Human Rights - The Enforced Disappearance - Case Study Example

It is obligatory for the state to make sure that enforced disappearance constitutes an offense according to the state laws, which is clearly stated in Article 4 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which states that “each state party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that enforced disappearance constitutes an offense under its criminal law.”

By enforced disappearance, the abductor not only violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and his right to life but also denies the abducted the right to family life, as well as, various economic, social, and cultural rights. Furthermore, they take away the victim’s right to an adequate standard of living and his right to education. Also, if death is not the outcome of the disappearance, then the victim might suffer an extended period of physical and psychological torture which also contradicts Article 6 of Body of Principals for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, which states that “no person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment .”

In the case of P.D.S’ wife, where the state failed to take any sort of action against the disappearance of the victims, the victim’s family and friends, who experience slow mental torture, have the right to plead their case to the international human rights bodies. If the appeal is made to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, then the report is admissible, it has to originate from the family member or a friend of the missing person, in this case, P.D.S’ wife. A written report, giving a clear indication of the sender, that is, P.D.S’ wife, has to be submitted and if she mentions the Utopian Government, then the Government has to provide the Working Group with some basic data including the missing person’s full name, date and place of disappearance, where was the person last seen and any steps taken for the determination of the whereabouts of the abducted.

If the case is pleaded to any other Treaty-Based International Human Rights Organizations, then the complaint or the admissibility procedure is that the person putting forward the complaint should have sufficient authorization or justification if complaining on behalf of someone else. It has to be proven and shown whether the individual is being affected by the violation or not. Also, the complaint made should be compatible with the provisions of the treaty invoked. The complaint has to be sufficiently substantial if substantial facts are not provided then the complaint might be rejected as a case of "manifestly ill-founded". All the domestic remedies should be exhausted before bringing a claim to the committee.

According to the Treaty-Based International Humans Rights Organizations, if a complaint is being examined by some other international organizations such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, or the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, then the committees would not examine the complaint, to avoid unnecessary duplication at the international level. Therefore, P.D.S.’s wife can only take the case to either the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances or Treaty-Based International Humans Rights Organizations.

According to the Contentious Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, only the States alone can appear before the Court, and no public (governmental) international organizations can do it. But exceptions can be made through the Advisory Jurisdiction as in the case of the enforced disappearance of P.D.S. and his son. Special procedures can be used to put forward the complaint, but the Court’s advisory opinions have no binding effect.