强迫失踪问题委员会与缔约国和民间社会举行会议（部分翻译）

015年2月5日

强迫失踪问题委员会今天下午分别与《保护所有人免遭强迫失踪国际公约》缔约国、国家人权机构和非政府组织举行了三场单独的会议。

在和缔约国的会议中，强迫失踪问题委员会主席埃马纽埃尔·德科（Emmanuel Decaux）表示，目前有44个国家批准了《保护所有人免遭强迫失踪国际公约》，近期可能会有更多国家批准。《公约》缔约国有责任在《公约》生效两年内提交初次报告。委员会正在竭尽所能，避免报告积压的增加，但同样重要的是，缔约国要遵守定期提交报告的规则，让委员会正常开展工作。

阿根廷、法国和突尼斯做了发言，表示支持委员会工作，它们还讨论了许多问题，例如与其他条约机构就跨领域的问题进行合作，并一般性地鼓励其他国家批准《公约》。

在和民间社会代表举行的会议中，德科先生表示，国家人权机构应该坚持批准《公约》，并考虑在其办公室内组织委员会与缔约国的互动对话现场网播。他指出，区域和地方人权委员会也能发挥重要作用。

国家促进和保护人权机构国际协调委员会（The International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and the Protection of Human Rights）做了发言，并表扬了一份关于委员会和国家人权机构间关系的文件，这份文件可以作为发展的基础。

在和非政府组织的会议中，德科先生表示，打击强迫失踪的运动是一场长期斗争，非政府组织的贡献至关重要。他说，这不仅仅是因为，他们定期向委员会提供了有价值且无法通过其他渠道获取的信息。

一个非政府组织——国际人权联合会（International Federation for Human Rights Leagues）在会上发言。该组织表示，受害者家人、民间社会和其他人正在付出坚决的努力，确保肇事者因其犯罪受到追究，并鼓励缔约国在国家立法中承认强迫失踪是一种刑事犯罪。

委员会将于2月13日（周五）下午3点举行下一次公开会议，通过其关于墨西哥、亚美尼亚和塞尔维亚报告的结论性意见和建议，并结束会议。

Meeting with States Parties

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Chairperson of the Committee, recalled that the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance was opened for signature eight years ago this month, in February 2007, and entered into force in December 2010. So far 44 States had ratified the Convention and there was hope of more in the near future. Each and every State needed to contribute to the process of ratifications; the General Assembly supported its universal ratification, and encouraged States to accept Articles 30 and 31.

The Committee’s current eighth session, which lasted for two weeks, would mark the end of the first four-year cycle, noted Mr. Decaux. States parties were obliged to submit initial reports within two years of entry into force of the Convention. There was a clear methodology for processing reports, which were posted online once they were submitted to allow for inputs by the civil society. Six months later, a constructive dialogue was held with the State party, which ended with concluding observations. The Committee would not systematically request updated reports if there were no updates available.

Regarding transparency, Mr. Decaux said that a number of constructive dialogues had been filmed and webcast, but due to technical and availability reasons, the practice had been suspended and had exceptionally taken place for the report of Mexico. The Committee was doing its best to avoid accumulating backlog, he said, but it was also important that States parties respected the rule to regularly submit reports to enable the Committee to carry out its work properly. The Committee was working closely with the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, a number of Special Rapporteurs and representatives of the civil society, he also noted.

Argentina reaffirmed its commitment to the Convention and support of the work of the Committee, whose professionalism it praised. Argentina had recently submitted responses to the concluding recommendations to its initial report. Argentina believed that the quality of the Committee’s work had given more visibility to the issue of enforced disappearances. Argentina would continue working with France on promoting further ratifications of the Convention.

France also commended the Committee and its members for their work, and reassured the Committee of its ongoing support. France encouraged all States to ratify the Convention. It asked how the Committee envisioned future cooperation with other committees on cross-cutting issues.

The Chairperson responded that annual meetings of Committees were taking place in line with the Dublin Process, and were gradually stepped up. The next would take place in San Jose, Costa Rica, said Mr. Decaux, noting that he would take on the Chairpersonship of the San Jose meeting of the ten Committee Chairpersons. Recent meetings had looked at the incorporation of human rights into the Sustainable Development Goals.

Tunisia said it had supported the treaty body strengthening process from the beginning. Tunisia submitted its report a few weeks earlier and looked forward to a highly constructive dialogue with the Committee. Preparing that and other reports had been a major undertaking, it noted.

A Committee Expert urged States parties to accept Article 31 of the Convention as giving citizens the right to file complaints directly with the Committee meant that the State party was really serious about the Convention. It was difficult for the Committee to hold sessions in various regions due to financial constraints, but the idea was certainly attractive.

A Committee Expert noted the Committee was peculiar in that it defined its own methods of work. He said all States parties should circulate information on how important the Convention was, and emphasize that it ought to become universal. The Convention contained many preventive provisions, and even States which had never faced practices of enforced disappearances should become party.

Meeting with National Human Rights Institutions

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Chairperson of the Committee, said that it would be a very good idea for all ten treaty bodies to have the same guidelines for cooperation with National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs). It was very important for the Committee to cooperate with the NHRIs.

International Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC) praised the paper on the relationship between the Committee and NHRIs, which was the document to further work on and build upon. The Committee was encouraged to continue to make recommendations in its reports that States parties ensure that their NHRIs were in full compliance with the Paris Principles. The ICC and its regional networks were working to build the capacity of NHRIs, through training, peer support and the exchange of good practices amongst its members. Feedback from the Committee was expected on the best ways NHRIs could engage with the Committee and support its work. Treaty bodies were encouraged to collectively and unequivocally condemn reprisals and acts of intimidation against those cooperating the international human rights system.

Mr. Decaux said that the NHRIs should also insist on the ratifications of the Convention. NHRIs should also consider organizing live webcast screenings in their offices of the Committee’s interactive dialogues with States parties. Regional and local commissions also had a role to play in States. Sometimes NHRIs with “B” status worked in more difficult conditions than those with status “A”, which had to be taken into consideration.

A Committee Expert stated that different human rights institutions at various levels ought to be evaluated even if they were not given “A” status. In some institutions, it might be useful to have a Government representatives sitting there, but when they had a quasi-judicial role, the presence of the Government could jeopardize the process. Sometimes institutions were not independent even though they claimed that they were.

International Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights expressed gratitude for the Committee’s support and looked forward to contributing to the process on addressing reprisals. ICC members realized that it was important to consider ways of establishing relations with various related institutions at domestic levels. The NHRI in France was a good example in that sense. It was often difficult to accredit some of those institutions as they would sometimes be either local or have very limited, specific mandates, and that was something to consider.

Meeting with Non-Governmental Organizations

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) stated that Iraq had ratified the Convention in November 2010, being the twentieth State to do so. The entry into force of the Convention had been truly historic, giving victims the right of access to truth, remedies and guarantees of non-repetition. Determined efforts were being made by families of victims, civil society and others to ensure that perpetrators were held accountable for their crimes. States parties were encouraged to recognize enforced disappearance as a criminal offence in their national legislations, and non-States parties were asked to ratify the Convention without much delay.

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Chairperson of the Committee, said that the campaign against enforced disappearances was a long-running battle to which the contribution of non-governmental organizations was of utmost importance. The value of the International Coalition against Enforced Disappearances was in bringing together a number of actors, including some major non-governmental organizations. Non-governmental organizations regularly provided the Committee with valuable information, sometimes of confidential nature, in which case they were not uploaded on the Committee’s website. In some cases, especially when it came to wide-spread violations, information from civil society was of paramount importance and could lead to urgent actions.

An Expert encouraged non-governmental organizations to continue contributing to the work of the Committee, providing it with information and attending sessions in Geneva whenever possible.

Another Expert noted that at times the Committee had the impression that non-governmental organizations from certain countries were not involved enough, or that major international non-governmental organizations sometimes neglected particular countries. It would be difficult for Committee members to gather information on their own, he added.

An Expert noted that the Committee had learned a lot over the previous four years and its relationship with non-governmental organizations, including Mexican non-governmental organizations, was much more constructive now.

____________

For use of the information media; not an official record