A big loss, yet great inspiration….
January 2, 2008 – After a two-week Christmas break, I opened the AFAD email anticipating joyous greetings for the New Year. While indeed, there were salutations from different points of the globe, I happened to read a subject in Spanish:
“ Fallecimiento de nuestro amigo y companero, Embajador Bernard Kessedjian.” (Death of our friend and colleague, Ambassador Bernard Kessedjian).
I read and reread the message, hoping against hope that I was only dreaming. But it was no dream. On December 19, 2007, the eve of the first anniversary of the unanimous adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the man who was instrumental in the finalization of the text of the international treaty succumbed to death. It seemed to be only yesterday when, on September 22, 2005, the teary-eyed Ambassador Kessedjian knocked his gavel and announced the adoption by the then UN Inter-Sessional Working Group to Elaborate a Draft Legally-Binding Normative Instrument for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to the amazement of all delegations in that famous Room X11 of
Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. Indeed, it seemed to be only yesterday when during the culmination of that final session on September 23, 2005, bottles of champagne to celebrate such a major victory were opened while tears of joy were shed by both government and non-government delegations alike.
More than a year later, during the historic signing by 57 governments on February 7, 2007 in the enormous edifice of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I was fortunate to chat with Ambassador Kessedjian who was optimistic that many would sign the Convention, but pessimistic that not many signatures would come from Asian governments. As each and every government affixed its signature, Ambassador Kessedjian’s grin grew wider and wider, while applauding at every announcement of a signatory. I remembered in New York that he asked for the AFAD “ Convention NOW” button as a gift to him, which, of course, I happily gave. I pinned it again on him on that historic day. Little did I know that I would never ever see him again.
A few months later, I requested Atty. Gabriella Citroni, based in Italy where Ambassador Kessedjian was based, being the French Ambassador to the Holy See, to personally give him the plaque of appreciation from the Third Congress of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances held in Nepal in December 2006. As Gabriella shared with me, the meeting was intimate as Ambassador Kessedjian confided that he was terminally ill. In tears, he gratefully received the token of appreciation as he was deeply touched by AFAD’s gesture of gratitude. Gabriella was the last in the circle of friends in Room X11 of Palais des Nations to have seen him.
“The death of His Excellency Ambassador Bernard Kessedjian, who championed the cause of the disappeared and their families, is, indeed, a great loss to the international movement against enforced disappearances. The whole world, especially the families of the disappeared, terribly miss him – his commitment to the disappeared and their families, his extraordinary leadership ability and intelligence and his unequalled capacity to wield unity amidst conflicting positions of UN member-states and lest we forget, his good sense of humor. How could we ever thank him adequately for the great gift to humanity, i.e. the United Nations Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances” he bestowed upon thousands upon thousands of families of the disappeared? No words can
express…..1”
While we grieve over the death of a friend, a colleague, a diplomat of high caliber who had a heart for the disappeared, we need to turn our grief into courage as we continue what the late His Excellency Ambassador Bernard Kessedjian had started and triumphantly concluded. An apt tribute that AFAD and the rest of the international community can give to Ambassador Kessedjian is their tireless lobbying for the entry into force of the Convention and its implementation in as many countries as possible. Our never-ending struggle for the disappeared and their families towards the fulfillment of a world without desaparecidos is a concrete tribute to all desaparecidos of the world whom Ambassador Kessedjian never failed to serve during the last years of his life.
A glimpse of Asia
More than a couple of years since the historic signing, the Convention has 72 signatures and four ratifications by Albania, Argentina, Mexico and Honduras. Of the countries where AFAD member-organizations are based, only India has signed. Enforced disappearances of the past remain unresolved and continue unabated.
In the case of the Philippines which was visited in February 2007 by the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Execution, Mr. Philip Alston, the latter confirmed the recent phenomenon of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. Not to mention cases from 1971-2000, 186 cases have occurred from 2001 up to the present - during the Arroyo administration, as per documentation of Karapatan. This urged the Supreme Court to maximize its unused power by convening a National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances: Seeking for Solutions. While the Writ of Amparo was approved on October 24, 2007, the Philippine government failed to enact into law the 13-year old bill criminalizing enforced disappearances. Despite incessant calls from various sectors, even by no less than its co-members in the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Philippine government has not signed and ratified the UN Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance. 18 years after the visit of the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (UNWGEID) to the country in 1990, the latter, alarmed by the recent
spate of enforced disappearances, requested for a second visit which, for whatever reason, the government has failed to respond. With such a bad human rights record, is the Philippines worthy of the position of honor as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council? The exercise of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) procedure had put the government in a good moral high ground as it was acclaimed as a human rights defender by some of its co-member states. From the perspective of the victims, however, the opposite is true.
The Indonesian government, in a High Level Segment session in one of the 2007 sessions of the United Nations Human Rights Council, promised to sign the United Nations Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance. The same promise was reiterated by representatives of the Permanent Mission of Indonesia to the UN in Geneva to the AFAD delegation during the September 2007 session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Again, on that same month, it was mentioned during AFAD and
FEDEFAM’s meetings with government authorities in Jakarta that Indonesia would sign the treaty. Almost a year had passed and many more governments have signed the Convention, but Indonesia has not. An official request for a visit by the UNWGEID was sent to the Indonesian government, which replied that the visit had to be postponed at a much later date. Moreover, the disappearance cases of 1965 which
IKOHI submitted to the UNWGEID in September 2007 had been brought to the government’s attention. The Working Group’s inquiry fell on deaf ears.
Sri Lanka was the only government that signed the resolution of the then UN Commission on Human Rights in 1997 moving for the establishment of the UN Inter-Sessional Working Group to Elaborate a Draft Legally-Binding Normative Instrument for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. But not only was it absent in the negotiation process, except for the last session when its representative kept silent, but also, it continues to commit human rights violations, the most glaring form of which is involuntary disappearance. With the collapse of the peace talks between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil EELAM, cases continue without let up, adding to the litany of cases of enforced disappearances. In the 2007 report of the UNWGEID, 107 new cases were sent to the government under the standard procedure and 37 were sent under the urgent procedure making a total of 5,516 outstanding
cases.2 A third visit by the UNWGEID to the country has been requested, but the government responded that it would be considered at a much later date. Despite efforts of AFAD and the local human rights community to lobby government’s support to the Convention, the situation has only worsened.
Thailand’s victims of the 1992 Black May continue to call for the return of the remains of those who disappeared during the massacre and insist that a monument be established in honor of their heroes. Before the government could even heed to the demands of the Black May victims, new victims from Southern Thailand emerged when former Prime Minister Thaksin declared martial law. Atty. Somchai Neelaphaijit, a human rights lawyer who was made to disappear on March 12, 2004, remains disappeared up to this day. His wife, Angkhana Neelaphaijit fearlessly leaves no stone unturned in searching for the truth about her husband’s disappearance. She uses all local and international avenues to find truth and obtain justice not only for her disappeared husband, but also for many other victims of enforced disappearances in Southern Thailand. With the recent change of government, a ray of hope flickers. Discussions among government agencies for possible signing and ratification of the Convention exist. The Ambassador of Thailand in Geneva responded positively to Angkhana Neelaphaijit’s intervention during an event parallel to the March-April 2007 session of the UN Human Rights Council. He expressed the commitment of the Thai government to resolve Somchai’s case and to stop enforced disappearances in the country.
Nepal, which submitted the most number of cases to the UNWGEID in 2005, invited the latter to visit the country. Much remains to be done in implementing the Working Group’s recommendations. The bill criminalizing enforced disappearances, which was expected to be enacted into law in 2007, has not seen the light of day. Much remains to be changed in its substance to ensure that the victims’ perspective is incorporated. There is no indication that Nepal would soon sign and ratify the Convention. While cases of the past remain unresolved, new cases occur, as what recently happened with the five university students who disappeared.
3
With India as one of the four Asian countries that signed the Convention, much remains to be seen in concretizing the government’s commitment in as far as the Kashmiri situation is concerned. The recent report of the UNWGEID does not reflect the huge number of cases in the valley owing to underreporting on the part of non-government organizations and other sources. Yet, the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons insists that 8,000 outstanding cases remain unresolved. It recently reported the existence of mass graves in localities near the Line of Control with Pakistan and therefore, inaccessible without the permission of Security Forces. That graves of at least 940 persons have been found in 18 villages in Uri District alone is a concrete basis for urgent action by the Indian government. If it is, indeed, true in its commitment as a signatory to the United Nations Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, India has to act without delay in investigating the matter.
A glimpse of Asia as seen in the above-mentioned situations is but a microcosm of a worsening human rights situation in the region.
A Herculean task
In the on-going session of the UN Human Rights Council, the latter formulated a resolution encouraging states that are in the process of signing and ratifying to complete their internal process towards those ends in compliance with domestic legislation as expeditiously as possible; encouraging all states that have not done so to consider signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention; and inviting States to consider joining the campaign to share information on best practices and to work towards the early coming into force of the Convention with the aim of universality.
4
The UN Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances provides two new rights, the right to truth and the right not to be subjected to enforced disappearances. Institutionalizing these rights in Asian countries is far from realization. That there are no existing regional human rights mechanisms in Asia has it all the more made it imperative that the International Convention For the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances be ratified by Asian governments.
Prospects for signatures and ratifications in these countries, however, are dim – a reason to devise a better lobbying strategy by AFAD in cooperation with other human organizations especially in the Asian region. A member of the International Coalition Against Enforced Disappearance, AFAD has to intensify its lobbying at the national level in cooperation with similar formations of families of the disappeared and non-government organizations in all continents.
In the recent activities of AFAD at the UN in Geneva, I passed by the Room X11 of
Palais des Nations a number of times. While the room is a reminder of the dynamic negotiations during the Convention’s drafting process, it is also a place that pricks a profound pain in me as I remember how Ambassador Kessedjian, not without difficulties, brought to a victorious conclusion the drafting process. His greatest performance was excellent! The challenge is for us to carry out the Herculean task of campaigning for ratification, for the Convention’s entry into force and its universal implementation.
Endnotes:
1Excerpt from AFAD’s condolence letter to His Excellency Ambassador Gerard Chesnel, Embassy of France in Manila
2Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances – A/HRC/7/2, 10 January 2008)
3See related story on page 50-53
4A/HRC/7/L.31/Rev.1
