Author: Communication Department

In April 2010, TRIAL submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights concerning the massacre and the subsequent removal and concealment of the mortal remains of Zikreta Bacic (10 years old), Sabahudin Bacic (13 years old), Zikret Bacic (15 years old) and Šida Bacic occurred in July 1992. TRIAL acts on behalf of Zijad Bacic, who is respectively the brother of Zikreta, Sabahudin and Zikret Bacic, and the son of Mrs. Šida Bacic.

When the events took place, Zijad Bacic was 14 years old and lived together with his family in Zecovi, a village not far from Prijedor. He is one of the only three survivors of the massacre of 29 people, including almost all his family, perpetrated by members of the Serb army.

On 25 July 1992, as ethnic cleansing operations were taking place throughout the region around Prijedor, the members of the Bacic family, including Zijad Bacic and some neighbours were forced to hide in the house of Hasan Bacic. In the evening, the place was surrounded by members of the Serb army who opened the fire and arbitrarily killed unarmed women and children, including the members of the family of Zijad Bacic. The latter managed to quickly hide and survived the massacre. Afterwards, with the help of neighbours, acquaintances and distant relatives, he eventually left the country and reached Germany, where he remained until 1997.

Witnesses reported that the mortal remains of the members of the Bacic family were removed by Serbs and taken away in a truck that headed towards Prijedor. The location of the mortal remains of the members of the families of the three applicants remains unknown since then. It is also noteworthy that the identity of some of the perpetrators of the enforced disappearance and of the massacre is known both to the applicants and to witnesses and has accordingly been reported on a number of occasions to domestic authorities.

Almost 18 years after the events, no ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been undertaken by BH authorities to locate, exhume, identify and return to the families the mortal remains of the victims of the massacre; or to identify, prosecute and sanction those responsible for these crimes.

Zijad Bacic repeatedly denounced the events before the competent authorities (e.g. the police in Sanski Most, the Cantonal Prosecutor in Bihać and the State Prosecutor in Sarajevo), as well as before international organizations present in BH (the United Nations International Police Task Force, the International Commission on Missing People, the International Committee of the Red Cross) and entities dealing with the matter of missing people (e.g. the Red Cross in Sanski Most, the Red Cross in Prijedor, the Federal Commission on Missing Persons). Zijad Bacic also formally gave their testimonies to the State Agency for Investigation and Protection (SIPA), and requested BH authorities to enact criminal proceedings to duly ascertain responsibilities and to punish the perpetrators.

On 16 July 2007 the Constitutional Court of BH, seized by several relatives of missing persons from Prijedor and the surrounding area, including Zijad Bacic declared a violation by BH of the right not to be subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and the right to respect for private and family life of the families of missing persons. The Constitutional Court ordered the domestic institutions concerned to disclose all available information on the fate and whereabouts of the missing people, including the four members of his family. So far, BH authorities failed to implement the decision of the Constitutional Court and did not provide any relevant information to the Court or to Zijad Bacic.

Consequently, Zijad Bacic requests the European Court of Human Rights:

to find that Zikreta Bacic, Sabahudin Bacic, Zikret Bacic and Šida Bacic are victims of a violation of the procedural aspects of Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture), in conjunction with Articles 1 (obligation to respect human rights) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, due to the ongoing failure of BH authorities to conduct an effective investigation on their massacre and the subsequent removal and concealment of their mortal remains;

to find that the applicant is victim of a violation by BH of Article 3 in conjunction with articles 1, 8 and 13 of the Convention, because of the intense anguish generated by the impossibility to have the mortal remains of their loved ones located, exhumed, identified and returned to them; and the ongoing lack of information on the progress and results of the investigations carried out by BH authorities;

to request BH to order independent investigations as a matter of urgency with a view to locating, exhuming, identifying, respecting and returning to the families the mortal remains of the victims of the massacre;

to request BH to bring the perpetrators of the massacre and subsequent removal and concealment of the mortal remains of the members of the applicants’ family before the competent civil authorities for prosecution, judgment and sanction without any further delay; and

to request BH to ensure that Zijad Bacic obtains integral reparation and prompt, fair and adequate compensation for the harm suffered.

On 11 December 2014, the European Court of Human Rights, sitting in a single-judge formation, declared the application inadmissible, finding that the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights are not met. No further details on this decision were provided. The decision is final and is not subject to appeal.

The General Context

It is estimated that between 100,000 and 200,000 people died as a consequence of the conflict (1992-1995) in BH and that between 25,000 and 30,000 were victims of enforced disappearance. Around 10,000 people remain missing to date.

The massacre and the subsequent removal and concealment of the mortal remains of Zikreta Bacic, Sabahudin Bacic, Zikret Bacic and Šida Bacic occurred as a part of the ethnic cleansing operations perpetrated by the Serb army in the context of the military attack of Prijedor and the surrounding area.

See also Fikret Bacic and Hidajet Horozovic cases, whose families were also killed in the same circumstances.

 

In June 2010, TRIAL submitted an individual complaint to the European Court of Human Rights against Bosnia-Herzegovina (BH) concerning the enforced disappearance of Esad Aliskovic which occurred in July 1992. In this case, ACT is acting on behalf of Refika Aliskovic, the wife of the victim.

On 20 July 1992, almost two months after the attack on the village of Prijidor (29-30 April 1992), the Serb army launched an attack against Rakovcani, a village located in the “Brdo” sector of the Prijedor municipality. At the time of the attack, the applicant was at home with her husband, their daughters, her brother-in-law and his wife. The two men were separated from their family and forced to join other men from the same village who had already been placed under arrest. The soldiers gave no information whatsoever to the applicant or to her sister-in-law concerning the reasons for arresting their husbands nor concerning the place where they were being held. Evidence from several witnesses given before the ICTY affirm that the men arrested in Brdo were taken to the Keraterm camp around 20-21 July 1992, and locked up in Room 3. On 24 July, the soldiers opened fire against these prisoners leaving very few survivors. An eyewitness indicated to Refika Aliskovic that on the eve of this massacre some twenty detainees, including her husband, were summoned and taken away to an unknown destination. Since then, no information has been made available as to the fate and whereabouts of Esad Aliskovic.

More than 18 years after this incident, no official, prompt, impartial, comprehensive and independent enquiry whatsoever has been undertaken by the BH authorities in order to locate, Esad Aliskovic or his mortal remains and return them to his family, nor has anyone yet been prosecuted, judged or punished for these crimes. Refika Aliskovic has taken several measures in order to obtain information concerning her husband including contact with various national authorities and institutions (notably, the Police and the Federal Commission for Disappeared Persons) and with international institutions, such as the International Commission on Missing Persons. As of today all of these initiatives have been in vain.

On 16 July 2007, the Constitutional Court of BH, ruling in an action brought by several families of victims of enforced disappearances from the Prijador region, held that BH was in violation of the right not to be subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and the right to respect for private and family life of the families of those disappeared. Accordingly, the Court ordered the national institutions concerned to disclose all available information on the fate and whereabouts of the missing persons, including that relating to Esad Aliskovic.

Following this decision, the office of the Republika Srpska Commission of Inquiry into Involuntary Disappearances addressed a letter to the applicant which simply stated that her husband had been added to the register of the Federal Commission for Disappeared Persons with a statement of desire on the part of the authorities to come to a resolution of the cases of missing persons. Until today’s date the applicant has received no new or additional information whatsoever from the authorities concerning her husband’s disappearance or of the measures being taken to locate the bodies of those missing. The BH authorities have therefore been remiss in implementing until now, a decision of the Constitutional Court and have provided absolutely no pertinent information either to the Court or the applicant.

Consequently, Refika Aliskovic has requested the European Court of Human Rights:

to find that Esad Aliskovic is a victim of a violation by BH of the procedural aspects of Articles 2 (Right to life), 3 (Prohibition of torture) and 5 (Right to liberty and security), in conjunction with Articles 1 (Obligation to respect human rights) and 13 (Right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, due to the absence of a prompt, impartial, independent and thorough investigation by the BH authorities in order to establish his fate and whereabouts, as well as to identify those responsible for these crimes and to prosecute, judge and punish them;

to find that Refika Aliskovic is herself a victim of a violation by BH of Article 3 in conjunction with Articles 1, 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, due to the severe mental distress and anguish caused by the complete lack of information concerning the progress and conclusion of the official inquiry conducted by the BH authorities into the disappearance of Esad Aliskovic;

to request BH to order at last and as a matter of some urgency, an independent investigation with a view to locating Esad Aliskovic and, if discovered, to exhume, identify, and return with respect his remains to the family;

to request BH to identify and bring the perpetrators and accomplices of the arbitrary arrest and subsequent enforced disappearance of Esad Aliskovic before the competent civil authorities for prosecution, judgment and punishment without any further delay; and

to request BH to ensure that Refika Aliskovic obtains integral reparation through prompt, fair and adequate compensation for the harm suffered.

Procedure

After a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application, on 28 September 2012 it was communicated to the Government of BiH.

In January 2013, REDRESS and the OMCT submitted to the ECHR an amicus curiae brief in relation with the present case to shed light on the link between enforced disappearance and the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment as well as the relationship between the continuing nature of enforced disappearance and the content of effective remedy and reparation for relatives of those who have “been disappeared”.

In January 2013 the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted its reply, challenging the admissibility and the merits of the case. On 25 March 2013, on behalf of the applicants, TRIAL submitted its pleadings to the European Court of Human Rights challenging in detail the arguments put forward by the respondent State and highlighting a number of mistakes and contraddictions contained in its submission to the European Court. The latter transmitted a copy of TRIAL’s reply to the Government, fixing 13 May 2013 as the deadline for comments they may wish to make. On 3 June 2014 the European Court issued a decision, finding that in this case Bosnian authorities did all that could be reasonably expected given the special circumstances prevailing in the country up until 2005 and the large number of war crimes pending before local courts. The Court noted that “it is evident that not all of the direct perpetrators of the many crimes committed within the context of the ethnic cleansing of the Prijedor area have been punished”. Nevertheless, it valued the fact that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the State Court have convicted respectively 16 and 7 persons in connection with crimes committed in the area.

 

See also the Ramulic case where a loved one was also arbitrarily arrested on the same occasion

 

General Context

It is estimated that between 100,000 and 200,000 persons died as a consequence of the conflict in BH during the period 1992-1995 and that between 25,000 and 30,000 were victims of enforced disappearance. As of today, between 10,000 and 13,000 people are still missing without trace.

The arbitrary arrest and enforced disappearance of Esad Aliskovic, took place during the first wave of the “ethnic cleansing” operations perpetrated by the Serb army during the military attack on Prijedor and the surrounding area in the spring and summer of 1992.

To date no one has been convicted, prosecuted and punished for the enforced disappearance of Esad Aliskovic, thus fostering an overall climate of impunity. The family of Esad Aliskovic has still not received any information on the fate and whereabouts of their loved one, nor an adequate and integral redress for the harm suffered.

 

oIn February 2010, TRIAL submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights concerning the enforced disappearance of Emir Hodžić which occurred in May 1992. TRIAL acts on behalf of  Mersija Hodžić and of EmiraBiščević, respectively mother and sister of Emir Hodžić.

Almost one month after the take over of the city of Prijedor (29-30 April 1992), the Serb army attacked the nearby town of Kozarac. Mersija Hodžić and her husband left Kozarac to save their lives. After staying for two months in Prijedor, they reached Croatia and rejoined with their daughter Emira Biščević, who was already living there. Mersija Hodžić and Emira Biščević resided in Croatia until 1996 and 1997 respectively.

Emir Hodžić had remained in Kozarac as he was a reservist member of the local police. According to eye-testimonies, after the take over of Kozarac by the Serb army, all members of the local police, including Emir Hodžić, were captured by the Serb army. The majority of them were arbitrarily killed opposite the building of the primary school in Kozarac, while others were taken to concentration camps which had been set up in the region (e.g. Omarska). Emir Hodžić was seen for the last time on 26 May 1992 together with a group of colleagues, who later on were all captured and executed by members of the army of the Republika Srpska. His fate and whereabouts remain unknown since then.

Almost 18 years after the events no ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been undertaken by BiH authorities to locate Emir Hodžićor his mortal remains or to identify, prosecute and sanction those responsible. Since when they were living in Croatia, Mersija Hodžić and Emira Biščević have taken several steps to obtain information about their loved one through international organizations and diplomatic channels. When they returned to BiH, they reported the enforced disappearance of Emir Hodžić to domestic authorities. These initiatives have proved vain.

On 16 July 2007 the Constitutional Court of BiH, seized by several relatives of victims of enforced disappearance from Prijedor and the surrounding area, declared a violation by BiH of the right not to be subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and the right to respect for private and family life of the families of disappeared persons. Accordingly, the Court ordered the domestic institutions concerned to disclose all available information on the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared people, including Emir Hodžić. So far, BiH authorities failed to implement the decision of the Constitutional Court and did not provide any relevant information to the Court or to Mersija Hodžić and Emira Biščević.

Consequently, Mersija Hodžić and Emira Biščević request the European Court of Human Rights:

to find that Emir Hodžić is a victim of a violation of the procedural aspects of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture) and 5 (right to liberty and security), in conjunction with Articles 1 (obligation to respect human rights) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, due to the ongoing failure of BiH authorities to conduct an ex officio, prompt, impartial, independent and thorough investigation on his enforced disappearance in order to establish his fate and whereabouts, as well as to identify those responsible for these crimes and to prosecute, judge and sanction them;

to find that they are victims of a violation by BiH of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) in conjunction with Articles 1 (obligation to respect human rights), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, because of the severe mental distress and anguish caused by Emir Hodžić’s enforced disappearance and the ongoing lack of information about the cause and circumstances of such disappearance as well as on the progress and results of the investigations carried out by BiH authorities;

to request BiH to order independent investigations as a matter of urgency with a view to locating Emir Hodžić and, if necessary, exhuming, identifying, respecting and returning to the family his mortal remains;

to request BiH to bring the perpetrators of the arbitrary arrest and subsequent enforced disappearance of Emir Hodžić before the competent civil authorities for prosecution, judgment and sanction without any further delay; and

to request BiH to ensure that Mersija Hodžić and Emira Biščević obtain integral reparation and prompt, fair and adequate compensation for the harm suffered.

Procedure

After a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application, on 28 September 2012 it was communicated to the Government of BiH.

In January 2013, REDRESS and the OMCT submitted to the ECHR an amicus curiae brief in relation with the present case to shed light on the link between enforced disappearance and the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment as well as the relationship between the continuing nature of enforced disappearance and the content of effective remedy and reparation for relatives of those who have “been disappeared”.

In January 2013 the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted its reply, challenging the admissibility and the merits of the case. On 25 March 2013, on behalf of the applicants, TRIAL submitted its pleadings to the European Court of Human Rights challenging in detail the arguments put forward by the respondent State and highlighting a number of mistakes and contraddictions contained in its submission to the European Court. The latter transmitted a copy of TRIAL’s reply to the Government, fixing 13 May 2013 as the deadline for comments they may wish to make. On 3 June 2014 the European Court issued a decision, finding that in this case Bosnian authorities did all that could be reasonably expected given the special circumstances prevailing in the country up until 2005 and the large number of war crimes pending before local courts. The Court noted that “it is evident that not all of the direct perpetrators of the many crimes committed within the context of the ethnic cleansing of the Prijedor area have been punished”. Nevertheless, it valued the fact that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the State Court have convicted respectively 16 and 7 persons in connection with crimes committed in the area.

 

The General Context

It is estimated that between 100,000 and 200,000 persons died as a consequence of the conflict (1992-1995) in BiH and that between 25,000 and 30,000 were victims of enforced disappearance. Between 10,000 and 13,000 people remain disappeared to date.

The enforced disappearance of Emir Hodžić occurred as a part of the “ethnic cleansing” operations perpetrated by the Serb army in the context of the military attack of Prijedor and the surrounding area.

To date no one has been convicted, prosecuted and sanctioned for the enforced disappearance of Emir Hodžić, thus fostering an overall climate of impunity. Up to this day, the family of Emir Hodžić still has not received any information on the fate and whereabouts of their loved one, nor an adequate and integral redress for the harm suffered.

 

In June 2010, TRIAL submitted an individual complaint to the European Court of Human Rights against Bosnia-Herzegovina (BH) concerning the enforced disappearance of Enes Ramulic which occurred in July 1992. In this case, ACT is acting on behalf of Edin Ramulic, the brother of the victim.

At the time of his disappearance, Enes Ramulic was 22 years old and lived with his family in Rakovcani, a village in the municipality of Prijedor in today’s Republika Srpska.

On 22 July 1992, uniformed soldiers of the Yugoslav Army, entered the village and ordered all the men to assemble outside their homes. Obeying this summons, Edin Ramulic, Enes Ramulic and Uzeir Ramulic lined up in front of their house. Edin Ramulic who had lost a lot of weight and was very weak, appeared to the soldiers to be too young and was ordered back into the house.

Several witnesses have asserted that the men arrested in the village, including Enes and Uzeir Ramulic, were then escorted to the Keraterm concentration camp and interned in Room 3 where they were reportedly massacred on 24 July 1992. Fellow prisoners have stated that Uzeir Ramulic most likely was killed during the massacre but that his son, Enes, apparently survived. On 4 August 1992, he was seen for the last time, in very poor health, before being taken from the camp by bus the following day with around another 120 prisoners. A judgment handed down by the ICTY has confirmed the above facts and that all of the occupants of the bus were massacred. However the body of Enes Ramulic could not be identified amongst the dead bodies of the other passengers found at Hrastova Glavica, which lies approximately thirty kilometers from Prijidor.

More than 18 years after this incident, no official, prompt, impartial, comprehensive and independent enquiry whatsoever has been undertaken by the BH authorities in order to locate, identify and return the mortal remains of the victim to the family; nor has anyone yet been prosecuted, judged or punished for these crimes despite the great amount of energy devoted by the applicant in trying to shed light on these events.

On several occasions Edin Ramulic documented and submitted allegations concerning these events to the authorities including the Sanski Most police, the cantonal office of the Bihac Prosecutor, the Red Cross in Travnik and Zagreb, the Federal Commission for Disappeared Persons and the BH Institute for Disappeared Persons. Despite the futile outcome to date, Edin Ramulic has remained very active particularly through his participation in the work of the IZVOR association which lends support to the families of disappeared persons and through his personal research efforts which are facilitated due to his position as a journalist.

On 16 July 2007 the Constitutional Court of BH, ruling in an action brought by several families of victims of enforced disappearances from the Prijador region, which included Ramulic, held that BH was in violation of the right not to be subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and the right to respect for private and family life of the families of those disappeared. Accordingly, the Court ordered the national institutions concerned to disclose all available information on the fate and whereabouts of the missing persons, including that relating to the brother of Edin Ramulic.

On 22 March 2008, the applicant received a letter from the office of the Republika Srpska Commission of Inquiry into Involuntary Disappearances which simply acknowledged his request for information without providing any new or additional information whatsoever.

Confronted with such indifference on the part of the BH authorities concerned, Edin Ramulic requested the BH Constitutional Court, in a letter dated 30 March 2009, to take all necessary measures to ensure that its decision of 16 July 2007 be implemented. Up until this date this request has also gone unanswered.

Consequently, Edin Ramulic has requested the European Court of Human Rights:

to find that Enes Ramulic is a victim of a violation by BH of the procedural aspects of Articles 2 (Right to life), 3 (Prohibition of torture) and 5 (Right to liberty and security), in conjunction with Articles 1 (Obligation to respect human rights) and 13 (Right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, due to the absence of a prompt, impartial, independent and thorough investigation by the BH authorities in order to establish his fate and whereabouts, as well as to identify those responsible for these crimes and to prosecute, judge and punish them;

to find that Edin Ramulic is himself a victim of a violation by BH of Article 3 in conjunction with Articles 1, 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, due to the severe mental distress and anguish caused by the complete lack of information concerning the progress and conclusion of the official inquiry conducted by the BH authorities into the disappearance of Enes Ramulic. Furthermore, the impossibility to pay his final respects to the body of his brother according to the rites and traditions of the Muslim faith is an additional source of suffering and constitutes interference by a public body into his private and family life;

to request BH to order at last and as a matter of urgency, an independent investigation with a view to locating Enes Ramulic and, if discovered, to exhume, identify, and return his remains with respect to the family;

to request BH to identify and bring the perpetrators and accomplices of the arbitrary arrest and subsequent enforced disappearance of Enes Ramulic before the competent civil authorities for prosecution, judgment and punishment without any further delay; and

to request BH to ensure that Edin Ramulic obtains integral reparation through prompt, fair and adequate compensation for the harm suffered.

Procedure

After a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application, on 28 September 2012 it was communicated to the Government of BiH.

In January 2013, REDRESS and the OMCT submitted to the ECHR an amicus curiae brief in relation with the present case to shed light on the link between enforced disappearance and the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment as well as the relationship between the continuing nature of enforced disappearance and the content of effective remedy and reparation for relatives of those who have “been disappeared”.

In January 2013 the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted its reply, challenging the admissibility and the merits of the case. On 25 March 2013, on behalf of the applicants, TRIAL submitted its pleadings to the European Court of Human Rights challenging in detail the arguments put forward by the respondent State and highlighting a number of mistakes and contraddictions contained in its submission to the European Court. The latter transmitted a copy of TRIAL’s reply to the Government, fixing 13 May 2013 as the deadline for comments they may wish to make. On 3 June 2014 the European Court issued a decision, finding that in this case Bosnian authorities did all that could be reasonably expected given the special circumstances prevailing in the country up until 2005 and the large number of war crimes pending before local courts. The Court noted that “it is evident that not all of the direct perpetrators of the many crimes committed within the context of the ethnic cleansing of the Prijedor area have been punished”. Nevertheless, it valued the fact that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the State Court have convicted respectively 16 and 7 persons in connection with crimes committed in the area.

 

See also the Aliskovic case where a loved one was also arbitrarily arrested on the same occasion.

 

General Context

It is estimated that between 100,000 and 200,000 persons died as a consequence of the conflict in BH during the period 1992-1995 and that between 25,000 and 30,000 were victims of enforced disappearance. As of today, between 10,000 and 13,000 people are still missing without trace.

The arbitrary arrest and enforced disappearance of Uzeir and Enes Ramulic, the murder of the first and the enforced disappearance of the second, took place within the context of the “ethnic cleansing” operations perpetrated by the Serb army during the military attack on Prijedor and the surrounding area in the spring and summer of 1992.

To date no one has been convicted, prosecuted and punished for the enforced disappearance of Enes Ramulic, thus fostering an overall climate of impunity. The family of Enes Ramulic has still not received any information on the fate and whereabouts of their loved one, nor an adequate and integral redress for the harm suffered.

 

In November 2009, TRIAL submitted an application to theEuropean Court of Human Rights concerning the enforced disappearance of Nedžad Fazlić occurred in May 1992.  TRIAL acts on behalf of Fatima Fazlić, wife of  Nedžad Fazlić; and of Dženana Fazlić and Lejla Fazlić, daughters of Nedžad Fazlić.

Almost one month after the take over of the city of Prijedor (29-30 April 1992), the Serb army attacked the nearby town of Kozarac. Fatima Fazlić and her daughters Dženana and Lejla Fazlić (at that time respectively 8 years and 4 months old) had left Kozarac a few days before trying to save their lives. In June 1992 they reached Germany, where the brother of Fatima Fazlić was living. Nedžad Fazlić remained in Kozarac, as he was a member of the Territorial Defence Unit. According to eye-testimonies, after the take over of the town of Kozarac by the Serb army, Nedžad Fazlić escaped in the Kozara forest together with other men, trying to reach Croatia. On 28 May 1992 Nedžad Fazlić and a group of other men were arrested by members of the police of the Republika Srpska and taken to the police station of Aleksandrovac, near Gradiška: some detainees were subsequently taken to a concentration camp; while others, including Nedžad Fazlić, were taken to an unknown destination. That was the last time that Nedžad Fazlić was seen alive. His fate and whereabouts remain unknown since then.

More than 17 years after the events, no ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been undertaken by BiH authorities in order to locate Nedžad Fazlić or his mortal remains or to identify, prosecute and sanction those responsible. Fatima Fazlić has taken several steps to obtain information about her husband, through domestic authorities (in particular, the Police in Sanski Most, the Commission on Missing Persons of the Federation of BiH and the Republika Srpska Office for Tracing Detained and Missing Persons) and international organizations (International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Cross of Germany). These initiatives have proved vain.

On 16 July 2007 the Constitutional Court of BiH, seized by several relatives of victims of enforced disappearance from Prijedor and the surrounding area, declared a violation by BiH of the right not to be subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and the right to respect for private and family life of the families of disappeared persons. Accordingly, the Court ordered the relevant domestic institutions to disclose all available information on the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared people, including Nedžad Fazlić. So far, BiH authorities failed to implement the decision of the Constitutional Court and did not provide any relevant information to the Court or to Fatima Fazlić, Dženana Fazlić and Lejla Fazlić.

Consequently, Fatima Fazlić, Dženana Fazlić and Lejla Fazlić request the European Court of Human Rights:

to find that Nedžad Fazlić is a victim of a violation of the procedural aspects of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture) and 5 (right to liberty and security), in conjunction with Articles 1 (obligation to respect human rights) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, due to the ongoing failure of BiH authorities to conduct an ex officio, prompt, impartial, independent and thorough investigation on his arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance in order to establish his fate and whereabouts, as well as to identify those responsible for these crimes and to prosecute, judge and sanction them;

to find that Fatima Fazlić, Dženana Fazlić et Lejla Fazlić are themselves  victims of a violation by BiH of Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) in conjunction with Articles 1 (obligation to respect human rights), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, because of the severe mental distress and anguish caused by Nedžad Fazlić’s enforced disappearance and the ongoing lack of information about the cause and circumstances of Nedžad Fazlić’s disappearance as well as on the progress and results of the investigations carried out by BiH authorities;

to request BiH to order independent investigations as a matter of urgency with a view to locating Nedžad Fazlić and, if necessary, exhuming, identifying, respecting and returning his mortal remains;

to request BiH, pursuant to Article 41 and Article 46.2 of the Convention, to indentify, indict, judge before the competent civil authorities and sanction those responsible of the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and subsequent enforced disappearance of Nedžad Fazlić, as well as the abettors and possible accessories after the facts; and to ensure that Fatima Fazlić, Dženana Fazlić and Lejla Fazlić have full access and capacity to act at all stages and in all instances of the said investigations and proceedings, in accordance with domestic law and the provisions of the European Convention.

to request BiH to publish the results of the investigations and the proceedings, so that BiH society is able to know the judicial determination of the facts and those responsible in this case;

to request BiH, pursuant to Article 41 and Article 46.2 of the Convention, to grant toFatima Fazlić, to Dženana Fazlić and to Lejla Fazlić adequate pecuniary compensation, covering both material and non-pecuniary damages;

to request BiH, pursuant to Article 41 and Article 46.2 of the Convention, to ensure that the measures adopted in favour of Fatima Fazlić, Dženana Fazlić and Lejla Fazlićprovide them with integral reparation that comprises restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction (including restoration of dignity and reputation), and guarantees of non-repetition;

to request BiH to publish, in English and in Bosanski, relevant excerpts of the Court’s judgment (including the establishment of the facts, the findings of the Court and, if any, the attached opinions) in the Official Gazette and in another newspaper with widespread national circulation;

Procedure

After a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application, on 28 September 2012 it was communicated to the Government of BiH.

In January 2013, REDRESS and the OMCT submitted to the ECHR an amicus curiae brief in relation with the present case to shed light on the link between enforced disappearance and the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment as well as the relationship between the continuing nature of enforced disappearance and the content of effective remedy and reparation for relatives of those who have “been disappeared”.

In January 2013 the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted its reply, challenging the admissibility and the merits of the case. On 25 March 2013, on behalf of the applicants, TRIAL submitted its pleadings to the European Court of Human Rights challenging in detail the arguments put forward by the respondent State and highlighting a number of mistakes and contraddictions contained in its submission to the European Court. The latter transmitted a copy of TRIAL’s reply to the Government, fixing 13 May 2013 as the deadline for comments they may wish to make. In the following months the European Court of Human Rights will adopt its judgment on the case.

On 3 June 2014 the European Court issued a decision, finding that in this case Bosnian authorities did all that could be reasonably expected given the special circumstances prevailing in the country up until 2005 and the large number of war crimes pending before local courts. The Court noted that “it is evident that not all of the direct perpetrators of the many crimes committed within the context of the ethnic cleansing of the Prijedor area have been punished”. Nevertheless, it valued the fact that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the State Court have convicted respectively 16 and 7 persons in connection with crimes committed in the area.

 

The General Context

It is estimated that between 100,000 and 200,000 persons died as a consequence of the conflict (1992-1995) in BiH and that between 25,000 and 30,000 were victims of enforced disappearance. Between 10,000 and 13,000 people remain disappeared to date.

The enforced disappearance of Nedžad Fazlić occurred as a part of the “ethnic cleansing” operations perpetrated by the Serb army in the context of the military attack of Prijedor and the surrounding area.

To date no one has been convicted, prosecuted and sanctioned for the arbitrary arrest and subsequent enforced disappearance of Nedžad Fazlić, thus fostering an overall climate of impunity. Up to this day, the family of Nedžad Fazlić still has not received any information on the fate and whereabouts of their loved one.

 

In April 2010, TRIAL submitted an application to theEuropean Court of Human Rights concerning the massacre and the subsequent removal and concealment of the mortal remains of Nermin Horozovic (11 years old), Nermina Horozovic (15 years old), Ramiza Horozovic, Šaha Bacic and Hašija Horozovic, occurred in July 1992. TRIAL acts on behalf of Hidajet Horozović, who is respectively the brother of Nermin and Nermina Horozovic, the son of Ramiza Horozovic and the grandson of Šaha Bacic and Hašija Horozovic.

When the events took place, Hidajet Horozovic was 9 years old and lived together with his family in Zecovi. He is one of the only three survivors of the massacre of 29 people, including almost all his family, perpetrated by members of the Serb army.

On 25 July 1992, as ethnic cleansing operations were taking place throughout the region around Prijedor. In the evening, the place was surrounded by members of the Serb army who went to the house of Mr. Ibrahim Bacic, where the members of the Horozovic family (including Hidajet Horozovic) and some neighbours were hiding. The soldiers, in spite of having been informed that only women and children were inside the house, opened the fire and arbitrarily killed the people inside. Although injured, Hidajet Horozovic survived the massacre and spent two months in Hospital in Prijedor, before leaving the country to Germany, where he remained until 1997.

Witnesses reported that the mortal remains of the members of the Horozovic family were removed and taken away in a truck that headed towards Prijedor. The location of their mortal remains is since then unknown. It is also noteworthy that the identity of some of the perpetrators of the enforced disappearance and of the massacre is known both to the applicants and to witnesses and has accordingly been reported on a number of occasions to domestic authorities.

Almost 18 years after the events, no ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been undertaken by BH authorities to locate, exhume, identify and return to the families the mortal remains of the victims of the massacre; or to identify, prosecute and sanction those responsible for these crimes. Hidajet Horozovic repeatedly denounced the events before the competent authorities (e.g. the police in Sanski Most, the Cantonal Prosecutor in Bihać and the State Prosecutor in Sarajevo), as well as before international organizations present in BiH (the United Nations International Police Task Force, the International Commission on Missing People, the International Committee of the Red Cross) and entities dealing with the matter of missing people (e.g. the Red Cross in Sanski Most, the Red Cross in Prijedor, the Federal Commission on Missing Persons). Hidajet Horozovic also formally gave his testimony to the State Agency for Investigation and Protection (SIPA), and requested BH authorities to enact criminal proceedings to duly ascertain responsibilities and to punish the perpetrators.

On 16 July 2007 the Constitutional Court of BH, seized by several relatives of missing persons from Prijedor and the surrounding area, including Hidajet Horozovic, declared a violation by BH of the right not to be subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and the right to respect for private and family life of the families of missing persons. The Constitutional Court ordered the domestic institutions concerned to disclose all available information on the fate and whereabouts of the missing people, including the five members of Hidajet Horozovic’s family. So far, BH authorities failed to implement the decision of the Constitutional Court and did not provide any relevant information to the Court or to Hidajet Horozovic.

Consequently, Hidajet Horozovic requests the European Court of Human Rights:

to find that Nermin Horozovic, Nermina Horozovic, Ramiza Horozovic, Šaha Bacic and Hašija Horozovic are victims of a violation of the procedural aspects of Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture), in conjunction with Articles 1 (obligation to respect human rights) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, due to the ongoing failure of BH authorities to conduct an effective investigation on their massacre and the subsequent removal and concealment of their mortal remains ;

to find that the applicant is victim of a violation by BH of Article 3 in conjunction with articles 1, 8 and 13 of the Convention, because of the intense anguish generated by the impossibility to have the mortal remains of their loved ones located, exhumed, identified and returned to them; and the ongoing lack of information on the progress and results of the investigations carried out by BH authorities;

to request BH to order independent investigations as a matter of urgency with a view to locating, exhuming, identifying, respecting and returning to the families the mortal remains of the victims of the massacre;

to request BH to bring the perpetrators of the enforced disappearance of the massacre and subsequent removal and concealment of the mortal remains of the members of the applicant’s family before the competent civil authorities for prosecution, judgment and sanction without any further delay; and

to request BH to ensure that Hidajet Horozovic obtains integral reparation and prompt, fair and adequate compensation for the harm suffered.

On 11 December 2014, the European Court of Human Rights, sitting in a single-judge formation, declared the application inadmissible, finding that the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights are not met. No further details on this decision were provided. The decision is final and is not subject to appeal.

The General Context

It is estimated that between 100,000 and 200,000 people died as a consequence of the conflict (1992-1995) in BH and that between 25,000 and 30,000 were victims of enforced disappearance. Around 10,000 people remain missing to date.

The massacre and the subsequent removal and concealment of the mortal remains of Nermin Horozovic, Nermina Horozovic, Ramiza Horozovic, Šaha Bacic and Hašija Horozovic occurred as a part of the ethnic cleansing operations perpetrated by the Serb army in the context of the military attack of Prijedor and the surrounding area.

See also Fikret Bacic and Zijad Bacic cases, whose families were also killed in the same circumstances.

 

In November 2009, TRIAL submitted an application to theEuropean Court of Human Rights concerning the enforced disappearance of Edin Mahmuljin that occurred in June 1992, on behalf of Ismeta Mahmuljin and Muharem Mahmuljin, respectively mother and father of Edin Mahmuljin.

Almost one month after the takeover of the city of Prijedor (29-30 April 1992), the Serb army attacked the nearby town of Kozarac. On 24 May 1992 Ismeta Mahmuljin, together with her son Edin Mahmuljin, her daughter in law Saida Mahmuljin and her grandson Alen Mahmuljin (then 3-year old), fled to the forest of Kozara to seek refuge. Two days later, they decided to separate: while Edin Mahmuljin remained in the woods with other men, the rest of the family returned to Kozarac, where they were taken by the Serb army and transferred to the concentration camp of Trnopolje, from which they were freed about one month later. According to the testimony of other men who had remained in the Kozara forest together with Edin Mahmuljin, on 24 June 1992 the group was captured by members of the Serb army in a region between Bosanska Dubica and Bosanska Gradiška, in a place known as Sjeverovci. Some men were taken to the concentration camp of Omarska; while some others, including Edin Mahmuljin, were taken to an unknown destination. This is the last time that Edin Mahmuljin was seen alive and his fate and whereabouts remain unknown since then.

More than 17 years after the events, no ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been undertaken by BiH authorities in order to locate Edin Mahmuljin or his mortal remains or to identify, prosecute and sanction those responsible. Ismeta Mahmuljin and Muharem Mahmuljin have taken numerous steps to obtain information about their son, through domestic authorities and national institutions (in particular, the police in Sanski Most, the Commission on Missing Persons of the Federation of BiH and the Red Cross of Republika Srpska) as well as through international organizations (International Committee of the Red Cross). These initiatives have so far proved vain.

On 16 July 2007 the Constitutional Court of BiH, seized by several relatives of victims of enforced disappearance from Prijedor and the surrounding area, declared a violation by BiH of the right not to be subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and the right to respect for private and family life of the families of disappeared persons. Accordingly, the Court ordered the competent domestic institutions to disclose all available information on the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared persons, including Edin Mahmuljin. So far, the Council of Ministers of BiH, the government of the Republika Srpska, the government of the Federation of BiH and the government of the Brčko District of BiH failed to enforce the decision of the Constitutional Court and Mrs. Ismeta Mahmuljin and Muharem Mahmuljin have not received any information about their son from the mentioned authorities.

Consequently, Ismeta Mahmuljin and Muharem Mahmuljin request the European Court of Human Rights:

to find that Edin Mahmuljin is victim of a violation of the procedural aspects of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatments) and 5 (right to liberty and security), in conjunction with Articles 1 (obligation to respect human rights) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, due to the ongoing failure of BiH authorities to conduct an ex officio, prompt, impartial, independent and thorough investigation on his arbitrary detention and subsequent enforced disappearance, in order to establish his fate and whereabouts, as well as to identify those responsible for these crimes and to prosecute, judge and sanction them;

to find that Ismeta Mahmuljin and Muharem Mahmuljin are themselves victims of a violation by BiH of Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) in conjunction with Articles 1 (obligation to respect human rights), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, because of the severe mental distress and anguish caused by Edin Mahmuljin’s enforced disappearance and the ongoing lack of information about the cause and circumstances of Edin Mahmuljin’s disappearance as well as on the progress and results of the investigations carried out by BiH authorities;

to request BiH to order independent investigations as a matter of urgency with a view to locating Edin Mahmuljin and, if necessary, exhuming, identifying, respecting and returning his mortal remains;

to request BiH, pursuant to Article 41 and Article 46.2 of the Convention, to indentify, indict, judge before the competent civil authorities and sanction those responsible of the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and subsequent enforced disappearance of Edin Mahmuljin, as well as the abettors and possible accessories after the facts; and to ensure that Ismeta Mahmuljin and Muharem Mahmuljin have full access and capacity to act at all stages and in all instances of the said investigations and proceedings, in accordance with domestic law and the provisions of the European Convention;

to request BiH to publish the results of the investigations and the proceedings, so that BiH society is able to know the judicial determination of the facts and those responsible in this case;

to request BiH, pursuant to Article 41 and Article 46.2 of the Convention, to grant to Ismeta Mahmuljin and to Muharem Mahmuljin adequate pecuniary compensation, covering both material and non-pecuniary damages;

to request BiH, pursuant to Article 41 and Article 46.2 of the Convention, to ensure that the measures adopted in favour of Ismeta Mahmuljin and Muharem Mahmuljin provide them with integral reparation that comprises restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction (including restoration of dignity and reputation), and guarantees of non-repetition;

to request BiH to publish, in English and in Bosanski, relevant excerpts of the Court’s judgment (including the establishment of the facts, the findings of the Court and, if any, the attached opinions) in the Official Gazette and in another newspaper with widespread national circulation;

Procedure

After a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application, on 28 September 2012 it was communicated to the Government of BiH.

In January 2013, REDRESS and the OMCT submitted to the ECHR an amicus curiae brief in relation with the present case to shed light on the link between enforced disappearance and the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment as well as the relationship between the continuing nature of enforced disappearance and the content of effective remedy and reparation for relatives of those who have “been disappeared”.

In January 2013 the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted its reply, challenging the admissibility and the merits of the case. On 25 March 2013, on behalf of the applicants, TRIAL submitted its pleadings to the European Court of Human Rights challenging in detail the arguments put forward by the respondent State and highlighting a number of mistakes and contraddictions contained in its submission to the European Court. The latter transmitted a copy of TRIAL’s reply to the Government, fixing 13 May 2013 as the deadline for comments they may wish to make.

On 3 June 2014 the European Court issued a decision, finding that in this case Bosnian authorities did all that could be reasonably expected given the special circumstances prevailing in the country up until 2005 and the large number of war crimes pending before local courts. The Court noted that “it is evident that not all of the direct perpetrators of the many crimes committed within the context of the ethnic cleansing of the Prijedor area have been punished”. Nevertheless, it valued the fact that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the State Court have convicted respectively 16 and 7 persons in connection with crimes committed in the area.

 

The General Context

It is estimated that between 100,000 and 200,000 persons died as a consequence of the conflict (1992-1995) in BiH and that between 25,000 and 30,000 were victims of enforced disappearance. Between 10,000 and 13,000 people remain disappeared to date.

The enforced disappearance of Edin Mahmuljin occurred as a part of the “ethnic cleansing” operations perpetrated by the Serb army in the context of the military attack of Prijedor and the surrounding area.

To date no one has been convicted, prosecuted and sanctioned for the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and subsequent enforced disappearance of Edin Mahmuljin, thus fostering an overall climate of impunity. Up to this day, the family of Edin Mahmuljin still has not received any information on the fate and whereabouts of their loved one.

 

In September 2008, TRIAL lodged six individual applications before the European Court of Human rights in relation to the disappearance of eight Bosniak men during the massacre at Mount Vlasic, on behalf of their relatives.

The cases concern:

  • Edin Elezovic, 24
  • Emir Elezovic, 22
  • Fahrudin Mujkanovic, 29
  • Serif Bajric, 50
  • Zafir Bajric, 21
  • Zijad Huskanovic, 26
  • Fahrudin Elezovic, 45
  • Asmir Memic, 28.

These civilians were detained at the Trnopolje concentration camp, located ten kilometers away from Prijedor, in northwestern Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 21 August 1992, several buses arrived at the camp, organized by the Serb authorities to transport people out of Prijedor into Muslim-held territory and release them.

Late afternoon, the convoy stopped before reaching the line of separation between Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Muslim controlled territory. Over 200 men were then ordered out of the bus, and sent with other buses to the area of Koricanske Stijene, on Mount Vlasic. The rest of the convoy continued towards its initial destination.

The guards and soldiers commanded the 200 people to leave the buses, and to kneel down on the edge of a cliff. The men were then shot. Grenades were also thrown into the gorge, and wounded men at the bottom of the gorge were fired at. At least twelve men survived the massacre by falling of jumping from the cliff where the killing took place.

The exact fate of the other people, including Edin and Emir Elezovic, Fahrudin Mujkanovic, Serif and Zafir Bajric, Zijad Huskanovic, Fahrudin Elezovic and Asmir Memic, is to this day unclear. Their bodies have probably been buried in mass graves in various locations of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the aftermath of the massacre, but have never been found. More than 16 years after the event, no serious investigation has yet been undertaken by the authorities in order to locate the missing persons or bodies.

Families of missing persons have taken several steps to obtain information about their relatives, through the Federal Commission for Missing Persons of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Office for Tracing Missing Persons of the Republika Srpska. These initiatives have proved vain. The only investigation that lead to a criminal conviction was led by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) against Darko Mrdja, who was sentenced to 17 years in prison.

On 16 July 2007, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, seized by several families of victims, ordered all the relevant Bosnian institutions to provide them with all available information on the whereabouts of their missing relatives. This judgement proved useless, as the families still have not received any information about their family members from any of the institutions.

The authors of the complaints request the Court to recognize that the lack of effective investigation by the authorities leads to:

  • with regard to the disappeared persons: a continuing procedural violation of article 2 (right to life) and 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)
  • a violation of article 13, due to the absence of investigation and effective remedy;
  • with regard to the families of the missing persons: a continuing substantive violation of articles 3 and 8 for the psychological distress suffered, as well as for the interference with their family life.

 

Procedure

After a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application, on 28 September 2012 it was communicated to the Government of BiH.

In January 2013, REDRESS and the OMCT submitted to the ECHR an amicus curiae brief in relation with the present case to shed light on the link between enforced disappearance and the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment as well as the relationship between the continuing nature of enforced disappearance and the content of effective remedy and reparation for relatives of those who have “been disappeared”.

In January 2013 the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted its reply, challenging the admissibility and the merits of the case. On 25 March 2013, on behalf of the applicants, TRIAL submitted its pleadings to the European Court of Human Rights challenging in detail the arguments put forward by the respondent State and highlighting a number of mistakes and contraddictions contained in its submission to the European Court. The latter transmitted a copy of TRIAL’s reply to the Government, fixing 13 May 2013 as the deadline for comments they may wish to make.

On 3 June 2014 the European Court issued a decision, finding that in this case Bosnian authorities did all that could be reasonably expected given the special circumstances prevailing in the country up until 2005 and the large number of war crimes pending in local courts. The exhumation of the mortal remains of four of the applicants’ relatives was considered a significant achievement, as well as the identification of ten direct perpetrators by the State Court, the issuing of two international arrest warrants and the conviction of one perpetrator by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

 

The general context

The massacre at Mount Vlasic took place at the beginning of the Bosnian war, within the framework of an ethnic cleansing campaign led by the armed forces and police of the Republika Srpska, following the dismantling of Yugoslavia.

It is estimated that between 100,000 and 20,000 persons died as a consequence of the conflict. Half of the 25,000 persons reported as missing in the aftermath of the conflict were found in various mass graves and identified. Approximately 13,000 persons are still missing.

Only one person was convicted by the ICTY in relation to the massacre of Koricanske Stijene. In May 2008, the Bosnian authorities eventually announced that four other persons had been arrested and would be prosecuted by national tribunals for this crime. Up to this day, the families of victims still have not received any information on the whereabouts of their relatives.

 

In January 2012 TRIAL submitted an individual communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee on behalf of Mrs Kamela Allioua and Mrs. Fatima Zohra Kerouane. They are acting for their grand-children and brothers Mr. Adel, Tarek and Mohamed Kerouane, who were arrested respectively on 12 April 1994, on 20 May 1994 and on 22 February 1996 in Constantine by Algerian security forces and have been reported missing ever since. These incidents have occurred within the general context of the enforced disappearance of thousands of Algerian citizens at the hands of the army or security forces of the State between 1992 and 1998.

Mr. Adel Kerouane was arrested on 12 April 1994 by members of the Algerian security service in Constantine. He disappeared after having spent 15 days in the hospital to heal from a bullet wound in his leg. His family has received no information whatsoever since his transfer from the hospital to an unknown detention centre. 16 years-old Mr. Tarek Keroune was summoned on 20 May 1994 by agents of the criminal investigation department in Constantine. Last seen by his uncle at the moment of the house search manned by local policemen, Mr. Tarek Kerouane has been reported missing ever since. Finally Mr. Mohamed Kerouane, 15 years-old at that time, was arrested on 22 February 1996 by officers belonging to the police unit of Hamma, where according to a witness’ report, he was detained for a month before being transferred to an unknown detention center. His family has not been able to communicate with him any longer and his fate and whereabouts remain unknown since.

Plunged into a situation of distressful uncertainty, the Kerouane family, notably Mrs. Kamela Allioua and Mrs. Fatima Zohra Kerouane, relentlessly took steps to find out their beloved ones since the day of their arrest. Despite the countless requests to several local army barracks, police stations, as well as to the Office of the Prosecutor in Constantine, no investigation whatsoever has been opened on their disappearences. The administrative and governmental authorities have been similarly seized by the applicants, but to no avail.

Despite the numerous steps taken and the steady hope of the family members to be able to find out about their fate, so far no light has been shed concerning the disappearances of Mr. Adel, Tarek and Mohamed Kerouane.

The authors of the communication, Mrs. Kamela Allioua and Mrs. Fatime Zohra Kerouane, asks the Human Rights Committee to recognise that Algeria violated articles 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16 and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rightsagainst Mr. Adel, Tarek and Mohamed Kerouane as well as article 24 against Mr. Tarek and Mohamed Kerouane. It is furthermore submitted that the situation gives rise to a violation of articles 2, 7 and 23 of the ICCPR against the authors of the communication as a result of the psychological suffering endured over the many years of uncertainty concerning the fate of their grand-sons and brothers.

The proceedings are currently underway before the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

General Context

The enforced disappearances of Mr. Adel, Tarek and Mohamed Kerouane took place within the context of the Algerian civil war. Coming out of a bloody national liberation war, Algeria was plunged into a fratricidal conflict leading to a disproportionate use of violence and massive violations of human rights. According to different information sources, 7,000 to 20,000 persons were arrested or abducted by all corps of Algerian security services and the militia armed by the government between 1992 and 1998, and are still missing.

To date, none of the victims’ families have received information about their relatives, no investigation has ever been opened as a result of the criminal complaint and the procedure they have completed, and, thought the persons who committed the crimes and the backers are known, none of them have ever been prosecuted or troubled. Furthermore, since the promulgation in February 2006 of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation, the victims’ families are confronted with the legal prohibition of bringing their cases, such as that of Mr. Adel, Tarek and Mohamed Kerouane, before courts at the risk of being sanctioned by the Algerian criminal system because Algeria considers that taking these steps would be tantamount to “exploit and take advantage of the wounds of the national tragedy” and undermine the on-going national reconciliation process.

 

The decision

In October 2014, the Human Rights Committee communicated its decision (called “views” in the UN language).

The Committee held that Algeria violated Articles 6 § 1, 7, 9, 10 § 1, 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, taken in conjunction with Article 2 § 3 of the Covenant with regards to the victims.

The Committee also held that Algeria violated Article 7 of the ICCPR, taken in conjunction with Article 2 § 3, with regards to the victim’s sister and grandmother.

Moreover, the Committee held that Algeria violated Article 24 § 1 of the ICCPR with regards to the victims who as minors should have been given special protection.

The Committee requested Algeria “to conduct a deep and rigorous investigation into the disappearance of Adel, Trarek and Mohamed Kerouane”. Algeria is also requested to “provide the authors with detailed information concerning the results of its investigation”, “to free the victim immediately if they are still being secretly detained” or, “if they are deceased, to return their mortal remains to their family”. Moreover, the Committee insisted on Algeria’s obligation to “indict, try and punish those responsible for the violations committed” and to pay an appropriate compensation to the family of the victims for the violations committed.

Algeria is further requested to guarantee the effectiveness of the domestic justice system, especially with respect to victims of torture, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearance and to take steps to avoid the recurrence of similar violations.

 

In September 2011, TRIAL submitted an individual communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee on behalf of Mrs. Halima Louddi. Mrs. Halima Louddi is acting on behalf of her son, Mr. Hacen Louddi, who was abducted on 9 April 1995 in Algiers and has been reported missing ever since. This incident has occurred within the general context of the enforced disappearance of thousands of Algerian citizens at the hands of the army or security forces of the State between 1992 and 1998.

Mr. Hacen Louddi was arrested on 9 April at 14h15 at his workplace by policemen belonging to the Châteauneuf police station. His family and his neighbours have never seen him since. Several detainees at Châteauneuf police station confirmed that Mr. Hacen Louddi had been detained in that place. Mr. Khoursi Nasr El-Din, the last person who has seen Mr. Louddi alive, claimed that Mr. Hacen Louddi was taken out of his cell in the night of 18 November 1995.

Plunged into a situation of distressful uncertainty, the family of the disappeared person, notably Mrs. Halima Louddi, author of the communication, relentlessly took steps to find out her beloved son since the day of his arrest. She repeatedly approached the judicial authorities through the submission of complaints that were never meaningfully processed. A criminal complaint charging abduction was deposed on 29 October 1998. Facing a negligent and ineffective investigating procedure, the victim’s family persisted in its efforts by seizing the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeal in Algiers. The latter trasmitted back the file to the investigating judge several times but to no avail. Eventually on 29 September 2009 the Supreme Court rendered a judgment confirming the dismissal of the case by the investigating judge despite the fact that no effective investigations had been carried out and despite the presence of an array of evidence pointing to the involvement of governmental agents in the disappearance of Mr. Hacen Louddi.

The family of the victim has also approached the Minister of Justice and several other Algerian institutions having a human rights protection mandate, among which the National Observatory of Human Rights (ONDH) and the National Consultive Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (CNCPPDH). Mr. Louddi’s family has also seized the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, yet no information on the victim’s fate and whereabouts could be obtained.

Despite the countless steps taken and the steady hope of the family members to be able to find out about his fate, so far no light has been shed concerning the disappearance of Mr. Hacen Louddi.

The author of the communication, Mrs. Halima Louddi, asks the Human Rights Committee to recognise that Algeria violated articles 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16 and 23 of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights against Mr. Hacen Louddi. It is furthermore submitted that the situation gives rise to a violation of articles 2, 7 and 23 of the ICCPR against the author of the communication, Mrs. Halima Louddi, as a result of the psychological suffering endured over the many years of uncertainty concerning the fate of her son.

The proceedings are currently underway before the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

General Context

The enforced disappearance of Mr. Hacen Louddi took place within the context of the Algerian civil war. Coming out of a bloody national liberation war, Algeria was plunged into a fratricidal conflict leading to a disproportionate use of violence and massive violations of human rights. According to different information sources, 7,000 to 20,000 persons were arrested or abducted by all corps of Algerian security services and the militia armed by the government between 1992 and 1998, and are still missing.

To date, none of the victims’ families have received information about their relatives, no investigation has ever been opened as a result of the criminal complaint and the procedure they have completed, and, thought the persons who committed the crimes and the backers are known, none of them have ever been prosecuted or troubled.

Furthermore, since the promulgation in February 2006 of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation, the victims’ families are confronted with the legal prohibition of bringing their cases, such as that of Mr. Hacen Louddi, before courts at the risk of being sanctioned by the Algerian criminal system because Algeria considers that taking these steps would be tantamount to “exploit and take advantage of the wounds of the national tragedy” and undermine the on-going national reconciliation process.

 

The decision

In October 2014, the Human Rights Committee communicated its decision (called “views” in the UN language).

The Committee held that Algeria violated Articles 6 § 1, 7, 9, 10 § 1, 16 and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 2 § 3 of the Covenant with regards to the victim.

The Committee also held that Algeria violated Article 7 of the ICCPR, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 2 § 3, with regards to the family of the victim.

The Committee requested Algeria “to conduct a deep and rigorous investigation into the disappearance of Mr. Hacen Louddi”. Algeria is also requested to “provide the authors with detailed information concerning the results of its investigation”, “to free the victim immediately if he is still being secretly detained” or, “if he is deceased, to return his mortal remains to his family”. Moreover, the Committee insisted on Algeria’s obligation to “indict, try and punish those responsible for the violations committed” and to pay an appropriate compensation to the family of the victim for the violations committed.

Algeria is further requested to guarantee the effectiveness of the domestic justice system, especially with respect to victims of torture, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearance and to take steps to avoid the recurrence of similar violations.

 

In July 2011 TRIAL submitted an individual communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee on behalf of Mr. Bouguera Kroumi, acting for his son Yahia Kroumi. Mr. Yahia Kroumi was arrested on 12 August 1994 in Constantine and he has been reported missing ever since. This incident has occurred within the general context of the enforced disappearance of thousands of Algerian citizens at the hands of the army or security forces of the State between 1992 and 1998.

Mr. Yahia Kroumi was abducted from his home in the morning of 12 August 1992 by the Algerian security service without an arrest warrant and without disclosing any information whatsoever to his father, who was present at the moment of the arrest. His arrest, along with those of some of his neighbours and relatives, followed the killing of two military officer in the region and it is part of a broader repressive policy targeting any opposition to the Algerian government, especially the supporters of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), accused of terrorist activities.

Taken to a secret detention centre, Mr. Kroumi had to suffer from terrible conditions of detention being located in a tiny cell of four square metres together with other 17 fellow prisoners. Obliged to stand in unbearably hot conditions, the majority of these inmates died during the first day of detention. It is possible to believe that Mr. Kroumi died there as well. Yet, to date nobody knows what happened to his body.

During the months and years following Mr. Kroumi’s arrest, his family, and his father Mr. Bouguera Kroumi in particular, has turned to all the competent Algerian authorities in order to find out about his fate and demand justice. The family approached both military authorities and the Algerian intelligence services. Furthermore they submitted requests and petitions to national judicial authorities and human rights bodies calling for an independent and impartial investigation.

But all these efforts were of no avail. No satisfactory response has ever been given to Mr. Kroumi’s family concerning the fate and whereabouts of Mr. Yahia Kroumi.

Despite the numerous steps undertaken and the unwavering hope of his family members, no light has been shed on the disappearance of Mr. Yahia Kroumi.

The author of the communication, Mr. Bouguera Kroumi, asks the Human Rights Committee to recognise that Algeria violated articles 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16 and 17 of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights against Mr. Yahia Kroumi. It is furthermore submitted that the situation gives rise to a violation of articles 2 and 7 of the ICCPR against the author of the communication as a result of the psychological suffering endured over the many years of uncertainty concerning the fate of his son.

The proceedings are currently underway before the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

General Context

These events took place within the context of the Algerian civil war during which thousands of persons, among which Mr. Yahia Kroumi, disappeared. Coming out of a bloody national liberation war, Algeria was plunged into a fratricidal conflict leading to a disproportionate use of violence and massive violations of human rights. According to different information sources, 7,000 to 20,000 persons were arrested or abducted by all corps of Algerian security services and the militia armed by the government between 1992 and 1998, and are still missing.

To date, none of the victims’ families have received information about their relatives, no investigation has ever been opened as a result of the criminal complaint and the procedure they have completed, and, thought the persons who committed the crimes and the backers are known, none of them have ever been prosecuted or troubled.

Furthermore, since the promulgation in February 2006 of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation, the victims’ families are confronted with the legal prohibition of bringing their cases, such as that of Mr. Yahia Kroumi, before courts at the risk of being sanctioned by the Algerian criminal system because Algeria considers that taking these steps would be tantamount to “exploit and take advantage of the wounds of the national tragedy” and undermine the on-going national reconciliation process.

 

The decision

In October 2014, the Human Rights Committee communicated its decision (called “views” in the UN language).

The Committee held that Algeria violated Articles 6 § 1, 7, 9, 10 § 1, 16 and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 2 § 3 of the Covenant with regards to the victim.

The Committee also held that Algeria violated Article 7 of the ICCPR, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 2 § 3, with regards to the victim’s son.

The Committee requested Algeria “to conduct a deep and rigorous investigation into the disappearance of Mr. Yahia Kroumi”. Algeria is also requested to “provide the authors with detailed information concerning the results of its investigation”, “to free the victim immediately if he is still being secretly detained” or, “if he is deceased, to return his mortal remains to his family”. Moreover, the Committee insisted on Algeria’s obligation to “indict, try and punish those responsible for the violations committed” and to pay an appropriate compensation to the family of the victim for the violations committed.

Algeria is further requested to guarantee the effectiveness of the domestic justice system, especially with respect to victims of torture, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearance and to take steps to avoid the recurrence of similar violations.

 

In June 2011, TRIAL lodged an individual complaint before the United Nations Human Rights Committee on behalf of Ms Aïcha Dehimi and Miss Nouara Ayache. These women were acting in the name of their son and brother, M. Sahraoui Ayache, kidnapped on 12 August 1994 in Constantine and who has been missing ever since. His disappearance occurred during a widespread campaign of forced disappearances in Algeria between 1992 and 1996.

M. Sahraoui Ayache was arrested at his home on the morning of 12 August 1994 by the Algerian Security Services for no valid reason and without an arrest warrant. His arrest as well as that of his parents and neighbours, followed the assassination of two military personnel in the region and was part of a policy of repression of the opposition aimed mainly at the members of the Islamic Salvation Front, who had been accused of terrorist acts.

After being taken to an unknown place, M. SAHRAOUI Ayache and his fellow prisoners underwent dreadful detention conditions. Packed into a cell measuring only four square metres, the men were forced to remain standing upright in the insupportable heat of the month of August. In the space of one day only, several died. It is a possibility that M. Sahraoui Ayache himself died during this period.

Even though they were living in painful uncertainty, the relatives of the missing man however never gave up on their insistence that justice be done, doing so by contacting a multitude of national authorities. However, despite these contacts made with the military authorities, the Algerian security services and the requests submitted also to national judicial and human rights authorities demanding that enquiries be opened up, no valid reply has ever been given to the family of the victim.

Despite these numerous bureaucratic contacts and the ongoing desire of the family members to determine the whereabouts of their relative, until this day no light whatsoever has been shone on the disappearance of M. Sahraoui Ayache.

In lodging their complaint before the UN Human Rights Committee, Ms Aïcha Dehimi and Miss Nouara Ayache request that Algeria be found in violation of articles 2, 6, 7, 9, 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with respect to the disappeared person. In addition they submit that the Algerian authorities are also in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the same covenant with respect to them since the disappearance of their son and brother has been for both of them a source of anguish and sufferance.

General Context

The enforced or involuntary disappearances, of which M. Sahraoui Ayache is one of the countless victims, had its roots in the Algerian Civil War. After the end of a bloody war of national liberation, Algeria, then proud of its new found independence, nevertheless shortly afterwards descended into a fratricidal conflict which led to brutal excesses and massive violations of human rights.

According to different information sources between 7,000 to 20,000 persons were arrested or abducted by all corps of Algerian security services and the militia armed by the government between 1992 and 1998, and are still missing.

To date, the families of the victims of enforced or involuntary disappearances have received no information whatsoever concerning the fate of their disappeared relatives. The Algerian authorities have never seen fit to open up enquiries as a result of complaints or enquiries addressed to them. Although the identity of the authors and instigators of these crimes is known, none of them has ever been prosecuted or troubled. Furthermore, since the adoption of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation in 2006, the latter benefit from a thinly disguised amnesty since it is no longer allowed to bring a complaint for exactions similar to those endured by M. Sahraoui Ayache Algeria seeing these as being attempts to “exploit the wounds of the national tragedy”, and an attempt to retard the process of national reconciliation underway. 

 

The decision

In October 2014, the Human Rights Committee communicated its decision (called “views” in the UN language).

The Committee held that Algeria violated Articles 6 § 1, 7, 9, 10 § 1 and 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 2 § 3 of the Covenant with regards to the victim.

The Committee also held that Algeria violated Article 7 of the ICCPR, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 2 § 3, with regards to the victim’s mother and sister.

The Committee requested Algeria “to conduct a deep and rigorous investigation into the disappearance of Mr. Sahraoui Ayache”. Algeria is also requested to “provide the authors with detailed information concerning the results of its investigation”, “to free the victim immediately if he is still being secretly detained” or, “if he is deceased, to return his mortal remains to his family”. Moreover, the Committee insisted on Algeria’s obligation to “indict, try and punish those responsible for the violations committed” and to pay an appropriate compensation to the family of the victim for the violations committed.

Algeria is further requested to guarantee the effectiveness of the domestic justice system, especially with respect to victims of torture, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearance and to take steps to avoid the recurrence of similar violations.

 

In December 2010, TRIAL lodged an individual complaint before the United Nations Human Rights Committee on behalf of Ms Bariza Zaier, spouse of Rachid Sassene. She acts in the name of her husband, kidnapped on 18 May 1996 in Constantine, and missing ever since. He disappeared during a widespread campaign of forced disappearances in Algeria between 1992 and 1998.

Mr. Rachid Sassene was arrested at his home by over twenty policemen of the commissariat of Constantine. He was then driven to his second flat where his wife, Ms Zaier, was violently arrested. They were then both brought to the central prison of Coudiat.

Up until she was released from prison on 3 June 1996, Ms Zaier was able to communicate with her husband. Since her release, she has not been informed on the fate and whereabouts of her husband, despite numerous attempts to obtain information from the authorities. The answers provided to her queries have proven incoherent and contradictory. Algerian authorities initially alleged that Rachid Sassene had never been arrested before stating that he had been “eliminated” by the security forces the day after his arrest, a fact that Ms Bariza Zaier knows is wrong, since she was able to talk with her husband during the two weeks that followed their arrest.

Ms Zaier, her children and Mr. Sassene’s father never stopped searching for him and undertook all possible steps to know the truth about his fate. Rachid Sassene’s disappearance also caused them a lot of administrative burden, obliging Ms Zaier to apply for a death certificate for her husband, in order to abide with the 2006 Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation.

In her complaint before the UN Human Rights Committee, Ms Zaier requests that Algeria be found in violation of articles 2 § 3, 6 § 1, 7, 9 § 1, 2, 3, and 4, and of articles 10 and 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (right to an effective remedy, right to life, prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment , right to life and security of person, prohibition of inhuman treatment for all persons deprived of their liberty and right to recognition as a person before the law). She also asks for the violation of the articles 2 § 3 and 7 of the Covenant to be recognized for herself and her children, the disappearance of her husband being the cause of a long and painful uncertainty for all the family.

The proceedings are currently underway before the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

General Context

According to different information sources, 7,000 to 20,000 persons were arrested or abducted by all corps of Algerian security services and the militia armed by the government between 1992 and 1998, and are still missing.

To date, none of the victims’ families have received information about their relatives, no investigation has ever been opened as a result of the criminal complaint and the procedure they have completed, and, thought the persons who committed the crimes and the backers are known, none of them have ever been prosecuted or troubled.

 

The decision

In October 2014, the Human Rights Committee communicated its decision (called “views” in the UN language).

The Committee held that Algeria violated Articles 6 § 1, 7, 9, 10 § 1, 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 2 § 3 of the Covenant with regards to the victim.

The Committee also held that Algeria violated Article 7 of the ICCPR, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 2 § 3, with regards to the victim’s spouse.

The Committee requested Algeria “to conduct a deep and rigorous investigation into the disappearance of Mr. Rachid Sassene”. Algeria is also requested to “provide the authors with detailed information concerning the results of its investigation”, “to free the victim immediately if he is still being secretly detained” or, “if he is deceased, to return his mortal remains to his family”. Moreover, the Committee insisted on Algeria’s obligation to “indict, try and punish those responsible for the violations committed” and to pay an appropriate compensation to the family of the victim for the violations committed.

Algeria is further requested to guarantee the effectiveness of the domestic justice system, especially with respect to victims of torture, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearance and to take steps to avoid the recurrence of similar violations

 

During the month of May 2009, TRIAL submitted an individual communication against Algeria to the United Nations Human Rights Committee on behalf of Aouali Mounie, Faraoun Feryale and Bouregba Fatiha each acting respectively in their capacity as wife, daughter and mother of Mr. Farid Faraoun.

This is now the thirteenth case to be lodged against Algeria by TRIAL.

Mr. Farid Faraoun was a farmer, livestock breeder and milk producer and a well known personality in his region. On 11 February 1997, around noon, he was arrested arbitrarily at his home by security agents from the wilaya of Sidi-Bel-Abbes, within the framework of a vast police dragnet.

He has not been seen since.

The day following his arrest, his wife and children were forced out of their family home, which was then immediately and totally destroyed by demolition equipment.

During the night of 12 February 1997, Mr. Faraoun’s wife was able to meet in secret with a government official, who told her that her husband had been tortured on the night he was arrested. During the following months, the family received information from various different sources, according to which Farid Faraoun had been badly injured and had been seen in two different military hospitals.

However, the family was unsuccessful, afterwards, in finding out where he was or to establish any contact with him. Despite numerous requests to the authorities asking them to open up an inquiry, no information whatsoever was able to be obtained concerning the fate and whereabouts of Farid Faraoun.

The Human Rights Committee has been asked to decide that the disappearance of Farid Faraoun constitutes, in his regard, a violation of his rights as follows: the  right to life; the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the right to liberty and security of the person; the right to be treated, while deprived of liberty, with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person; the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law;  the right not be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy and family; the right to protection of the family by society and the State and the right to an effective appeal against these violations (articles 6 § 1, 7, 9 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 4, 10 § 1, 16, 17, 23 §§ 1 and 2 § 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).

It has also been requested that an enquiry be undertaken into the circumstances surrounding the alleged violations and that criminal proceedings be opened up against those responsible.

Furthermore, the Committee has been requested to establish that the authors of the communication have themselves been subjected to a violation of their rights as follows: not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy and family; to benefit from the protection of the family by society and the State and to an effective appeal against these violations (articles 2 § 3, 7, 17, and 23 § 1 of the Covenant).

The proceedings are currently underway before the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

The Decision

In October 2013, the Human Rights Committee communicated its decision (in French only), called “views” by the UN.

The Committee held that Algeria violated Articles 6 §1, 7, 9, 10 §1 and 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 2 § 3 of the Covenant, as well as Article 17 taken in conjunction with Article 2 §3 of the Covenant, with regards to Mr. Nour-Eddine Mihoubi. The Committee also held that Algeria violated Articles 7 and 17 of the ICCPR, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 2 § 3, with regards to the victim’s family.

The Committee requested Algeria to conduct a deep and rigorous investigation into the disappearance of Mr. Farid Faraoun, to provide his family with detailed information concerning the results of its investigation, to free him immediately if he is still being secretly detained or, if he is deceased, to return his mortal remains to his family. Moreover, the Committee insisted on Algeria’s obligation to indict, try and sanction those responsible for the violations committed.

Algeria was also required to pay an adequate compensation to the family of the victim for the violations endured and, if still alive, to the victim itself.Algeria is also required to ensure the effectiveness of its judicial system, in particular regarding the victims of torture, extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances, and take action in order to avoid the repetition of such violations.

 

General Context

These events took place within the context of the Algerian Civil War during which thousands of persons disappeared. Indeed, according to some sources some 7,000 to 20,000 persons were abducted by the Algerian security services between 1992 and 1998. Members of these services were able to act with total impunity. Since the implementation of the National Charter for Peace and Reconciliation was implemented these same members have benefitted from a complete amnesty. Moreover, today it is now forbidden to lodge a complaint for the crimes or exactions of which M. Faraoun was the victim.

 

Geneva/Ottawa (8 February 2016) – Ten years after prominent human rights defender Pascal Kabungulu was shot dead by soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), his family is ling a complaint before the United Nations with the help of two NGOs, TRIAL and the Canadian Centre for International Justice. The complaint before the UN Human Rights Committee comes after tireless efforts by the family and human rights groups to restart long-stalled judicial proceedings in the DRC.

Armed men in military uniforms murdered Kabungulu on 31 July 2005 in his home, in front of his family. His death followed several threats against him as a result of his human rights work with the organisation Héritiers de la Justice in Bukavu, South Kivu.

Just days after the murder, Kabungulu’s wife, Déborah Kitumaini, also came under threat and had to flee the country with her six children. The family eventually resettled as refugees in Canada, where they now run the Pascal Kabungulu Foundation, which supports the families of human rights defenders assassinated in the DRC.

“Pascal was an exceptional husband and father. He was the love of my life. He was a courageous man, but also proud, funny, and tender. It has been ten years since he was taken from us, yet not a single day passes that we don’t think of him,” said Déborah Kitumaini.

The long path to justice

Despite the commencement of legal proceedings in 2005, the prosecution effectively ended when witnesses implicated high-ranking officials in the murder and the case was transferred to a higher court. Since then, efforts by the family and human rights organizations have been unable to convince authorities to restart the trial.

As a result, the family is now filing a complaint before the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Two NGOs, the Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ) andTRIAL have worked closely with the Kabungulus to continue pushing for justice.

“There has been a lack of political will to hold government officials accountable,” explained Matt Eisenbrandt, CCIJ’s Legal Director. “Although we welcome some positive legislative developments in the DRC, in this case the government has taken no steps to punish Pascal’s killers.”

“Pascal’s family has suffered a lot and deserves justice to be served at last,” said Philip Grant, Director of TRIAL. “We also want to shine a light on the continued danger for other human rights defenders in the DRC to help prevent further crimes against them.”

“Our family has great hope that the United Nations will render a favourable decision,”said Heri Kabungulu, son of Pascal Kabungulu. “The DRC would then be urged to reopen the investigation and punish the perpetrators: it’s time for impunity to end.”

For more information

Read the case summary on Storify

Read Deborah Kitumaini’s full interview on Storify

In March 2015 TRIAL and 8 associations from Mexico and Central America submitted a follow-up report to the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) on the level of implementation of the recommendations formulated by the latter in 2011, on the occasion of its visit to Mexico.

In January 2016 TRIAL, the Fundación para la Justicia y el Estado democrático de derecho and two associations of relatives of disappeared persons from El Salvador and Honduras submitted a report to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) on the obstacles faced by relatives of disappeared migrants in the struggle for justice, truth and reparations. The report aims at illustrating the unique challenges faced by migrants and their relatives, in view of the thematic study on “disappearances in the context of migrations” that the WGEID is currently drafting.

Sarajevo, 2 December 2015 – More than 20 experts from the judiciary, international community and civil society organizations met today in Sarajevo to discuss, for the very first time, the burning question of compensation for wartime victims. How should compensation claims be dealt with in criminal proceedings? How could the existing practice be improved? Those were some of the questions addressed during this high-level meeting organized by TRIAL.

The experts’ round table came as a result of two historical decisions related to wartime rape rendered by the Court of BiH. In June 2015, two rape survivors received compensation from perpetrators for the hardships they went through – a first in the history of BiH. The next step? Ensure that judicial practice continues developing in this positive direction and that thousands of victims obtain the justice they are still waiting for.  In practice, this will enable them to access their right to compensation as part of criminal proceedings before courts at all levels throughout BiH.

“The Court of BiH rendered two revolutionary judicial decisions this year. Additional efforts now need to be invested in order to create systematic preconditions for reparation in criminal proceedings, thus creating a precedent for other wartime victims”, said Adrijana Hanušić, Legal Advisor at TRIAL. “Today’s round table gathered leading experts and representatives of judiciary institutions. Let’s hope the thoughts shared will help improve the situation of survivors”, she added.

Twenty years after the end of the conflict in BiH, many victims of war crimes are still waiting for justice to be served. A transparent and efficient system of compensation would allow these women and men to receive at least some sort of recognition for the pain they went through and are still bearing the brunt of. TRIAL will continue to exert pressure on domestic institutions and advocate for establishing a fund from which payments to victims would be made. Reimbursement from the perpetrators would follow, lifting from victims the burden of going into lengthy enforcement procedures.

The roundtable was organized as part of a project supported by the FCO. Its aim is to create the prerequisites for compensation claims to be decided upon in criminal proceedings for victims of wartime sexual violence in BiH and to ensure the smooth enforcement of judgments which award compensation as part of those proceedings.

Conclusions from the round table discussion will be available on www.trial.ba later this week.

Geneva, 4 November 2015 – Nepal underwent today its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. On the occasion of this second cycle of Nepal’s scrutiny by the UN, no less than 73 Member States took the floor and provided Nepal with recommendations. While most congratulated Nepal on the promulgation of the world’s youngest Constitution and the election of the first female President, the general feeling was that many challenges remain to the protection and promotion of human rights. TRIAL has been among the NGOs closely monitoring this examination. The NGO now calls on Nepal to do its utmost to take action and improve its human rights track record with no further delay.

Three times a year, in the framework of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), members of the Human Rights Council examine the countries and assess their human rights situation. During the November 2015 23rd session, 14 countries are under UN scrutiny. Amongst the many issues discussed today during Nepal’s examination, Member States expressed serious concern over four main issues:

  • The excessive use of force by security forces during recent demonstrations
  • Nepal’s failure to seek accountability for the international crimes committed during/after the 1996-2006 armed conflict, including the failure to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of such crimes or to provide justice and reparation to victims
  • Criminalization of torture and enforced disappearances in the Nepalese legal system
  • Widespread impunity and ineffectiveness of the transitional justice mechanisms
  • 35-day statute of limitations on reporting rape cases

TRIAL was part of the NGOs closely following the UPR and is extremely preoccupied by the gross human rights violations committed in Nepal: “Today, the international community is reminding Nepal that it is no longer acceptable to maintain the widespread climate of impunity prevailing in the country. It is the shared responsibility of all countries to assist Nepal in improving this situation. Nepal must listen and follow these recommendations if it wants to be perceived as a democracy that respects human rights” said Helena Rodríguez-Bronchú, Legal Advisor for Nepal at TRIAL.

Will Nepal work on improving its human rights situation or will the country simply walk away from its international obligations? Judging by the recent past, the situation does not bode well. Nepal underwent its first UPR on 25 January 2011. “At that time, Nepal, accepted several dozens of UN recommendations. It is alarming to see that four years later, the country has turned a blind eye to several of those recommendations, showing a shameful indifference to its international obligations“, added Helena Rodríguez-Bronchú. To date, nothing has been done to address the impunity and to effectively combat torture, the Member States pointed out today.

Regrettably, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nepal, Mr. Kamal Thapa, representing the government of Nepal, suggested that it would have difficulties accepting many of the recommendations.

Moreover, in relation to the concerns raised regarding the excessive use of force by security forces, Ramesh Dhakal, Joint Secretary of the Law and Human Rights Division of the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, stated that “the security forces can use the necessary force in order to maintain public law and order, and to saves lives and property, as a last resort.”

TRIAL seconds the genuine concerns raised by the international community today and urges Nepal to criminalize enforced disappearance and torture under domestic law; take concrete steps to address the gross human rights violations, including excessive use of force and extra-judicial killings by security forces in Terai; and correct the flaws identified by the civil society in the new transitional justice mechanisms.