Home

For an accused person, article 36.3 of CPC provides similar safeguards to those for a suspect.2 Measures of restraint include a promise not to leave the place of residence, personal surety, bail, and detention (art. 62). 27. (...) While one family member is permitted to visit a prisoner on death row once he is sentenced, not even the families are notified of the exact date or place of execution and they do not receive the bodies of executed persons for burial. In Lyashkevich v. Belarus, the Human Rights Committee considered that “[c]omplete secrecy surrounding the date of execution, and the place of burial and the refusal to hand over the body for burial have the effect of intimidating or punishing families by intentionally leaving them in a state of uncertainty and mental distress…[and] amounts to inhuman treatment [of family members]” in violation of article 7 of the Covenant (CCPR/C/77/D/887/1999, para. 9.2). (...) After the visit, the Special Rapporteur requested the Government to provide him with the identities of all persons sentenced to death within the last three years; those whose appeals had failed and were awaiting execution; those who had been pardoned; the precise locations of all of those prisoners; and, for those who had been executed, the date of execution and the place of burial. The Special Rapporteur further requested information on the conditions of detention of death row prisoners.

That should include the creation of a national register to collect information on disappeared persons, the search for, mapping and conservation of burial sites, and the exhumation, identification and return to families of identified remains. (...) The Working Group welcomes the indications from the Government that it supports the recommendations concerning the creation of a national register to collect information on disappeared persons, and hopes that the other recommendations concerning exhumations and burial sites can also be implemented. 38. With regard to the exhumation of burial sites and identification of remains, the Working Group notes that Tajikistan has limited forensic capabilities, and only one small facility for DNA analysis in Sughd province. (...) In cases where that proves impossible, families should be informed about places of burial. 40. The Working Group was informed that certificates of absence are granted only pursuant to a court decision.

The Working Group also received information that there was no centralized system of data collection on burial sites or centralized collection of DNA samples; it is therefore concerned about the reported misidentification of remains. 43. (...) A/HRC/42/40/Add.2 GE.19-13742 11 preserving burial sites, and in exhumations and the identification of remains is also unclear; the Working Group notes, however, that article 22 (1) of the aw provides for the adoption of special legislation in this regard. 3. (...) Furthermore, the pension is paid as long as the victim retains his or her status of missing person; the payments are terminated when the location, place of burial or location of the remains of the missing person is clarified.

It has also mapped a number of suspected burial sites in cooperation with victims’ associations and relatives. (...) Families sometimes have to pay witnesses to help in identifying places of burial. They go from region to region trying to locate these places by themselves. (...) Some remains in certain burial sites have allegedly been displaced more than three times.

The Law provides that State authorities are under a continuing obligation to trace and identify missing persons and that families have the right to know the fate, place of residence or, if dead, circumstances and cause of death, location of burial and to receive the mortal remains of the missing relatives. (...) The delegation was told that some perpetrators who know about mass graves are asking for money from families in order to reveal where the burial sites are. This needs to be dealt with by the authorities as it could have severe implications in the future. 32. (...) For example, at times relatives who wish to attend burial ceremonies or visit graves in other parts of the country are prevented from doing so or harassed when they do.

Issues relating to places of worship and burial sites were of concern to many participants. 31. (...) Baha’i representatives also highlighted problems regarding burial places for Baha’i. Cemeteries are administered by the Greek Orthodox Church and permission must be sought to bury those of other faiths. (...) When a Muslim dies the body is sent to the country of origin or to Thrace for burial. The Greek Orthodox Church reportedly donated land for a Muslim cemetery however progress has been slow. 37.

En octobre, 24 albinos de la province de Ruyigi qui craignaient pour leur sécurité se sont réfugiés dans la résidence personnel du procureur de la République à Ruyigi. (...) The Special Rapporteur notes that public policies directed to the Roma community should bear in mind General Recommendation XXVII of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, particularly paragraph 31 in relation to adequate housing, in which the Committee recommended States “[t]o act firmly against any discriminatory practices affecting Roma, mainly by local authorities and private owners, with regard to taking up residence and access to housing; to act firmly against local measures denying residence to and unlawful expulsion of Roma, and to refrain from placing Roma in camps outside populated areas that are isolated and without access to health care and other facilities.” (...) Sabet has been held in custody since 5 March 2008 when she was summoned to Mashhad by the Intelligence Ministry to answer questions related to the burial of an individual in the Bahá’í cemetery in that city. 44.

An immediate step to be taken promptly in the search process is to properly conduct exhumations and thoroughly investigate all identified burial sites, as already recommended by a number of international human rights bodies.13 These sites should also be adequately preserved. The results of the few exhumations that have been carried out are unclear and the way in which they were conducted raises concerns, including in regard to the methods of excavation and the contamination of possible evidence.14 According to information received by the Working Group during the visit, no exhumations had been conducted on burial sites since 2012. 25. The Working Group appreciates that the Council of Forensic Medicine of the Ministry of Justice has significantly increased its capacity and resources, including by establishing nine regional centres throughout the country. The Working Group hopes that this measure will serve to improve the quality of investigations in cases of enforced disappearances, including with respect to the exhumation of burial sites, in which the Council of Forensic Medicine should take a more proactive role.

Some 938 of them went missing in 1991/1992 and 704 in 1995. In addition, the burial sites of 428 people remain unknown. IV. (...) The Working Group was told that the families of missing persons who disappeared as civilians did not enjoy the same rights concerning burial as members of the families of missing soldiers. (...) However, after its visit, the Working Group was informed by the Government that identified civilian victims have the same rights as identified Croatian war veterans with respect to the type of funeral service, the organization and free transport of remains to a burial site in Croatia or to the appropriate State border crossing and the coverage of burial expenses.

GE.19-12971 (S) 051119 121119  Consejo de Derechos Humanos Grupo de Trabajo sobre las Desapariciones Forzadas o Involuntarias Comunicaciones