The Contribution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Other International Human Rights Bodies to the Struggle against Enforced Disappearance

Since its first judgments, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“the IACtHR”) has often been called to pronounce itself on cases of enforced disappearance, developing a dynamic and original jurisprudence. The IACtHR has also been able to change its own positions and to adapt its findings to the particularly complex nature of enforced disappearance. The contribution aims at exploring whether the Inter-American jurisprudence could further influence that developed by other international human rights bodies (e.g. the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee) on the same matter, in light of the current interpretative differences. Special consideration is paid to the fact that on 23 December 2010 the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance entered into force and the Committee on Enforced Disappearances was established. The latter will have to “consult other treaty bodies instituted by relevant human rights instruments […] with a view to ensuring the consistency of their respective observations and recommendations”. It is therefore likely that the jurisprudence of the IACtHR may play an inspirational role. Some seminal rulings of the IACtHR are examined, dwelling upon the affirmation of the principle that “the prohibition of the forced disappearance of persons and the corresponding obligation to investigate and punish those responsible has attained the status of jus cogens”. This entails some consequences that are analyzed in this contribution. The jurisprudence on the need to confront enforced disappearance as an autonomous offence of permanent nature with its multiple interrelated elements; and the evolution of the case law on the violation of the right to juridical personality are also considered. Moreover, the Inter-American jurisprudence on the reversal of the burden of proof and the application of presumptions to declare a violation of the prohibition of torture with regard to the direct victim; on the measures of reparation to be adopted by respondent States; and on the subject of enforced disappearance and wrongful removal of children are analysed. The comparative analysis developed in the contribution leads to the conclusion that more consistency in international jurisprudence on the matter is highly desirable, as this would ultimately be beneficial for the victims of the crime.