Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-nwwvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-20T10:32:46.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“The Purloined Letter”: Migrant Disappearances, Systematic Impunity, and States’ Risk Awareness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2024

Anna Rahel Fischer  and
Bernard Duhaime
Anna Rahel Fischer*
Affiliation:
Doctoral Student in Jurisprudence and Social Policy, Department of Law, University of California Berkeley, United States
Bernard Duhaime*
Affiliation:
Département des sciences juridiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada
*
Corresponding authors: Anna Rahel Fischer and Bernard Duhaime; Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]
Corresponding authors: Anna Rahel Fischer and Bernard Duhaime; Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The disappearance of migrants, which has reached preoccupying high numbers in recent decades, is related both to the particular vulnerability of migrants traversing dangerous migratory routes and to the high degree of impunity that characterizes investigation and search efforts required. This article argues that the disappearance of migrants at the hands of non-state actors in contexts of systematic impunity and in situations where the state had knowledge or should have had knowledge of a serious risk of such disappearance, but failed to act to prevent it, can be considered to have occurred with the acquiescence of the state. Thus, given that all further elements of the definition of enforced disappearance have been satisfied, this factual situation qualifies as an “enforced disappearance” for the purposes of international human rights law. Key to this demonstration is the concept of knowledge, which is an essential component of acquiescence. This article not only addresses the normative framework of acquiescence and its interpretation by international and regional human rights bodies, including how it relies on the element of state knowledge, but it also examines the extent to which this factor is critical to understanding states’ due diligence obligations to prevent, investigate, and sanction human rights obligations, including disappearances. In order to better understand the factors that should be taken into consideration while assessing a state‘s knowledge of migrant disappearances, including in the context of systematic impunity, it is then suggested to borrow from the international criminal law test related to the concept of “constructive knowledge” and to the doctrine of command responsibility. These considerations should inform a test for assessing whether disappearances of migrants occurring in contexts of systematic impunity can be considered as having been known by the state and as having occurred with its acquiescence and, thus, as constituting “enforced disappearances” under international human rights law.

Résumé

Résumé

Les disparitions de migrants ont atteint des chiffres très préoccupants au cours des dernières décennies et sont liées à la fois à la vulnérabilité particulière des migrants, aux routes migratoires dangereuses qu’ils empruntent et au degré élevé d’impunité qui caractérise les efforts d’enquête et de recherche requis. Cet article soutient que la disparition de migrants aux mains d’acteurs non étatiques dans des contextes d’impunité systématique et dans des situations où l’État avait connaissance ou aurait dû avoir connaissance d’un risque sérieux de disparition, mais n’a pas agi pour l’empêcher, peut être considérée comme s’étant produite avecl’acquiescement de l’État. Ainsi, advenant que tous les autres éléments de la définition de la disparition forcée sont présents, cette situation factuelle devrait pouvoir être qualifiée de “disparition forcée” au sens du droit international des droits de la personne. La clé de cette démonstration repose sur le concept de connaissance, qui est une composante essentielle de l’acquiescement. Cet article aborde non seulement le cadre normatif de l’acquiescement et son interprétation par les organismes internationaux et régionaux de protection des droits humains, y compris la manière dont cette notion s’appuie sur l’élément de connaissance de l’État, mais il examine également dans quelle mesure ce facteur est essentiel pour comprendre les obligations de diligence raisonnable qu’ont États pour prévenir, enquêter et sanctionner les violations des droits humains, y compris les disparitions. Afin de mieux comprendre les facteurs qui devraient être pris en considération lors de l’évaluation de la connaissance qu’a un État des disparitions de migrants, y compris dans un contexte d’impunité systématique, il est suggéré de s’inspirer du critère de droit pénal international lié au concept de “connaissance” et à la doctrine de la responsabilité des commandants. Ces considérations devraient éclairer un test permettant d’évaluer si les disparitions de migrants survenant dans des contextes d’impunité systématique peuvent être considérées comme ayant été connues de l’État et comme s’étant produites avec son acquiescement, constituant ainsi des “disparitions forcées” au sens du droit international des droits de la personne.

Keywords

Human rightsenforced disappearancesmigrantsnon-state actorsDroits de la personnedisparitions forcéesmigrantsacteurs non-étatiques
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , First View , pp. 1 - 52
Copyright
© The Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This text was produced while Anna Rahel Fischer was a fellow at the Intstitut d'Études Internationales de Montréal at the University of Quebec in Montreal in Canada. The quotation in the title is from Edgar Allan Poe, “The Purloined Letter,” The Works of Edgar Allan Poe, Lit2Go edition (1910), online: <etc.usf.edu/lit2go/147/the-works-of-edgar-allan-poe/5357/the-purloined-letter/>.

References

1 “How Many Irregular Migrants Go Missing?” The Economist (19 July 2023), online: <www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2023/07/19/how-many-irregular-migrants-go-missing>.

2 “US-Mexico Border Is World’s Deadliest Land Route for Migrants: IOM,” Al Jazeera (12 September 2023), online: <www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/12/us-mexico-border-is-worlds-deadliest-land-route-for-migrants-iom.

3 “The Missing Project,” International Organization for Migration, online: <missingmigrants.iom.int/data>.

4 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, 20 December 2006, 2716 UNTS 3 (entered into force on 23 December 2010), art 2 [ICCPED]. See also the preamble of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, UN Doc A/RES/47/133 (18 December 1992) [1992 Declaration].

5 Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras (Merits) (1988), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 4 [Velásquez Rodríguez].

6 ICPPED, supra note 4.

7 Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 5; Rantsev v Cyprus & Russia, ECtHR application no 25965/04 (7 January 2010) [Rantsev]; El-Masri v Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], ECtHR application no 39630/09 (13 December 2012) [El-Masri].

8 ICCPED, supra note 4, art 2; 1992 Declaration, supra note 4, preamble.

9 Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Report of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances on Its Visit to Iraq under Article 33 of the Convention, Doc CED/C/IRQ/VR/1 (19 April 2023) at para 49ff.

10 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (Additional Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 December 1978). See also Henckaerts, Jean-Marie & Doswald-Beck, Louise, Customary International Humanitarian Law, vol 1: Rules (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Rule 117.

11 Progress Report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on Best Practices on the Issueof Missing Persons, Doc A/HRC/14/42 (22 March 2010) at para 10.

12 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), The Missing: Progress Report (2006) at 2. See also Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID), Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on Its Mission to Turkey, Doc A/HRC/33/51/Add.1 (27 July 2016).

13 ICRC, Accompanying the Families of Missing persons: A Practical Handbook (Geneva: ICRC, 2013) at 16.Google Scholar

14 ‘Guiding Principles/Model Law on Missing Persons’ (2009) at para. 2.1, online: ICRC <www.icrc.org/en/document/guiding-principles-model-law-missing-model-law>. See also Committee on Enforced Disappearances, supra note 9 at paras 49ff.

15 Duhaime, Bernard & Painter, Rhiannon, “International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED)” in Binder, Christina et al, eds, Elgar Encyclopedia of Human Rights (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2021) 135.Google Scholar

16 From a victim’s perspective, scholars suggest that the experiences of victims favour a broader concept of enforced disappearance as the actual category of perpetrator — either state authorities, paramilitary groups, or criminal organizations — remains insignificant to the suffering of victims and their families. See Citroni, Gabriella & Scovazzi, Tullio, eds, The Struggle against Enforced Disappearance and the 2007 United Nations Conventions (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2007) at 278.Google Scholar

17 de Frouville, Olivier, “Trivializing Enforced Disappearances? The Issue of ‘Non-State Actors” in de Frouville, Olivier & Sturma, Pavel, La pénalisation des droits de l‘homme (Paris: Pedone, 2021) 1 Google Scholar.

18 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, Can TS 2002 No 13 (entered into force 1 July 2002) [Rome Statute].

19 Nicole Questiaux, “Le refus de l’oubli: La politique de disparition forcée de personnes” in Citroni & Scovazzi, supra note 16, 268.

20 United Nations (UN) General Assembly Resolution 33/173 on Disappeared Persons (20 December 1978).

21 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report, Doc OAS GA Res AG/RES.666 (XIII-0/83) (18 November 1983), preamble at para 4.

22 Human Rights Committee, Views (16 July 2014) in Durić and Durić v Bosnia and Herzegovina, ECtHR application no 1956/2010 (16 July 2014) at para 9.3.

23 Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID), Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Doc A/HRC/42/40 (30 July 2019) at para 92. See also Revised Methods of Work of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Doc A/HRC/WGEID/1 (February 2023) at paras 32–39.

24 Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Statement on Non-State Actors in the Context of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, Doc CED/C/10 (2 May 2023) at para 18(b).

25 FAJ v Greece, Communication to the Human Rights Committee (August 2021), online: <www.humanrights360.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Communication-to-the-United-Nations-Human-Rights-Committee-in-the-case-of-Faj-against-Greece.pdf>.

26 See Felipe González Morales, Report on Means to Address the Human Rights Impact of Pushbacks of Migrants on Land and at Sea: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Doc A/HRC/47/30 (12 May 2021).

27 Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on Enforced Disappearances in the Context of Migration, Doc A/HRC/36/39/Add.2 (28 July 2017) at para 44.

28 Ibid at paras 4, 44 (considering that such instances be “tantamount to disappearances or may facilitate disappearances because they render the finding or identification of missing persons very difficult”).

29 UN Secretary-General, Unlawful Death of Refugees and Migrants, Doc A/72/335 (15 August 2017) at 2.

30 ICPPED, supra note 4, art 21; 1992 Declaration, supra note 4, art 11.

31 “US-Mexico Border World’s Deadliest Migration Land Route” (12 September 2023), online: International Organization of Migration <www.iom.int/news/us-mexico-border-worlds-deadliest-migration-land-route>.

32 “Migrants at High Risk of Enforced Disappearances,” VOA News (13 September 2017), online: <www.voanews.com/a/un-migrants-enforced-disappearances/4027657.html>.

33 See Duhaime, Bernard “Enforced Disappearances in the Contemporary World: The Recent Contributions of the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances” in Bianchi, Maria Giovanna & Luci, Monica, The Crime of Enforced Disappearance: Between Law and Psyche (London: Routledge, 2023) 19.Google Scholar

34 ICPPED, supra note 4, preamble. See Vermeulen, Marthe Lot, Enforced Disappearance: Determining State Responsibility under the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2012).Google Scholar

35 Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on Enforced Disappearances in the Context of Migration, Doc A/HRC/36/39/Add.2 (28 July 2017) at para 51.

36 FAJ v Greece, supra note 25 at para 16.

37 Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 (17 September 2003), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser A) No 18 at paras 112–13 [Juridical Condition and Rights].

38 MSS v Belgium and Greece (Judgment), ECtHR application no 30696/09 (21 January 2011) at para 232.

39 FAJ v Greece, supra note 25.

40 AH v Serbia and North Macedonia and AH v Serbia, ECtHR application no 60417/16 and 79749/16 (5 April 2022).

41 Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy, ECtHR application no 27765/09 (23 February 2012).

42 Human Rights Committee, Boucherf v Algeria, Communication no 1196/2003 (30 March 2006) at para 9.2.

43 FAJ v Greece, supra note 25 at para 147.

44 Agnes Callamard, “The Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration: Recommendations to Respond to Disappearances of Migrants” (2018), Working Paper at 2.

45 UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Smuggling of Migrants by Sea (2011) at 33; Human Rights of Migrants, Doc A/71/285 (4 August 2016) at para 54.

46 Thomas Spijkerboer, “Policy Conclusions” (12 May 2015), online: <www.borderdeaths.org/?page_id=295; A/72/335 2>.

47 Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on Enforced Disappearances in the Context of Migration, Doc A/HRC/36/39/Add.2 (28 July 2017) at para 42.

48 See Baraybar, José Pablo, Caridi, Inés & Stockwell, Jill, “A Forensic Perspective on the New Disappeared: Migration Revisited” in Parra, Roberto C, Zapico, Sara C & Ubelaker, Douglas H, eds, Forensic Science and Humanitarian Action: Interacting with the Dead and the Living (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2020) 102Google Scholar; Robin Reineke, Naming the Dead: Identification and Ambiguity along the US-Mexico Border (PhD dissertation, University of Arizona, 2016).

49 Amelie Tapella, Giorgia Mirto & Tamara Last, “From Institutional Carelessness to Private Concern” (2016) 5 Intrasformazione 1 at 68.

50 Reineke, supra note 48 at 223.

51 UN Refugee Agency & Association for the Prevention of Torture and the International Detention Coalition, Monitoring Immigration Detention: Practical Manual (Geneva: UN Human Rights Council, 2014) at 20.

52 International Organization of Migration (IOM), Migrant Smuggling Data and Research Geneva: IOM Press, 2016) at 7.

53 Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Detained and Dehumanised: Report on Human Rights Abuses Against Migrants in Lybia (13 December 2016), online: <www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/LY/DetainedAndDehumanised_en.pdf>.

54 Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on Its Mission to Turkey, Doc A/HRC/33/51/Add.1 (27 July 2016) at para 14.

55 International Commission on Missing Persons, Missing Migrants Program for the Mediterranean Region, Doc DG.1370.1.doc (15 January 2018) at 2.

56 UNODC, Smuggling of Migrants: Global Review and Annotated Bibliography of Recent Publications (2011) at 26.

57 Doc AL CYP 2/2021 (12 July 2021)

58 Doc AL VEN 9/2020 (4 December 2020)

59 See FAJ v Greece, supra note 25. See also “Press Release: Enforced Disappearances Report to UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances,” Border Violence, online: <www.borderviolence.eu/15638-2/>; ““Enforced Disappearance and Expulsion at Greece’s Evros Borders,” Global Legal Action Network online: <www.glanlaw.org/enforced-disappearance-greece>.

60 Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary, (Judgment), ECtHR application no 47287/15 (21 November 2019).

61 Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death: The Revised United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, 2016.

62 Doc AL SLV 1/2021 (16 April 2021).

Doc GTM 4/2021 (16 April 2021); Doc HND 2/2021 (16 April 2021); Doc MEX 5/2021 (16 April 2021).

63 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331, Can TS 1980 No 37 (entered into force 27 January 1980); Diane Orentlicher, Impunity: Report of the Independent Expert to Update the Set of Principles to Combat Impunity, Doc E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1 (8 February 2005); Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Doc A/HRC/Res/7/12 (27 March 2008) at paras 4(d), 5(c), 6(a)(d)(e).

64 La Cantuta v Peru (Merits, Reparations, and Costs), (2006) Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 162 at para 92.

65 Ibid at paras 149, 147.

66 Ibid at paras 110, 130.

67 Ibid at paras 95–96.

68 Ibid at para 160.

69 Ibid at para 116.

70 Ibid at paras 230–35.

71 See Myrna Mack Chang v Guatemala, (2003) Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 101 at paras 152, 158, 138, Reasoned Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade.

72 Nuno Sérgio Marques Antunes, “Acquiescence,” Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law (September 2006) at para 2.

73 Manfred Nowak, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Doc A/HRC/7/3 (15 January 2008) at para 68; Callamard, supra note 44 at 1.

74 Seibert-Fohr, Anja, Prosecuting Serious Human Rights Violations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) at 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75 Committee on Enforced Disappearances, supra note 9 at para 52.

76 Report Submitted by Mr. Manfred Nowak, Independent Expert Charged with Examining the Existing International Criminal and Human Rights Framework for the Protection of Persons from Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Pursuant to Paragraph 11 of Commission Resolution 2001/46, Doc E/CN.4/2002/71 (8 January 2002) at para 45; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85, Can TS 1987 no 36 (entered into force 26 June 1987) [CAT].

77 General Comment No 2: Implementation of Article 2 by State Parties, Doc CAT/C/GC/2/CRP 1/rev.4 (23 November 2007) at para 18 [emphasis added].

78 Edwards, Alice, Violence against Women under International Human Rights Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) at 251.Google Scholar

79 Ibid at 250.

80 Report by the Special Rapporteur, Mr. P. Kooijmans, appointed pursuant to Commision on Human Rights Resolution 1985/33, Doc E/CN.4/1986/15 (19 February 1986).

81 Report of the Special Rapporteur, Sir Nigel Rodley, Submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2000/43, Doc E/CN.4/2001/66 (25 January 2001).

82 Dzemajl v Yugoslavia, Case no 161/2000, UN Doc CAT/C/29/D/161/2000 (2002) at paras 2.1–2.27, 9.1–9.5.

83 Jon Bauer, “Obscured by ‘Willful Blindness’: States Preventive Obligations and the Meaning of Acquiescence under the Convention against Torture” (2021) 52:2 Colum HRLR, 738 ff.

84 Ibid, arts 4–9, 12–14, 782; Rhonda Copelon, “Gender Violence as Torture: The Contribution of CAT General Comment No 2” (2008) 11 NY City L Rev 229 at 254–55.

85 UN Committee against Torture, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention, UN Doc CAT/C/GRC/CO/5-6 (27 June 2012) at paras 23–24.

86 See Relevance of the Prohibition of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to the Context of Domestic Violence” UN Doc A/74/148 (12 July 2019); Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,” UN Doc A/HRC/31/57 (5 January 2016); Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Manfred Nowak, UN Doc A/HRC/7/3 (15 January 2008).

87 This standard is particularly developed in relation to the non-refoulement principle in migration contexts. For asylum and removal procedures, the refugee definition has long been interpreted to cover harms inflicted by private groups or individuals that a country’s government is unable or unwilling to control. In this context, acquiescence of a public official requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, has awareness of such activity and thereafter breaches their legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity. The presence of “acquiescence” as an attribution element in the CAT definition of torture therefore opens the possibility of its interpretation in the context of due diligence. CAT, supra note 76. See UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (2019) at para 65; Bauer, supra note 83 at 782.

88 Uçar v Turkey (Judgment), ECtHR application no 52392/99 (11 April 2006) at paras 106–07.

89 Acar ao v Turkey, ECtHR application no 36088/97 (24 May 2005) at paras 83–84 [Acar and Others].

90 Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Doc A/HRC/48/57 (4 August 2021) at iv.

91 Rantsev, supra note 7.

92 Yaşa v Turkey, (Judgment), ECtHR application no 22495/93 (2 September 1998) at paras 2, 83 [Yaşa].

93 Ibid at para 96.

94 Ibid at para 100.

95 Mahmut Kaya v Turkey, (Commission Report), EctHR application no 22535/93 (23 October 1998) [Mahmut Kaya].

96 Acar and Others, supra note 89 at para 11.

97 Ibid at paras 85–86.

98 Ibid at para 83.

99 Cyprus v Turkey (GC), (Judgment), ECtHR application no 25781/94 (10 May 2001) at paras 13–14, 18 [Cyprus].

100 Ibid at para 78.

101 Ibid at para 129.

102 Ibid.

103 Ilascu and Others v Moldova and Russia (GC), ECtHR application no 48787/99 (8 July 2004) at para 318 [Ilascu and Others].

104 Ibid at para 329.

105 Chiragov and Others v Armenia (Judgment), ECtHR application no 13216/05 (16 June 2005) at paras 169, 182–83.

106 Er and Others v Turkey, ECtHR application no 23016/04 (31 July 2012) at paras 66–79; Alikhanovy v Russia, ECtHR application no 17054/06 (28 August 2018) at paras 70–75.

107 Rantsev, supra note 7.

108 Ibid at para 323.

109 Begheluri and Others v Georgia, ECtHR application no 28490/02 (7 October 2014) at para 102 [Begheluri and Others].

110 Ibid at para 110.

111 Ibid at para 111.

112 Ibid at paras 107, 73–78.

113 See also Sindicatul “Păstorul cel Bun” v Romania (GC), ECtHR application no 2330/09 (9 July 2013) at para 77; Tsartsidze and Others v Georgia, ECtHR application no 18766/04 (17 January 2017) at paras 78, 86–87; Identoba and Others v Georgia, ECtHR application no 73235/12 (12 May 2015) at para 77; MC and AC v Romania, ECtHR application no 12060/12 (12 April 2016) at para 124.

114 El-Masri, supra note 7 at para 21.

115 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 (entered into force 3 September 1953).

116 Ibid at para 211.

117 El-Masri, supra note 7 at 211.

118 Ibid at para 239.

119 Al Nashiri v Romania, ECtHR application no 33234/12 (31 May 2018); Abu Zubaydah v Lithuania, ECtHR application no 46454/11 (31 May 2018).

120 Ibid at paras 441–43, 509.

121 Al Nashiri v Poland and Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v Poland, ECtHR application no 7511/13 (24 July 2014) at para 176 [Al Nashiri v Poland and Husayn].

122 Abu Zubaydah v Lithuania, ECtHR application no 46454/11 (31 May 2018) at paras 642 [Abu Zubaydah]; Al Nashiri v Poland and Husayn, supra note 121 at paras 594–95.

123 Al Nashiri v Poland and Husayn, supra note 121 at para 677; Abu Zubaydah, supra note 122 at para 642.

124 See Acar and Others, supra note 89.

125 See Ilascu and Others, supra note 103.

126 See Begheluri and Others, supra note 109.

127 See El-Masri, supra note 7; Al Nashiri v Poland, ECtHR application no 28761/11 (24 July 2014); Al Nashiri v Romania, ECtHR application no 33234/12 (31 May 2018); Abu Zubaydah v Lithuania, ECtHR application no 46454/11 (31 May 2018).

128 See Rantsev, supra note 7.

129 See Yaşa, supra note 92.

130 Blake v Guatemala (Merits) (1998), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 57 at paras 76, 78 [Blake]; Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Doc A/HRC/7/2 (10 January 2008) at 10.

131 Blake, supra note 130 at para 78.

132 Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 5 at para 177 [emphasis added].

133 Ibid at para 178.

134 Ibid at para 167.

135 Ibid at para 183, 188. See also Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (Decision), African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights no 245/2002 (May 2006) at paras 141–60.

136 Case of the 19 Merchants v Colombia (Judgment) (2004), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 109 at paras 84(b)(c), 86(a), 118 [Case of the 19 Merchants].

137 Ibid at para 120.

138 Ibid at para 86(c).

139 Ibid at para 136.

140 Ibid at paras 85(b), 135.

141 Ibid at para 156.

142 Mapiripán Massacre v Colombia (Judgment) (2005), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 143 at para 96.34 [Mapiripán Massacre].

143 Ibid at para 110.

144 American Convention on Human Rights, 21 November 1969, 1144 UNTS 123 (entered into force 18 July 1978).

145 Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 142 at para 96.19.

146 Ibid at para 96.20.

147 Ibid at para 96.43

148 Ibid at para 96.45.

149 Ibid at paras 96.47, 236.

150 Ibid at para 123.

151 Case of the Afro-descendant Communities Displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v Colombia (2013), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 270 at para 280 [Operation Genesis].

152 Vereda de la Esperanza v Colombia (Judgment) (2017), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 341 at paras 68–10 [Vereda la esperanza].

153 Ibid at para 151.

154 Ibid at para 152.

155 Ibid at paras 167–68.

156 Ibid at para 179.

157 Omeara Carrascal et al v Colombia (Judgment) (2018), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 368 at paras 123–41.

158 Isaza Uribe y otros v Colombia (Judgment) (2018), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 364 at paras 142–43 [Isaza Uribe y otros].

159 Case of Members and Militants of the Patriotic Union v Colombia (Judgment) (2022), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 455 at paras 202ff, 244ff [Case of Members and Militants].

160 Ibid at para 265.

161 Ibid at para 282.

162 Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 5.

163 Blake, supra note 130.

164 Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 142.

165 Case of the 19 Merchants, supra note 136.

166 Ibid; Vereda la esperanza, supra note 152.

167 Case of the 19 Merchants, supra note 136.

168 Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 142.

169 Operation Genesis, supra note 151.

170 Ibid.

171 Kawas Fernández v Honduras (Judgment) (2009), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 196.

172 Vereda la Esperanza, supra note 152.

173 Ibid.; Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 142; Vereda la Esperanza, supra note 152; Case of the 19 Merchants, supra note 136.

174 Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 142.

175 Case of Members and Militants, supra note 159.

176 Isaza Uribe y otros, supra note 158.

177 López Soto y otros v Venezuela (Judgment) (2018), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 362 [López Soto y otros].

178 Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 5.

179 Case of the Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v Brazil (Judgment) (2016), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 318 at para 323 [Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers].

180 Lisa Grans, “The State Obligation to Prevent Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: The Case of Honour-Related Violence” (2015) 15 Human Rights L Rev 695 at 705, 717–18.

181 Bauer, supra note 83 at 817.

182 Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on Enforced Disappearances in the Context of Migration, Doc A/HRC/36/39/Add.2 (28 July 2017) at para 42.

183 Osman v United Kingdom (Judgment), ECtHR application no 23452/94 (28 October 2010) at para 121 [Osman].

184 Ibid. In this case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concluded that various cryptic threats uttered by the perpetrator could not reasonably be construed as threats against the lives of family so that the police could not have been held responsible for not arresting the perpetrator in the first place. Therefore, the police were not considered to have failed to carry out its positive obligation to take preventive operational measures to protect individual whose life at risk from criminal acts of another individual. See also Kılıç v Turkey (Judgment), ECtHR application no 22492/93 (28 March 2000) at para 63 [Kılıç].

185 Kılıç, supra note 184 at paras 10, 65.

186 Ibid at para 64.

187 Yaşa, supra note 92 at paras 101, 103.

188 Ibid at para 106.

189 Mahmut Kaya, supra note 95 at para 67.

190 Ibid at para 91.

191 Cyprus, supra note 99 at para 132.

192 Ibid at para 135.

193 Osmanoglü v Turkey, ECtHR application no 48804/99 (24 January 2008) at para 54 [Osmanoglü].

194 Nesibe Haran v Turkey, ECtHR application no 28299/95 (6 October 2005) at para 66.

195 Medova v Russia, ECtHR application no 25385/04 (15 January 2009) at paras 89, 76, 90, 97.

196 Osmanoglü, supra note 193 at para 75.

197 Sakine Epőzdemir and Others v Turkey, ECtHR application no 26589/06 (1 December 2015) at para 3, Joint Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judges Vučinič and Lemmens.

198 Ibid at para 4.

199 Opuz v Turkey (Judgment), ECtHR application no 33401/02 (9 June 2009) at para 132, 152.

200 Halime Kilic v Turkey, (Judgment), ECtHR application no 63034/11 (28 June 2016) at paras 102, 113.

201 Ibid at para 100.

202 Ibid at para 120.

203 Budayeva and Others v Russia, (Judgment), ECtHR application no 15339/02 (20 March 2008) at para 24.

204 Ibid at para 109.

205 Ibid at paras 27, 78, 102, 108, 109

206 Öneryildiz v Turkey (Judgment), ECtHR application no 48939/99 (30 November 2004) at para 98.

207 Ibid at para 90.

208 Ibid at para 86.

209 Ibid at para 87.

210 Ibid at paras 89, 90.

211 Ibid at para 75.

212 Rantsev, supra note 7. See also Osman, supra note 183 at paras 116–17; Mahmut Kaya, supra note 95 at paras 115–16.

213 See Lene Guercke, Protecting Victims of Disappearances Committed by Organised Criminal Groups: State Responsibility in International Human Rights Law and the Experiences of Human Rights Practitioners in Mexico (PhD dissertation, KU Leuven, 2021) at 115–16, 182.

214 Rantsev, supra note 7 at para 296.

215 Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 5 at para 172; Godínez Cruz v Honduras (Judgment) (1989), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 181 at paras 182, 187.

216 Juridical Condition and Rights, supra note 37 at para 109.

217 Ibid at paras 112–13.

218 Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 5 at para 166.

219 Ibid at para 175.

220 Pueblo Bello Massacre v Colombia (Judgment) (2006), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 140.

221 Ibid at paras 111, 117. See also Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers, supra note 179 at para 316.

222 Ibid at para 140.

223 Ibid at paras 125, 183.

224 Ibid at para 126.

225 Ibid at para 121.

226 Ibid at paras 138, 140.

227 Ibid at para 138.

228 Ibid at para 140.

229 Ibid at para 135.

230 Ibid at para 151.

231 Ibid at para 151.

232 González et al (‘Cotton Field’) v Mexico (2009), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 205 at para 280 [González et al].

233 Ibid at para 281.

234 Ibid at paras 116, 118.

235 Ibid at para 177.

236 Ibid at para 273.

237 Case of the Rochela Massacre v Colombia (Judgment) (2007), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 163 at paras 76, 158, 194.

238 Ibid at para 158.

239 González et al, supra note 232 at para 283.

240 Ibid at para 284.

241 Case of Velásquez Paiz et al v Guatemala (Judgment) (2015), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 307.

242 Yarce et al v Colombia (Judgment) (2016), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 325 at paras 194, 243; Case of IV v Bolivia (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) (2016), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 329 [Case of IV].

243 Ibid at para 187.

244 Ibid at para 195.

245 Ibid at para 186.

246 Ibid at para 185.

247 Ibid at para 225, referring to Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 142 at para 177.

248 Case of IV, supra note 242 at para 248.

249 Ibid at para 318.

250 Ximenes Lopes v Brasil (Judgment) (2006), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 149 at paras 125, 132.

251 Caso Guachalá Chimbó y otros v Ecuador (Judgment) (2021), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 149 at paras 86, 203.

252 Ibid at para 167.

253 Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers, supra note 179 at para 112.

254 Ibid at para 341.

255 Ibid at para 341 (fourth operative paragraph).

256 Ibid at para 324.

257 Ibid at para 326.

258 Ibid at paras 317, 320.

259 Ibid at para 118.

260 Ibid at para 67.

261 Ibid at para 138.

262 Ibid at paras 186, 188, 191.

263 Ibid at para 198.

264 General Comment No 20: Non-discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (art. 2, para. 2, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), Doc E/C.12/GC/20 (2 July 2009) at para 12.

265 Juridical Condition and Rights, supra note 37 at para 104; Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers, supra note 179 at para 336.

266 Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 142 at paras 111, 113; Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers, supra note 179 at para 337.

267 See also Case of Sayhoyamaxa Indegenous Community v Paraguay (Judgment) (2006), Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser C) No 125 at para 154.

268 Hacienda Brasil Verde Worker, supra note 179 at para 26, Concurring Opinion of Judge L Patricio Pazmiño Freire.

269 Ibid.

270 Case of IV, supra note 242 at para 317.

271 López Soto y otros, supra note 177 at paras 152, 158, 160.

272 Ibid at paras 143–45, 153, 155–57, 161–65.

273 Ibid at paras 142, 166–69.

274 Ntagerura et al (Cyangugu) (Appeal Judgment), ICTR-99-46-A (7 July 2006).

275 See generally Duhaime, Bernard, The Applicability of the Doctrine of Command Responsibility to the Crime of Genocide (MA dissertation in law, University of Notre Dame, 2001)Google Scholar. See also Boas, Gideon, “Command Responsibility for the Failure to Stop Atrocities: The Legacy of the Tokyo Trial” in Tanaka, Yuki, McCormack, Tim & Simpson, Gerry, eds, Beyond Victor‘s Justice? The Tokyo War Crimes Trial Revisited (Leiden: Nijhoff Publishers, 2011) 404, at 163ff.Google Scholar

276 Martinez, Jenny S, “Understanding Mens Rea in Command Responsibility from Yamashita to Blaskic and Beyond” (2007) 5:3 J Intl Criminal Justice 652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

277 “In addition to other grounds of criminal responsibility under this Statute for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court: 1. A military commander or person effectively acting as a military commander shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed by forces under his or her effective command and control, or effective authority and control as the case may be, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such forces, where: (a) That military commander or person either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes; and (b) That military commander or person failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution. 2. With respect to superior and subordinate relationships not described in paragraph 1, a superior shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed by subordinates under his or her effective authority and control, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such subordinates, where: (a) The superior either knew, or consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated, that the subordinates were committing or about to commit such crimes; (b) The crimes concerned activities that were within the effective responsibility and control of the superior; and (c) The superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.”

278 Rome Statute, supra note 18.

279 “1. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to hold criminally responsible at least: (a) Any person who commits, orders, solicits or induces the commission of, attempts to commit, is an accomplice to or participates in an enforced disappearance; (b) A superior who: (i) Knew, or consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated, that subordinates under his or her effective authority and control were committing or about to commit a crime of enforced disappearance; (ii) Exercised effective responsibility for and control over activities which were concerned with the crime of enforced disappearance; and (iii) Failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress the commission of an enforced disappearance or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution; (c) Subparagraph (b) above is without prejudice to the higher standards of responsibility applicable under relevant international law to a military commander or to a person effectively acting as a military commander. 2. No order or instruction from any public authority, civilian, military or other, may be invoked to justify an offence of enforced disappearance.”

280 Rome Statute, supra note 18, art 7-l-I.

281 De Frouville, supra note 17 at paras 3–4.

282 Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 5 at para 177.

283 Prosecutor v Tihomir Blaskic, Appeal Chamber (Appeal Judgment), IT-95-14-A (29 July 2004) at para 46 [Blaskic, Appeal Chamber].

284 Prosecutor v Jean Mpambara (Trial Judgement), ICTR-01-65-T (11 September 2006) at para 22.

285 Prosecutor v Naser Oric (Appeal Judgment), IT-03-68-A (3 July 2008) at para 43; Prosecutor v Andre Ntagerura, Emmanuel Bagambiki, Samuel Imanishimwe (Appeal Judgement), ICTR-99-46-A (7 July 2006) at para 334; Blaskic, Appeal Chamber, supra note 283 at para 663.

286 Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, ICC-01/05-01/08 (2009) at para 425.

287 United States et al v Araki Sadao et al, reprinted in US Naval War College, Trials of War Criminals, International Military Tribunal for the Far East, vol 46 (29 April 1946).

288 Karl Brand and Others, reprinted in Trials of War Criminals before Nuernberg Military Tribunals, under Control Counsel Law No 10, Nuernberg, vol 1 (October 1946 – April 1949) at 1011–12.

289 Hostage Case, US Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, Judgment of 19 February 1948, reprinted in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law no. 10, vol XI/2 (October 1946 – April, 1949) at 1261.

290 United States v Wilhelm von Leeb et al, reprinted in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law no 10, vol XI (1950) at 1230, 1303. See Jamie Allan Williamson, Some Considerations on Command Responsibility and Criminal Liability (June 2008) at 543–45 [emphasis by author].

291 Ibid at 305.

292 Michael Duttweiler, “Liability for Omission in International Criminal Law” (2006) 6 ICLR 1 at 24.

293 Ibid at 25.

294 Ibid at 31.

295 Taylor (Judgment), SCSL-O3-01-T (18 May 2012) at para 497.

296 Mucic et al (“Celebici”), Trial Chamber (Judgment), IT-96-21-T (16 November 1998) at para 386 [Celebici].

297 Karemera and Ngirumpatse, Trial Chamber III (Judgment), ICTR-98-44-T (2 February 2012) at para 1530.

298 Prosecutor v Delalic and Others, IT-96-21-A (20 February 2001) at 195 [Delalic and Others].

299 Aleksovski, Trial Chamber (Judgment), IT-95-14/1-T (25 June 1999) at para 80. See also Naletilic and Martinovic, Trial Chamber (Judgment), IT-98-34-T (31 March 2003) at para 72; Stakić, Trial Chamber II (Judgment), IT-97-24-T (31 July 2003) at para 460 [Stakić, Trial Chamber].

300 Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 25 May 1993, (1993) 32 ILM 1159 at 36, annex; Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, 1994, (1994) 33 ILM 1598.

301 Prosecutor v Bagilishema, Trial Chamber (Judgment), ICTR-95-1A-A (3 July 2002) at para 28.

302 Blaskic, Trial Chamber (Judgment), IT-95-14-T (3 March 2000) at para 324 [Blaskic, Trial Chamber].

303 Bagilishema, Appeal Chamber (Appeal Judgment), ICTR-95-1A-A (3 July 2002) at para 28 [Bagilishema, Appeal Chamber].

304 Krnojelac, Appeal Chamber (Appeal Judgment), IT-97-25-A (17 September 2003) at paras 154–55 [Krnojelac, Appeal Chamber].

305 Ibid at para 59.

306 The Trial Chamber in the Hadžihasanović and Kubura stated that “the mental element for ‘had reason to know’ is determined only by reference to the information in fact available to the superior and that it is sufficient for the information to be of a nature which, at least, would put him on notice of the risk of such offences by indicating the need for additional investigation in order to ascertain whether such crimes were or were about to be committed.” Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, Trial Chamber (Judgment), IT-01-47-T (15 March 2006) at paras 95–96.

307 Strugar Pavle (Appeal Judgment), IT-01-42-A (17 July 2008) at para 301 [Strugar Pavle].

308 Delalic and Others, supra note 298 at para 386, citing Letter dated 24 May 1994 from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc S/1994/674 (27 May 1994).

309 Prosecutor v Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana (Trial Judgment), ICTR-95-1-T (21 May 1999) [Kayishema and Ruzindana].

310 See also Jamie Allan Williamson, “Some Considerations on Command Responsibility and Criminal Liability” (2008) 90 Intl Rev Red Cross870.

311 Taylor, Trial Chamber II (Judgment), SCSL-O3-01-T (18 May 2012) at paras 498–99.

312 Prosecutor v Delalić, Mucić, Delić, and Landžo (Appeal Judgment), IT-96-21-A (20 February 2001)at para 241 [emphasis added; footnote omitted]. The standard as interpreted in the Delalić appeal judgment has been applied in the Bagilishema, Appeal Chamber, supra note 303 at para 42, and in the Krnojelac, Appeal Chamber, supra note 304 at para 151.

313 Arnold, Roberta, “Article 28: Responsibility of Commanders and Other Superiors” in Triffterer, Otto, ed, Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers’ Notes, Article by Article (Munich: Beck, 2008) 795.Google Scholar

314 Mucic et al (“Celebici”), Appeal Chamber (Appeal Judgment), IT-96-21-A (20 February 2001) at para 226 [Celebici, Appeal Judgment]. This was also upheld in Blaskic, Appeal Chamber, supra note 283 at para 62.

315 Bagilishema, Appeal Chamber, supra note 303 at para 35.

316 Strugar Pavle, supra note 307 at para 304.

317 Stakić, Trial Chamber, supra note 299.

318 Celebici, Appeal Judgment, supra note 314 at para 226.

319 ICTY, Sainovic et al, Trial Chamber (Judgment), IT-05-87-T (26 February 2009) at para 120.

320 Bemba, PTC II, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, ICC-01/05-01/08-424 (15 June 2009) at paras 432–34.

321 Brdanin, Trial Chamber II (Judgment), IT-99-36-T (1 September 2004) at para 720.

322 Meloni, Chantal, Command Responsibility in International Criminal Law (The Hague: TMC Asser, 2010) at 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

323 Blaskic, Appeal Chamber, supra note 283 at para 332.

324 Ibid.

325 Ibid at para 63; Bagilishema, Appeal Chamber, supra note 303 at para 35.

326 Blaskic, Appeal Chamber, supra note 283 at para 63.

327 Ibid at para 147; Krajisnik, Appeal Chamber (Appeal Judgment), IT-00-39A (17 March 2009), at paras 193–94.

328 Delalic and Others, supra note 298 at 395.

329 Blaskic, Trial Chamber, supra note 302 at p 269.

330 Blaskic, Appeal Chamber, supra note 283 at para 57; Blaskic, Trial Chamber, supra note 302 at para 307.

331 Blaskic, Trial Chamber, supra note 302 at para 332.

332 Blaskic, Appeal Chamber, supra note 283 at para 72.

333 Blaskic, Trial Chamber, supra note 302 at 333.

334 Prosecutor v Alfred Musema (Judgment), ICTR-96-13-T (27 January 2000) at 880.

335 Kayishema and Ruzindana, supra note 309 at 15.

336 Duhaime & Painter, supra note 15 at paras 44–45.

337 For example, in its 2016 report on Turkey, the WGEID expressed concern about information it had received regarding the high number of mass returns of Syrian refugees by the Turkish state. It observed that the Syrian situation increased the likelihood of enforced disappearances occurring and exposed the refugees returned to Syria to greater risks of suffering human rights violations WGEID, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on Its Mission to Turkey,” Doc A/HRC/33/51/Add.1 (27 July 2016) at para 56.

338 Ibid. See also WGEID, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on Enforced Disappearances in the Context of Migration, Doc A/HRC/36/39/Add.2 (28 July 2017) at para 33. In addition, these practices can violate states’ non-refoulement obligations and their duty to “take the necessary measures to ensure that persons deprived of liberty are released in a manner permitting reliable verification that they have actually been released [and to] to assure the physical integrity of such persons and their ability to exercise fully their rights at the time of release” in accordance with Article 21 of the ICPPED, supra note 4; 1992 Declaration, supra note 4, art 11.

339 Blake, supra note 130; Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 142.

340 Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 5; Rantsev, supra note 7; El-Masri, supra note 7.

341 Committee on Enforced Disappearances, supra note 9.

342 See El-Masri, supra note 7.

343 For instance, DH et al v Czech Republic dealt with the registration by state officials of a disproportionate number of Roma children in special schools for children with intellectual disabilities. DH et al v Czech Republic (GC), ECtHR application no 57325/00 (13 November 2007). On this, see Bernard Duhaime & Catherine Lafontaine. “Human Rights and Migrations in the Americas: Revisiting the Dorzema et al v Dominican Republic Case” (2013) hors série, Revue québécoise de droit international 449.

344 See e.g. Czepek, Jakub, “The Application of the Pilot Judgment Procedure and Other Forms of Handling Large-scale Dysfunctions in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights” (2018) 20:3–4 Intl Community L Rev 347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

345 These include states ruled by governments that have not come to power through popular elections, by secret, genuine, periodic, and free suffrage, according to internationally accepted standards and principles; states where human rights are suspended or the object of a state of emergency or other exceptional measure; states where there are massive and systematic human rights violations; and states where there are temporary or structural situations that seriously affect the enjoyment of human rights, including, for example, grave situations of violations that prevent the proper application of the rule of law; serious institutional crises; processes of institutional change that have negative consequences for human rights; or grave omissions in the adoption of the provisions necessary for the effective exercise of fundamental rights. See e.g. IACHR, Annual Report (2012) ch IV, para 6.

346 In this short story by Edgar Allen Poe, investigators are looking for a letter assuming that the culprit would go to great lengths to conceal it. However, the hero Dupin finds the letter by presuming that it would instead be hidden in plain sight.