The UN Human Rights Council’s Special Procedures mechanism remains one of the most important tools for monitoring and exposing human rights abuses worldwide. Yet, the system faces two major challenges: chronic under-funding and increasing political resistance from states under scrutiny.
Special Procedures are independent experts appointed to monitor thematic and country-specific human rights issues. They are unpaid, rely on voluntary cooperation, and are vulnerable to political pushback. In recent sessions, the OHCHR has warned of budget cuts delaying mandated reports, while powerful states have sought to delegitimize critical mandates by labelling them “politicized’’.
In this exclusive interview, Aua Balde, member and former chair of the WGEID, spoke with Wale Ameen about several pressing issues, including the importance of member states supporting the Working Group’s work despite an ongoing cash crunch and the need to keep attention on victims until their cases are resolved. She emphasised that continued support from member states is essential for the Working Group to carry out its mandate.
Q: In recent years, the working groups have received reports of enforced disappearances across diverse contexts, which could be migration, issues of conflict zones. What are the pressing global trends you and your colleagues are observing today vis-à-vis what used to occur, say, a decade or so before now?
Aua Balde: Indeed, as you mentioned, some of the trends that we have seen lately, I wouldn’t call them new trends. For instance, the enforced disappearance in the context of conflict is something that has persisted over decades. And it continues to persist. We have been documenting hundreds, if not thousands, of cases in the context of conflict in Ukraine, for instance. We also are aware of other conflict situations, for instance, in Sudan. That’s also where cases of enforced disappearances have come to the fore. The only difference between Sudan and Ukraine, for our mandate at least, is that in the case of Sudan we do not document those cases because Sudan has ratified the convention, and therefore it’s a different UN mechanism, a UN mechanism called the Convention on Enforced Disappearance, Committee on Enforced Disappearance. But this is just to illustrate some of the few examples whereby enforced disappearance happens in the context of conflict.
It was in the past, and it continues to happen today. Another trend that is more recent that we have documented is the enforced disappearance, as you mentioned, in the context of migration. We have seen, for instance, last year, the Working Group released a report on a visit to the African human rights judicial bodies and organs. And there, what we know and and notice, for instance, in terms of the trends in Africa, you have the enforced disappearance that are happening in the roads, for instance, to the Mediterranean. But also there are other less known roads, but for which we also know there are cases of enforcers’ appearance, for instance, going from East Africa to South Africa and and also going to the Arab Peninsula.
These are also situations related to enforcers’ disappearance in the context of migration that are less known routes,but in those cases also enforced disappearances have been documented. Another instance of enforced appearance that we have seen lately has been enforced appearance in the context of protests. We have seen this across different situations whereby people protesting are taken away by state actors and this is related closely to this pattern. One thing that we have also seen is the emergence of something that we have called short-term enforced disappearances, where individuals disappear for a certain period of time, many of them in this context of protest, and then they reappear later on. But that said, it does remain a case of enforced disappearance.
However short the disappearance lasts, it remains disappearance. So what we have done, because we have noticed this. We issued last year a statement on short-term enforced disappearances exactly to highlight the situation, because we have seen in certain contexts, as I was saying earlier, a change in the pattern, but still disappearances are happening. These would be some of the major trends that I would say for the moment. Another trend also could be enforced disappearance in the content of counter terrorism operations and disappearance in the context of internal security issues. In general, these are some of the main highlights that we have been recording lately.
Q: One recurring challenge is states not cooperating. We’ve noted that all along. Whether in providing information, acknowledging cases, or even in implementing your working group’s recommendations to them. From your perspective, what strategies has the working group found most effective in overcoming these barriers and pushing for accountability from all stakeholders?
Aua Balde: Yes, it is indeed one of the most prevailing challenges that we have. Many states do not reply to our communications, sadly. And many of them will not implement the recommendations that we have, be it the recommendations that we usually issue, sometimes following a country visit, or that we issue in our thematic reports. But that said, we remain very much committed to assisting the victims. And we hold differ kinds of interactions with the states in different forums. One of them is, for instance, bilateral engagement with the states to kind of foster that environment of cooperation. The fact that some states are not cooperating or might not cooperate does not mean that we give up on those cases and situations that we are interested in.
We continue to push for cooperation. We continue to push for answers from the state, regardless of their silence. And we do that, I would say, in the open. But also in a more confidential way through the interactions that we have with the states. We persistently through our annual reports always report the cases of, you know, some of the concerns that we see in terms of lack of cooperation when we address the Human Rights Council, as we will do soon enough in a few days, in a few weeks in Geneva.
We call attention to the council, to the state members that are in the council, to these issues and to the need to cooperate with the working group, for the benefit of the victims. We also usually, once a year, report back to the United Nations General Assembly. This is also another opportunity for us to raise the issue of the need for responses from the state. For some of the cases also, we might issue press releases, where there is a particular concern regarding a particular situation. All of this is to try to amplify the voice of the victims, be it in the public sphere or, or be it bilaterally through a more private conversation with different stakeholders. Because as long as the person has disappeared, as long as their fate or whereabouts has not been established, the person is a reason of concern, and we remain very much engaged in the situation throughout.
Q: Digital surveillance is even more sophisticated nowadays with technological advancement. Border enforcement is being stepped up by different countries, and also the issue of migration. How is the working group adapting its methods to address these emerging dynamics? And what do you see ahead in terms of the growth of information technology and its impact?
Aua Balde: So it is indeed. New technologies are something that has become major lately in our daily lives. In terms of the working group, two years ago we actually released a study on enforcers’ appearance and technology exactly because we thought this was a topic that deserves closer scrutiny and for us to look into details in situations of enforcers’ disappearance and what the relationship is between enforcers’ disappearance and technology.
In that particular report, we were looking at how enforced disappearance happens and how technology can be used to perpetuate enforced disappearance, but also how technology can be used to find victims who disappeared. So it has both a negative and a positive kind of outcome, if you think about technology. It’s not only negative. For sure, you have states tracking victims through electronic devices and being able to then use all that technology to kind of foster a climate of infertile appearances. But at the same time, we realise a lot of technology can actually be an ally in finding those who disappeared. And in this report, we mapped out even readily available -access kinds of technology that can be used to look for people because some of the challenges we sometimes hear from states or responses that we hear from states when it comes to the use of technology, for instance, to look for victims of impersonal appearance, is that they might lack the means to do so. There’s always this financial concern around that.
But we have noticed that actually there’s a lot of technology that is available and can be used, open access technology that can be used. If you look at that report, you will see a list of that technology. So this is one way of looking at technology on a positive note. That said, we also have the working groups engaged in one of mandates, which actually is that we can offer technical support to states when they request such. If a state is interested in learning further about how technology could benefit the search for those who have disappeared, we could then use this report that has been produced to kind of give the training for state actors who are engaged in the search of those who have disappeared to know how they can go about it. So yes, this is something positive, but definitely there is a negative aspect of enforced disappearance related to technology, but it doesn’t end there. It has this dual dimension, I would say.
Q: I particularly like the way you’ve highlighted the positive side of it. Because yes, it’s not all gloom and doom, as it were. It still has its place, even on the positive side of it, which you’ve just highlighted. And I think that’s also very key. And I think it balances it out also, such that you’re able to also countermeasure whatever the disadvantages are.
Aua Balde: Exactly. It’s not only about disadvantages. Of course, I mean, the use of technology to track people down, that’s a reality. And even the surveillance through media, those who post on media, social media, all that –, it’s a real challenge and it’s a concern and has led to cases of enforced disappearance. But also states can and should use the available technology to look for people. And I think we would have far better results than those that we have used. But it still requires state willingness to do so.
Q: Have there been measures to advise on specific technology to be used. Like capacity building in using these solutions?
Aua Balde: We do give training to different state officials that require it. It’s always the capacity building kind of training called technical assistance that we do. It comes up for state actors demanding that kind of cooperation from the working group. If they do that, we do give this kind of training, particularly for them to be able to use the available technology that is out. When it was released, it was up to date at that point with. And some of them are really taking the advantages of such technologies in that they are, of course, readily accessible. And in an open access kind of accessibility. So it’s supposed to encourage states to do the work that they are supposed to do, even through the use of technology.
Q: Looking ahead to HRC60 happening from next week, what priorities and what are expectations, is the working group bringing to Geneva this year?
Aua Balde: The ideal outcome would be for added state support to our mandates because the situation is challenging, it is. And the more state support we have, not even in terms of cooperation for those states who need to reply to our demands in terms of the communications that we address bilaterally to states, but more broadly, the support to the human rights mechanism in general and our working group in particular. This is something that we will be seeking from states as we attend the session in Geneva.
Our Geneva September session is our longest session. It lasts 10 workdays and this is usually when we present our annual report and we give the highlight to the pressing issues and we have the opportunity to come before the council and to report back on those activities and to highlight the issue of and therefore we have a real opportunity to amplify the voices of the victims.
For us, amplifying the voices of the victims is something that is of importance, and we take this space during the Human Rights Council to do so, and we do it during the September session. Something that we usually look forward to, and that is part of our mandate during our sessions, is to engage with the victims directly. We usually have bilateral engagements with the victims. Meetings with the victims to learn about the situation, to be able to document the situation. We will be reviewing hundreds of cases for sure because that’s usually when we meet to review most of the individual humanitarian cases that we do.
And it’s also an opportunity when we are in Geneva to kind of continue to push for states to engage and to cooperate with our mechanism. So therefore, we will be having, in addition to the presentation before the council bilateral conversations and bilateral exchanges with the states during the September session. One thing that is important that will be happening in this September session that is something new is that we will be launching our latest thematic report.
This year, our thematic report on enforced disappearance in the context of land, natural resources, environment, and exploitation of land, natural resources, and environment. And we will be launching this report during this upcoming session. These are some of the highlights of the session. Yes, but it is indeed, I think, one of the most important aspects of our sessions. It is the opportunity to meet bilaterally, one-on-one, with the victims of enforced disappearances.
Q: Can you expatiate again on priorities and what to expect during the session. What topics are you going to be pushing now and even in the near future? Again, let’s just look at the priorities and difficulties of this six-day session of the United Nations and Human Rights Council.
Aua Balde: Yeah. For us, the priority is for the state members to commit, to commit to human rights broadly in terms of, you know, the Human Rights Council agenda, to commit to human rights, to assist the victims of human rights violations, be it enforced appearances or other violations. And usually, usually during those instances when you have the council, it’s an opportunity to highlight the real pressing issues going around each individual mandate in this case. For sure, during this interaction with the council, we will be, again, trying to highlight how important it is to respond to the demand for the victims when they are looking for truth, justice, and accountability in regard to the disappeared people. Our major concern, always central to our work, is the victims of enforced disappearances.
Q: Lastly there are reports of the council being cash-strapped and difficulty in resources. How is the working group striving to meet, you know, all of its mandates, in the face of dwindling resources of the Council?
Aua Balde: It is a challenge. The liquidity crisis has been an ongoing discussion since last year. And our space is shrinking day by day, I would say, sadly, unfortunately. And we are facing many different challenges in this area. For instance, one such challenge is that if the financial resources continue to shrink, we will have an added backlog in terms of the cases that we can process. These cases are not just numbers. These are real victims who we will not be able to assist because we do not have the capacity, the human capacity, to do so due to lack of resources. That’s one real consequence of this situation.
Another consequence that we are facing currently is that one essential part of our mandate is for us to be able to conduct country visits. When we conduct country visits, specific country visits, then we are able to kind of interact individually with this specific country, with victims in those countries, to look at the overall situation of enforced disappearance in the country, to look at the legislative framework, speak to the victims, and highlight all the challenges that we see, and then come up with concrete recommendations that this given state can then implement if they are to fight against enforced disappearance. And this is something that is currently being challenged because we are not able to conduct the country visits as we were in the past. In the past, we used to be able to conduct two country visits a year. We have not been able to do so.
Last year, we conducted one country visit. This year, we will not conduct a country visit. This is really something that is of serious concern to us because it’s further widening the gap between us and the victims of enforced abuse. And another challenge that we also might face for the working groups – for instance, we usually meet, as I was saying earlier; the most significant part of our work that we do is when we meet during the sessions. In between sessions, we deal with urgent cases, urgent situations that come to us. But in the standard situations and cases, we usually decide on those during our working sessions. And we have three sessions a year. This one now, and then two additional ones this year. We had one in January, one in May, and this one in September. And in any of these sessions, we meet with a significant number of victims, and we also process a significant number of cases – hundreds of cases at every given session. So if the resources continue to – if we continue to have limited resources – my concern will be, I think, in not such a long future, in short, soon enough, I worry that we won’t be able to hold all this session. And if that happens, then we will again be in a position of not being able to assist the victims as we should. This is something that has been worrying us in the back of our minds lately. Especially the last two years.
Q: Going into the future, lastly now, how do you see the council being able to deal with this challenge? Is it in speaking with member states? How can this resource crunch be dealt with?
Aua Balde: The member states have to come back to the table and contribute, you know, as they have. Without it, we will not be able to do the work that we do. Every mandate holder in the special procedures works pro bono. We already give our time to the system, but without the resources to implement the mandate, it becomes absolutely impossible. So there has to be a push from the council. And the member states, it’s a plea that I make to every single state to contribute to the system. This is the only way that we can assist the victims of human rights violations and strengthen the system by pushing, by taking away the resources. We are endangering the human rights system as a whole, unfortunately. I hope they will come back.
The post Cash-Strapped but Committed: The UN’s Battle to Keep Human Rights on the Global Agenda appeared first on Exclusive Africa.
