A/HRC/45/13/Add.3 I. Introduction 1. An enforced disappearance differs from other crimes against the liberty of persons. As highlighted in both the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, it is a crime characterized both by the involvement of State agents – or persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State – and the refusal to acknowledge that a deprivation of liberty has occurred or the concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person. The involvement of the State has often resulted in impunity for the perpetrators. 2. The Working Group has for decades brought the issue of structural impunity for enforced disappearance to the attention of the international community. In 1993, following consultations with States, relatives of the disappeared and civil society organizations, it issued a report outlining recommendations aimed at ensuring accountability and preventing impunity for acts of enforced disappearance.1 3. The Working Group has repeatedly underscored that an effective criminal investigation is crucial not only for upholding the right to justice, but also to fulfilling the obligation to search for the disappeared person and for the enjoyment of the right to the truth and reparation, as these rights are closely intertwined.2 4. Nevertheless, the Working Group continues to observe reluctance when it comes to the diligent investigation of all allegations of disappearances and the holding of their perpetrators to account. Even within contexts where there is political will to tackle impunity and address cases of enforced disappearance (mostly in transitional processes), the limited availability of institutional instruments often represents an obstacle to their completion. 5. The present report is aimed at identifying the principal elements necessary for the design and implementation of investigative standards and relevant public policies in order to more effectively investigate cases of enforced disappearance and bring their perpetrators to justice. Challenges and good practices will also be analysed. 6. In preparing the present report, the Working Group consulted with experts during its 116th session, held in Geneva in September 2018, and issued a questionnaire for States3 and a call for contributions for other stakeholders.4 The Working Group thanks States and other stakeholders for their contributions. II. Elements of the obligation to investigate enforced disappearances and the obstacles thereto 7. The obligation for States to investigate enforced disappearances is now codified in the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (art. 13) and in the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (art. 12). These standards have been developed over the course of many years, following relevant jurisprudence articulated by international, regional and national courts, as well as the practices established by different States. 8. The obligation of States to investigate with due diligence was initially raised in the first ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the Velásquez Rodríguez case,5 and was later extended into many of the Court’s decisions. The first set of judgments of the Court referred to the complete lack of investigation at the national level in many Latin American countries under suppressive political regimes. 1 2 3 4 5 E/CN.4/1994/26, para. 45. A/HRC/16/48, para. 39. See also the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 24 (2). www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Disappearances/QuestinnaireEtats_ED_EN.pdf. www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Disappearances/StudyEffectiveInvestigation.pdf. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Case No. 7920, Judgment, 29 July 1988, para. 177. 3