A/HRC/34/55 disappeared children who were subjected to illegal adoption and in efforts to seek judicial accountability. Moreover, the “disappeared” children, now adults, are stepping forward to uncover their biological origins and some are playing a role in the prosecution of their adoptive parents.87 87. Even though transitional justice measures in the context of searches for biological origins have been applied following regime change, the same principles can be used to respond to the quests for truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence carried out by victims of other large-scale illegal adoptions, when such violations have been tolerated or directly committed by the State. The few responses of States to such cases reflect a piecemeal approach and a chequered pattern of denial, resistance, acknowledgement and assistance. The exception to this is Australia, where in 2012 the Senate released the findings and recommendations arising from an enquiry into former forced adoption policies and practices. The decision to release the findings and recommendations constituted an exercise in truth-seeking, a recognition of past wrongdoing, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence through legislative, institutional and policy reforms.88 88. Demands for truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence from victims of past large-scale or systematic cases of illegal adoptions continue to be ignored and inadequately addressed by States. Public instances of recognition of past wrongdoing are rare, depend on the willingness of those responsible and do not entail concrete action. In addition, public inquiries to establish the truth and recognize the experiences of victims have been incomplete and have failed to address the concerns of all victims. 89 Consequently, in many cases, victims’ demands for acknowledgement, apology and redress are yet to be met.90 5. Transnational cooperation 89. An expert group on the financial aspects of intercountry adoption and a working group on preventing and addressing illicit practices in intercountry adoption set up by the Hague Conference on Private International Law have developed concrete solutions. 91 The former has produced a note on the financial aspects of intercountry adoption and a table on costs associated with such adoptions and has invited States parties to the 1993 Hague Convention to publicly provide those financial details. In addition, the Hague Conference, often with the support of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), has provided technical assistance to countries of origin to set up or strengthen national child protection systems, including by establishing the conditions for the implementation and operation of the Convention. 90. In the context of intercountry adoptions, there have been calls to ensure coordinated responses from both receiving countries and countries of origin faced with illegal adoptions or highly fragile situations. Following the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean, both countries of origin and receiving countries, with the support of UNICEF and the Hague Conference on Private International Law, stated that no intercountry adoption would take place in the 87 88 89 90 91 20 Michelle Harvey-Blankenship, Phuong N. Pham and Rachel Shikegane, “Genetic tracing, disappeared children and justice”, Innocenti Working Papers (UNICEF, 2010). See www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/community _affairs/completed_inquiries/2010-13/commcontribformerforcedadoption/report/index. For Ireland, see http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared%20Documents/ IRL/INT_CEDAW_NGO_IRL_21867_E.pdf. For Spain, see http://sosbebesrobadosmadrid.com and http://anadir.es; and, for the United Kingdom, see https://movementforanadoptionapology.org. See https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/specialised-sections/intercountry-adoption.