is capable of forming his or her own views shall have the right to express those views freely, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.