noted that “the resolution of disappearance cases is perhaps the most significant piece of unfinished business for the commission.”252 disappeared person should: be governed by a public policy; follow a differential approach taking into account the particular needs of the relevant persons; respect the right to participation; begin without delay; be a continuing obligation; be conducted on the basis of a comprehensive strategy; be organised efficiently; use information in an appropriate manner; be co-ordinated; be linked to the criminal investigation; be carried out safely; be independent and impartial; and be governed by public protocols.256 The principles highlight States’ obligations to search through consolidating good practices in searching effectively for disappeared persons. • In 2003, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika created an Ad Hoc Inquiry Commission in Charge of the Question of Disappearances to address the fate of more than 7,000 persons who disappeared during the Algerian civil war in the 1990s. The Commission, however, suffered several pitfalls. First, the findings of the Commission were never made public. The subsequent adoption of Ordinance No, 6-01 in February 2006 granted amnesty to the security forces and Islamic militias for most crimes, including ED. Pursuant to the Ordinance No. 6-01, the families were awarded reparations only upon presentation of a death certificate and giving up claims to seek truth about the fate of their loved ones. As a result, many families chose not to participate since they wanted to know the fate of their loved ones.253 Among the regional courts, the IACtHR has the most developed case law concerning the right to know the truth, both as a right that States must respect and ensure, and a measure of reparation. Since its first ruling on ED in Velásquez Rodríguez,257 the IACtHR has affirmed that the violation of “the right of the victim’s family to know his fate and whereabouts” entails a form of cruel and inhuman treatment for the nearest relative, in violation of Article 5 of the ACHR.258 In its subsequent judgments, the IACtHR has recognised the right to truth as an individual right, in its individual and collective dimension.259 • The Moroccan Equity and Reconciliation Commission had the mandate to investigate disappearances and arbitrary detention between 1956 and 1999. The Commission determined the fate of 742 people, including 66 victims of ED.254 The numbers, however, do not reflect the real number of victims or the truth about the use of ED during the prescribed period. The Commission itself noted that the limitations it faced in obtaining the truth included limitations of certain oral testimonies and their fragility, the deplorable state of national archives, or the inadequate co-operation of certain authorities, whereby certain officials gave incomplete answers regarding cases they were questioned about, while certain former, retired officials refused altogether to contribute to the efforts to reveal the truth.255 The IACtHR also approaches the right to truth as a remedy, taking together Article 1 of the ACHR and the State’s obligation to investigate human rights violations, to punish those responsible, and to fight against impunity, established in Articles 8 and 25 of the IACHR.260 In 2001, in Barrios Altos v. Peru, the Court considered that the right to truth was also correlated to the rights to a fair trial (Article 8) and judicial protection (Article 25) of the IACHR.261 A number of other IACHR judgments have confirmed the right of the victims’ relatives to know the truth, while continuing to subsume it under the above-mentioned rights.262 The CED in its Guiding Principles for the Search for Disappeared Persons highlights elements on the right to truth. The CED emphasises that the search for a The ECtHR in El Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia stressed the importance of the right 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 Jay D. Arson, The Strengths and Limitations of South Africa’s Search for Apartheid-Era Missing Persons, Issue 2, July 2011, pp. 262–281. United States Institute of Peace, Commission of Inquiry: Algeria, 21 September 2003 Kingdom of Morocco, Summary of the Final Report, National Commission for Truth, Justice and Reconciliation, p. 12 Kingdom of Morocco, Summary of the Final Report, supra note 254. ICPPED, Guiding Principles for the search for disappeared persons, CED/C/7, 8 May 2018. IACtHR, Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 156, para. 181 IACtHR, Rochac Hernández & Others v Salvador, Ser. C No. 285, 12 December 2013, para. 122. See for example Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Series C No. 202, 22 September 2009, paras. 118, 119, 168 and 169. IACtHR, Bámaca-Velásquez v Guatemala, Series C No 91, 25 November 2000, para. 73f, paras. 200-201. IACtHR, Barrios Altos v. Peru, Series C No. 83, 14 March 2001; ICJ, Enforced Disappearance and Extrajudicial Execution: The Rights of Family Members. A Practitioner’s Guide No. 10. p. 127. 262 IACtHR, Blanco Romero et al. v. Venezuela, Series C No. 138, 28 November 2005, para. 62; Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras, Judgment of 21 September 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 76; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. 31 January 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 220. 38