A/HRC/45/13/Add.3 the Draft Act to the Thai Cabinet, indefinitely delaying the enactment of this legislation. The Thai Cabinet approved the proposed legislation. Yet, it omits the key non-derogable principles of prohibition of torture and also of non-refoulement while the definition of crimes is not on par with international standards. Until now, Thailand’s penal code does not recognize enforced disappearances as a crime bypassing, therefore, the continuous obligation to investigate cases of enforced disappearances.226 102. In India, enforced disappearances have not been recognized as a specific criminal offence in its penal code. Particular obstacles are faced due to the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act of 1990, designating certain areas as “disturbed” territories. This Act grants broad powers and immunity to security forces including the requirement to get prior permission or sanction from the federal government before a member of the armed forces can be prosecuted in a civilian court.227 103. In relation to Tatjikiskan, the Working Group noted that enforced disappearances have not been introduced as an autonomous crime in its criminal legislation and nor are enforced disappearances planned to be incorporated in the new version of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan. The codification of enforced disappearances as an autonomous crime is crucial for addressing the limited awareness in the country of the concept of enforced disappearance as a means to conduct an effective investigation and to combat future instances of disappearances.228 104. In Tunisia, in the absence of specific legal provisions requiring the application of special procedures that differ from those currently in force there is no special procedure and no special investigating authority mandated to consider the offence of enforced disappearances, which is considered under the offence of infringement of personal liberty. Accordingly, the military courts that apply the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with such offences in accordance with the procedures that are applicable to other offences within their jurisdiction.229 B. Coordination of the authorities in charge of the investigation 105. The coordination of investigative entities within States and between States constitutes a crucial element for the identification and location of disappeared persons.230 The requirement of international cooperation in terms of investigation was mentioned in a case of Irish and Italian applicants who were the next of kin of individuals killed in a security operation. The applicants claimed that the State failed to comply with its procedural obligations under Article 2 ECHR as the State did not cooperated with Irish authorities investigating the circumstances of the bombing. The lack of such cooperation rendered the investigations ineffective. In Cummins et al. v. the United Kingdom, the European Court recalled that the respondent State is under an obligation to cooperate with the State of which an alleged perpetrator is a national at all investigative stages.231 106. The European Court stated in O’Loughlin a.o. v. the United Kingdom (para. 2.): Accordingly, where suspected perpetrators of a bombing attack carried out elsewhere are known to be present within the jurisdiction of a Contracting State, and evidence of a criminal offence may be secured, the fundamental importance of Article 2 requires that the authorities of that State of their own motion take effective measures in that regard. Otherwise, those indulging in cross-border attacks will be able to operate with impunity and the authorities of Contracting State where the unlawful attacks have taken place will be foiled in their own efforts to protect the fundamental rights of their citizens. The nature and 226 227 228 229 230 231 THA 3/2019. International Commission of Jurists, “No More ‘Missing Persons’: The Criminalization of Enforced Disappearance in South Asia” (Geneva 2017) 20; See A/HRC/45/13. A/HRC/45/13/Add.1, para. 23. Tunisia, Section VI of the Criminal Code of 19 July 1913, Articles 250, 251 and 252 of the Code and Code of Military Justice of 10 January 1957, Article 5; See OL TUN 1/2018. See Section III, B and C of the Thematic Report. See European Court of Human Rights, Cummins a.o. v. the United Kingdom, admissibility decision, Application No. 27306/05, 13 December 2005. 39