In 2006, the UN adopted a new treaty that addresses the problems of enforced disappearances and how to deal with them.260 Such disappearances are defined as any form of deprivation of liberty committed by agents of a state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the state, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law. The Convention is the first international treaty explicitly to ban practices leading to enforced disappearances. It requires states to incorporate the crime of enforced disappearance into their own legislation and to prosecute and punish perpetrators accordingly. A provision enshrining people’s right to know what happened to their relatives will be of crucial importance in preventing enforced disappearances and alleviating the suffering of detainees and their families. The Convention outlaws secret detention and requires states to hold all detainees in officially recognized places of detention, maintain up-to-date official registers and detailed records of all detainees, authorize detainees to communicate with their families and legal counsel, and give competent authorities access to detainees — obligations that are all critical to preventing enforced disappearances. Enforced disappearance refers to the whole spectrum of situations in which people may be held in unacknowledged detention, including situations in which killings are rare. Although victims may not be killed, disappearance exposes them to the possibility of being seriously harmed or ultimately killed.261 It is for this reason that enforced disappearances are closely related to the right to life. Even where there is no direct evidence that a person has been abducted and detained by agents of the state, if the state fails to investigate a disappearance properly, this will amount to a failure to guarantee human rights, including protection from torture and the right to life.262 260 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 20 December 2006, doc. A/61/PV.82. The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 85 in favour to none against, with 89 abstentions. The Convention was opened for signature on 6 February 2007. So far, 57 states have signed. It will come into force when ratified by 20 states parties. The treaty is available at http://www.ohchr. org/english/law/disappearance-convention.htm. 261 For a detailed analysis see S. Marks, A. Clapham, International Human Rights Lexicon, “Disappearances” (Oxford, 2005), p. 121. 262 “The State has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and to use the means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within its jurisdiction, to identify those responsible, to impose the appropriate punishment and to ensure the victim adequate compensation […] This duty to prevent includes all those means of a legal, political, administrative and cultural nature that promote the protection of human rights and ensure that any violations are considered and treated as illegal acts, which, as such, may lead to the punishment of those responsible and the obligation to indemnify the victims for damages. It is not possible to make a detailed list of all such measures, since they vary with the law and the conditions of each State Party. Of course, while the State is obligated to prevent human rights abuses, the existence of a particular violation does not, in itself, prove the failure to take preventive measures. On the other hand, subjecting a person to official, repressive bodies that practice torture and assassination with impunity is itself a breach of the duty to prevent violations of the rights to life and physical integrity of the person, even if that particular person is not tortured or assassinated, or if those facts cannot be proven in a concrete case”, op. cit., note 231, IACtHR, Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, paras. 174-175. 104 Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights