Publications

Previous PageTable Of Contents

XI. OTHER COUNTRIES SHOW POSSIBLE PATHS ON "DISAPPEARANCES"

Skeptics may question whether any government will provide meaningful answers to the fate of persons who were forcibly "disappeared" by its own agents. The experience of other countries suggests that as long as the security forces responsible for these deeds remain all-powerful, they will try to block any scrutiny that could lead to their being held accountable. Historically, answers regarding the fate of the "disappeared" in countries around the world have had to wait for a political upheaval - such as occurred in Argentina or South Africa - that strips the security forces of their ability to prevent scrutiny of their deeds.

Unless and until this happens in Algeria, argue sceptics, families of the "disappeared" will not learn what happened to their loved ones, or who bears responsibility for their fate. At most, they might receive compensation, a death certificate, and a general statement of regret.

Like Algeria, Sri Lanka was ravaged by a long civil war in which both sides targeted civilians. Sri Lankan authorities stand accused of making "disappear" tens of thousands of its citizens between 1988 and 1991 alone.

Like Algeria, Sri Lanka did not undergo a radical change in its power structure. It has nevertheless taken modest steps to resolve past cases of "disappearances" and to implement safeguards against their future occurrence. These steps occurred in the absence of any upheaval in the political system or security forces. Sri Lanka's efforts to resolve the question of "disappearances" have included:

● allowing access to the country by the U.N. Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) and by international human rights organizations;

● responding substantively to inquiries from the WGEID;177

● authorizing independent NGOs to observe exhumations of grave sites thought to contain the bodies of "disappeared" persons;

● establishing commissions to investigate cases of "disappearances" and other grave abuses; these commissions offered witnesses and family members the opportunity to appear before it, and released case-by-case findings as to the act of "disappearance" and whether there appeared to be state responsibility;

● placing on trial a very small number of state agents implicated in "disappearances"; and

● adopting laws intended to safeguard against future "disappearances."
Sri Lanka's record on establishing the truth about "disappearances" falls short in many respects. For example, while the state gave families of the "disappeared" death certificates and financial compensation, there was no official admission of state responsibility in individual cases. Nor, in the vast majority of cases, did families that were awarded compensation also receive information about what had happened to their relatives after their arrests. "Disappearances" continued to occur, albeit in smaller numbers, and the vast majority of perpetrators were never prosecuted, even when they had been identified by government commissions. Nevertheless, the government did take steps, however modest, that Algeria has not taken, to recognize the state's role and responsibility in "disappearances."

Colombia, another country with a high number of "disappearances" since the 1980s, has also taken initial steps to address the problem. In 2000 the legislature enacted the Forced Disappearance of Persons Act No. 589, which adds to the penal code definitions of forced "disappearance" and other grave abuses. In 2001 Colombia ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. In September 2001 it issued an invitation to the WGEID to conduct a working visit. Colombia signed the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court and in June 2002 President Andres Pastrana signed legislation that will incorporate the Rome Statute into domestic law. Despite these positive steps, forced "disappearances" continue in Colombia in the absence of the political will to apprehend perpetrators and address impunity.

Mexico has taken important steps to uncover the truth about the "disappearance" of hundreds of suspected leftists during the 1970s. In 2000 Vincente Fox was elected president, ending seventy-one consecutive years of rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party. Fox ordered the release of thousands of files maintained by Mexico's secret police. A freedom of information act that took effect in June 2002 prohibits the government from withholding official documents describing grave violations of human rights or crimes against humanity.

The government's human rights commission examined the files of the secret police and interviewed hundreds of witnesses. In 2001 it disclosed publicly for the first time that at least 275 people died after they were illegally detained by the security forces between the late 1960s and the early 1990s. The commission turned over to the office of the attorney general a sealed list of seventy-four officials it held responsible.

President Fox then created a special prosecutor's office to investigate past "disappearances" and other human rights violations committed by the security forces. In July and August 2002 the office summoned former President Luis Echeverría Alvarez and former regent of Mexico City Alfonso Martínez Domínguez to answer questions about massacres that took place in 1968 and 1971. It was the first time a public prosecutor questioned high-level officials about these crimes. On February 6, 2003, the special prosecutor questioned the former chief of secret police, Miguel Nazar Haro.

Mexico's judiciary also played a role in uncovering past abuses. In response to a suit filed by survivors of the 1968 massacre of student demonstrators in Mexico City, the Supreme Court ordered the executive branch to conduct an investigation of the massacre. No official was ever charged in connection with that incident.

In April 2002 Mexico ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, albeit with reservations that weakened the effect of its ratification.

Morocco has also taken modest steps with respect to the hundreds of still-unresolved "disappearances" that were carried out between the 1960s and the 1980s in Morocco and the disputed Western Sahara territory. In 1998, the late King Hassan II ordered the state-sponsored Consultative Council on Human Rights to investigate the vast repression of previous decades. It concluded by recognizing 112 cases of state-sponsored "disappearances." Mohamed VI, one month after ascending to the throne in 1999, acknowledged a state role in "disappearances" during the reign of his father. He set up an arbitration commission that year to determine the amount of compensation payments to offer certain categories of victims of past repression, including some families of the "disappeared."

Algeria, by contrast, has taken no concrete steps to establish the truth or accountability for "disappearances." The mechanisms it has created for receiving complaints of "disappearances" have not provided families with verifiable information about what happened to their missing relatives. It has never explicitly acknowledged - much less expressed regret for - a state role in "disappearances." It has not authorized a visit by the U.N. Working Group to visit the country; and it has only infrequently authorized missions by international human rights groups. Algeria has not ratified the statutes of the International Criminal Court and has not incorporated the crime of "disappearance" into its legislation.

Sri Lanka, Colombia, Mexico, and Morocco - countries that have had a change of political leadership but within the framework of existing political and military institutions - have all taken steps designed to address past "disappearances" and safeguard against their recurrence. Those measures, though still inadequate in each case, are steps in the right direction.

177 In its report for the year 2000 the WGEID expressed "its great appreciation to the Government of Sri Lanka for its intense activities to clarify the outstanding cases. During 2000, the Government sent to the Working Group more than 6,000 responses to cases for clarification, most of them with legal certificates of presumption of death and indications of compensation given to the families..." United Nations Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2001/68.
In its report for the year 2001 the WGEID stated, "During 2001, the Working Group clarified a total of 4,419 cases of enforced disappearance, which is the largest number that it has clarified in its first 20 years of existence. The vast majority of clarifications (4,390) relates to cases in Sri Lanka, which is also the country with the second highest number of disappearances on the Working Group's list. The process that led to these clarifications was initiated by the Working Group during its three field missions in the 1990s, and constitutes a concerted effort by the Government of Sri Lanka, the families and relatives of the disappeared persons, a consortium of non-governmental organizations and the Working Group. The example of Sri Lanka reflects a new approach adopted by the Working Group to invite Governments with large numbers of unresolved cases, partly dating back to the 1970s, to consider ways and means, in cooperation with the families and civil society, to provide justice to the victims and to clarify those cases. In the past, the Working Group had reported on positive examples of cooperation with Governments, such as those of Brazil and Mexico, and, in the present report, the Working Group invites other Governments, particularly those of countries with a high number of outstanding cases, to follow those examples." Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2002/79.

The WGEID's record of achievement with respect to Sri Lanka "shows the usefulness of the procedure when there is a real engagement on the part of the national authorities to resolve the problem," writes Federico Andreu-Guzmàn of the International Commission of Jurists. "Le Groupe de travail sur les disparitions forcées des Nations Unies," International Review of the Red Cross, December 2002, no. 848, p. 811, online at http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList542/DB9836A2A5ACA07E41256CB1004602DA (retrieved February 18, 2003).

Previous PageTable Of Contents