CCPR/C/114/D/2038/2011 Appendix I Individual opinion of Committee member Olivier de Frouville (concurring) 1. In its Views, the Committee has decided to abandon the time requirement (a time requirement that had arisen from the use of the terms “removal of a person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time”) and found a violation of article 16 resulting from an enforced disappearance . These terms were used because, in a number of earlier Views, the Committee had used the definition of enforced disappearance given in article 7 (2) (i) of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court. a 2. This time condition contained in the definition of the Rome Statute, however, had been sharply criticized, especially by the independent expert charged by the Commission on Human Rights with examining the shortcomings of international law in the matter b and by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.c The Committee had itself given up the reference to the Rome Statute, opting instead for a reference to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which had been adopted in the meantime.d However, it inexplicably maintained the time requirement, without justifying why the removal of the person from the protection of the law needed to be “prolonged” in order to find a violation of article 16. 3. In fact, the denial of the recognition of the individuals subjected to enforced disappearance as persons before the law begins right from the outset of their deprivation of liberty, as shown by the testimonies of those who returned from that hell. The victims of enforced disappearance are never detained in an official place of detention; they are locked up either in the headquarters of the intelligence service, in the cellar of a requisitioned building or in an old disused barracks, and the first thing that the guards do to them is to make them feel totally vulnerable and completely at their mercy. There is no appeal; no help can be expected from outside and the very notion of “law” vanishes. All that is left is the physical and mental restraint of the guards, who treat their victims as objects, inflicting torture and ill-treatment on them and thereby denying their human dignity. 4. It is true that the practice of enforced disappearance has evolved since the turn of the century. Nowadays, short-term disappearances have proliferated, especially in the context of counter-terrorism, as was noted by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances in its reports.e In the 1970s, 1980s and even 1990s, only a few people ever a b c d e In the first place, in communication Nos. 1328/2004, Kimouche v. Algeria, Views adopted on 10 July 2007, para. 7.2; and 1327/2004, Grioua v. Algeria, Views adopted on 10 July 2007, para. 7.2. See E/CN.4/2002/71, para. 74. See general comment on the definition of enforced disappearance (2007), in particular, paras. 5 and 9. See, for example, communication Nos. 1588/2007, Benaziza v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 9.3, in which the Committee still refers to the Statute in a footnote; and 1863/2009, Maharjan v. Nepal, Views adopted on 19 July 2012, para. 3.1, in which only the Convention is referenced. See A/HRC/19/58/Rev.1, para. 50: The Working Group notes that, regrettably, enforced disappearances continue to be used by some States as a tool to deal with situations of conflict or internal unrest. The Working Group 15