|
IX. STATE HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORING BODIES: WATCHDOGS OR MERE MAILBOXES?
Since families first started approaching the authorities with reports of "disappeared" relatives in 1993, officials have pointed to the semi-official ONDH as a key point of contact. They also frequently referred international organizations to the ONDH when they made inquiries about the "disappeared." The ONDH was established by presidential decree 92-77 of February 22, 1992, shortly after the army-backed decision to halt legislative elections. The ONDH was state-funded and reported to the president, but was to be "an independent institution with administrative and financial autonomy," according to that decree. In 2001 President Bouteflika replaced the ONDH with a new institution, the National Consultative Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (CNCPPDH). By the time of its demise, the ONDH and its president, Mohamed Kamel Rezzag, had long since earned a reputation for systematically minimizing governmental abuses, denouncing international human rights organizations when they issued critical reports on Algeria, and providing no useful information to the families of the "disappeared." Despite its cautious tone, the ONDH's public allusions to complaints received from families reflect the mounting contemporary evidence that wide scale "disappearances" were being carried at a time when the government would say nothing about the issue. Without accusing the state of "disappearances" per se, the ONDH acknowledged as early as 1994 that it was receiving hundreds of complaints annually from relatives of "disappeared" persons - four years before state officials acknowledged the problem. While it reported the barrage of "disappearance" complaints it was receiving, the ONDH could do little about them. It merely functioned as an intermediary for correspondence between the families and the authorities. "[O]ur institution is only a link between the families of the "disappeared" and the institutions of the state," Rezzag Bara explained. "ONDH does not have the power to compel people's cooperation in order to settle this problem."129 He told a Human Rights Watch delegation on May 22, 2000, "The ONDH has no powers of investigation. For a long time, when we started, the authorities weren't answering us. They started to work with us only in 1997." In an interview published on October 24, 1999, Rezzag Bara said, "As soon as the ONDH receives a request to locate a missing person, we open a file to document the case .... We then submit the case to the police and the judicial authorities so that investigations can get under way. As soon as we receive a reply from the authorities we send it on to the missing person's family."130 The ONDH did not seek to interview witnesses other than the complainants themselves. Its action, Rezzag Bara said at another point, was limited to "inquiring of the security services whether they had not, in the framework of their investigations and measures against terrorism, detained or arrested persons who are now being sought by their families."131 Since no Algerian security agency ever admitted to responsibility for a case of disappearance, the ONDH, dependent on those agencies for its information, never identified state agents as responsible in a single case of "disappearance." In interviews with Algerian and foreign media, the president of the ONDH acknowledged receipt of more than 4,000 complaints from families convinced that the abductors of their relatives were state agents. He told a delegation from Human Rights Watch on May 22, 2000, that the ONDH had logged 4,146 cases to date, of which 2,072 had received answers. Of these cases, 308 had been "clarified" by a finding that the missing person had been found in prison, had been killed in a clash with the security forces, or had been killed by "terrorists." In interviews, Rezzag Bara repeatedly suggested that causes other than security-force abductions accounted for the bulk of supposed "disappearance" cases. According to him, many of the "disappeared" had in fact fled the country or joined "terrorist" groups fighting the government, after which some were later killed in internal purges or inter-group battles. Asked about "disappearances" attributable to the security forces, Rezzag Bara responded in April 1997, "We're talking about a few cases here and there.132 "Abductions that are attributable to the security forces are the exception," he told Le Monde the same year.133 When asked, three years later by La Libre Algérie, "are you sure that no `disappearance' case is due to the security forces?" he replied evasively, "Certain investigations are still going on."134 The ONDH discredited itself by refusing ever to release a nominative list of the "disappeared" persons it was investigating. Over the years it had provided only statistical breakdowns of the cases it had handled. A nominative list, with the status of each case, would have enabled interested parties to verify the information collected and supplement or correct it. Rezzag Bara turned down a request to provide such a list when he met with Human Rights Watch representatives on May 22 and 27, 2000. The reason often given for such a refusal was the need to respect the privacy of the plaintiffs. But the number of families that would have requested confidentiality of their submissions would likely have been small since thousands of them had already volunteered the same information about their missing relatives to NGOs. Rezzag Bara insisted on having it both ways, stressing on the one hand the limited means available to the ONDH to address "disappearances" and on the other claiming that the ONDH was tackling the issue in a serious fashion. In 2000 he stated, "Algeria has the intention, the will and the necessary administrative and legal mechanisms to examine this question."135 And in 2001 he declared that the ONDH had "proved our capacity to give credible responses to questions about the disappearances, thereby providing logistical support for national reconciliation."136 The written replies provided by the ONDH to families who lodged missing-person complaints were anything but credible. Many families who filed such complaints waited more than one year for a response; others got no response at all after years of waiting. In October 1999 Rezzag Bara stated that two-thirds of the 4,038 families who reported someone missing to the ONDH had received a reply. According to him, the replies sent by the security agencies and passed on by the ONDH classify missing persons in different ways: "They come under the headings of non-arrested, abducted by armed group, wanted terrorist, deceased, imprisoned."137 The ONDH's written replies to families, with few exceptions, were form letters that contained, at the bottom, one or two sentences of information that the ONDH said it had received from the security services. That information, in the overwhelming majority of cases, was either that the person was presently being sought by the security services, that he or she had been kidnapped by an unidentified armed group, or that the security services had not taken the person into custody and had no information about the person's whereabouts. Such conclusions conflicted in countless cases with evidence in the families' possession, notably the testimony of those who witnessed the arrest or saw the person in custody. At times, the ONDH seemed to lack even publicly available information. In response to a complaint about the "disappearance" of Mahmoud Amoura on April 24, 1995, the ONDH replied in letter 443/96, dated June 17, 1996, that it was still awaiting responses from the security services about Amoura's whereabouts. In fact, Amoura had been brought before a state prosecutor ten months earlier, four months after he had been taken into detention, according to human rights lawyer Mahmoud Khelili.138 It is illuminating to trace the ONDH's presentation of the phenomenon of "disappearances" through its annual reports. In its first annual report, covering part of 1992 and 1993, a period when "disappearances" numbered in the scores but not yet in the hundreds or thousands, the ONDH provided a single bland reference without offering, as it did in subsequent editions, statistics on the number of complaints received or on the answers it had provided to the families. The report states simply that it uses the term "disappearances" to refer to "cases where the ONDH is approached by families of persons who were arrested or detained by the security services and whose place of detention has not been located due to their never having been formally charged." The next edition, covering the years 1994 and 1995, notes that the ONDH received 373 complaints in 1994 on behalf of "disappeared" persons and 567 complaints in 1995. It states that some individuals whose relatives filed a "disappearance" complaint "had in reality disappeared in order to join the armed groups." The report says the term "disappearance" also covers cases of abductions carried out by "terrorist groups." The report, however, is silent on the responsibility of state agents other than to urge that the anti-terrorist struggle be carried out in conformity with the rule of law and under judicial authority. The report for 1996 states that the ONDH received 988 "disappearance" complaints during the year, 491 of them from people who came personally to the office. There follows various statistical breakdowns: the year when the "disappearances" that were reported during 1996 actually took place (mostly during 1994 and 1995), the ages and professions of the victims, the place where the arrest took place, and the party identified by the plaintiffs as having carried out the arrest: police: 338, gendarmerie: 168, army: 248, unidentified security forces: 134. The report lists caveats for these statistics. It states that when the family locates a relative who had previously been reported as "disappeared," they do not necessarily inform the ONDH. It also states that alternative scenarios may explain some of the cases where the security forces stand accused: a "terrorist" group carrying out an abduction could be mistaken for the security forces; or a person reported as "disappeared" could have vanished of his own free will to join an armed group. In these cases, the family may genuinely believe their relative has been taken into custody or they may know the truth but report a "disappearance" to cover the person's tracks and protect themselves from suspicion of complicity. Alternatively, the person may have emigrated abroad without telling the family. The 1996 report concludes the section on "disappearances" with a plea to the government to obey domestic and international law governing procedures for arresting, holding and charging individuals. The ONDH's report for 1997 states it received 706 "disappearance" complaints during the year. It provides again a breakdown by wilaya, date, place where "disappearance" occurred (home, workplace, street, etc.), profession, and reported perpetrators (police and communal guards: 237, gendarmes: 76, army: 232, unidentified: 71, no information: 60). The report for 1997 also provides, for the first time, a breakdown of the 514 responses the ONDH says it received from the security services and transmitted to the families: 366 of the persons reported missing had never been detained, 62 were "wanted" by the security services, 23 were in custody, 23 had been detained and then released, 12 were believed dead, 3 had "disappeared," 16 had been kidnapped by unidentified groups, and 9 cases related to family problems. The chapter concludes, as did the 1996 report, by advancing alternative explanations for "disappearances" while urging the state to respect domestic and international law governing arrest and detention procedures. The 1998 report follows the same format. But in a gesture toward greater openness, the report states that sixty-one families "rejected as unfounded the responses they received regarding the fate of their relatives, and continue to maintain...that their relatives were in fact abducted by the security forces." In a later interview, Rezzag Bara stated that when families rejected the initial replies and provided new evidence or witnesses, "we reopen the file and examine the case in greater depth."139 However, there is no evidence that when it "reopened" a case it did anything more than correspond with security agencies, or that it ever produced results for the families. Throughout the years, the ONDH never publicly invited the security services to explain how they reached the conclusions they delivered via the ONDH, or to explain the contradictions between the families' testimonies and the state's denials of responsibility. In cases where the security services reported someone as "wanted" or deceased, the ONDH simply relayed that information to the family, which in many cases responded that it was hearing for the very first time that their missing relative was dead or wanted. Asked about these reports, Justice Ministry officials told Human Rights Watch in a meeting on May 23, 2000, that delayed notification of kin concerning a death often occurs after a member of an armed group is killed in a clash with the security forces and comrades remove his body from the scene. Officials are then only able to confirm the person's death much later, often when this information emerges from the interrogation of a captured or surrendering member of an armed group.140 This may explain delays in identifications, but it does not explain why the family was never contacted by the appropriate government agency about the reported death in an effort to verify the information. The CNCPPDH Replaces the ONDH
On October 9, 2001, at the inaugural ceremony of the CNCPPDH, President Bouteflika said:
In December 2001 El-Watan reported that President Bouteflika had charged the president of CNCPPDH with "settling" the problem of the "disappeared." The same article stated that Ksentini received the families of the "disappeared" and assured them of the will of the president to find a solution to this problem.144 Ksentini promised, "We must take action to ensure that these things never recur."145 Ksentini conceded that the commission lacked tools other than his own public advocacy to compel the truth. He told Human Rights Watch that when presented by a report of a "disappearance," the CNCPPDH had no more resources or powers to investigate or compel answers than its predecessor, the ONDH. It too was simply a pass-along for correspondence between the families and state agencies. The main difference between the two commissions was the candor of the CNCPPDH's president. Ksentini told the online journal Algeria-Interface:
Ksentini at the same time denied that his calls for compensation and social assistance to the families of the "disappeared" were an attempt to deflect demands for information on their fate.147 He characterized it instead as a compassionate response to the material needs of some families that should not replace the search for the "disappeared." "We shall tell the truth and the complete truth whatever it turns out to be on this issue," he vowed.148 Acknowledging that some security forces had an interest in impeding the search for answers, Ksentini said, "There are doors that must be broken down and locks that must be forced open."149 In an interview two weeks later, Ksentini vowed once again, "We will tell the truth and the whole truth, whatever that truth may be about ["disappearances"].150 In an interview with Human Rights Watch on November 6, 2002, Ksentini said that the commission's goal with the "disappeared" was "to search for the truth, discover the truth, and say the truth." As of January 2003 the CNCPPDH had yet to produce concrete results for any families. In its written correspondence, the CNCPPDH's terse and formulaic letters were identical to the ONDH's, other than a change of letterhead and the signature on the bottom. For example, in a letter sent in September 2001, the commission informed the family of Mohamed Meslem, who was abducted by soldiers on October 19, 1996, according to the family: "After the effort undertaken by our commission and based on the information we have received from the security services, it appears that [Meslem] is being sought by these services." No further information is given. In March 2003, the CNCCPDH would formally present the president of the republic its reflections and proposals on "disappearances," Ksentini has said. 129 Nabila R., "Aveu d'impuissance" Le Matin, August 27, 1998. 130 Baya Gacemi, "Interview with Kamel Rezzag Bara," Algeria Interface, October 24, 1999 [online], http://www.algeria-interface.com/new/article.php?article_id=57 (retrieved February 14, 2003). 131 ONDH, Rapport annuel, 1997, p. 27. 132 International Federation for Human Rights, "La Levée du voile : l'Algérie de l'extrajudiciaire et de la manipulation," La Lettre de la FIDH, No. 244 (June 1997), p. 15. 133 Hacène Terro, "On emmène ton fils pour quelque temps," Le Monde, June 13, 1997. 134 Interviewed by Kamel Yassar and Mohamed Mehdi in Libre Algérie, February 28, 2000. 135 "M. Rezzag Bara: `L'ONDH, le premier à avoir soulevé la question des disparus,'" El-Moudjahid, December 11, 2000. 136 "Je n'ai jamais agi sur injonction," Le Jeune Indépendant, April 14, 2001. 137 Baya Gacemi, Interview with Rezzag Bara, Algeria Interface. 138 This case is featured among torture cases presented by Khelili on the Algeria Watch website, http://www.algeria-watch.org/mrv/mrvtort/khelili1.htm (retrieved February 17, 2003). 139 Baya Gacemi, "Interview with Rezzag Bara," Algeria Interface. 140 An article in an Algerian daily that aimed to discredit reports of state-sponsored "disappearances" reported that, according to a list provided by the Islamic Salvation Army (Armée Islamique du Salut, AIS) when it agreed to lay down its arms, thirteen persons who had been listed as "disappeared" were in fact among the AIS fighters killed by the security forces between 1993 and 1996. The article did not support its claim by naming any of the thirteen killed fighters. Nacer Belhadjoudja, "La vérité sur des disparus," Liberté, June 1, 2000. 141 Presidential decree 01-71 of March 25, 2001 and published in the Journal Officiel of March 28, 2001 dissolved the ONDH and established the CNCPPDH (online at www.joradp.dz). The figure of 4,670 inherited files is the one that Ksentini provided journalists. See, e.g., "Me. Farouk Ksentini: `Il faut que la vérité sur les disparus soit révélée,'" Algeria Interface, June 28, 2002 [online], http://www.algeria-interface.com/new/article.php?article_id=570 (retrieved February 19, 2003). 142 Presidential decree 01/71, March 25, 2001. 143 President Bouteflika, speech, online at http://www.elmouradia.dz/francais/president/recherche/President%20rech.htm (retrieved February 17, 2003). 144 Fayçal Metaoui, "Un avocat chargé du dossier des disparus," El-Watan, December 11, 2001. 145 "On torture encore en Algérie," El-Watan, February 28, 2002. 146 Algeria Interface, June 28, 2002. 147 See, e.g., "`On torture encore en Algérie,'" El-Watan, February 28, 2002. 148 Samia Mellal "`L'Etat est responsable des disparus,'" La Tribune, July 11, 2002. 149 Malika Belgacem, "Reforme du système judiciaire : `La mentalité des juges doit changer,'" Le Jeune Indépendant, April 28, 2002. 150 Samia Mellal, "`L'Etat est responsable des disparus.'"
|
