The Committee on Enforced Disappearances today concluded its consideration of the initial report of Panama on measures taken to implement the provisions of the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Committee Experts asked how enforced disappearances that had occurred in the past were dealt with in Panama’s laws and courts of today, also raising the issue of migrant missing persons.
Ana Luisa Castro, Deputy Minister in Charge of Multilateral Affairs and Cooperation and head of delegation, introducing the report, said that in 2016, Panama had introduced amendments to its criminal code criminalizing enforced disappearances, in accordance with international standards. Enforced disappearances were regulated as a crime carrying a penalty of 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment. Panama had made progress in addressing the problem of enforced disappearances through legislative policies and jurisprudence, she said. Thanks to political will and civil society’s commitment to human rights, legal obstacles were being progressively removed.
Those responsible for enforced disappearances were being identified and punished through the reopening of judicial cases throughout the country, with full guarantees to their rights to due process. Panama’s conciliation procedure, provided by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, allowed complainants to file cases of enforced disappearance. Panama faced challenges ahead, she acknowledged, underscoring her country’s constructive stance for truth.
Committee Experts asked whether Panama would recognize the Committee’s competence to receive individual complaints referred to it in the implementation of the Convention? Experts also asked about files dating to the period of dictatorship, asking how many prosecutions Panama had pursued, and the basis of any convictions was. Had Panama established good practices on the prosecution of enforced disappearances? Given the continuing nature of the crime of enforced disappearance, could the delegation explain whether the principle of retroactivity applied to that crime in Panamanian law?
The Committee was also concerned about the plight of migrants passing through the Darien jungle, noting that information received alleged they were being subjected to human rights violations, including disappearances in the jungle. The delegation was asked to provide information on which steps Panama had taken to address that issue, and which difficulties it had faced in executing investigations and prosecuting cases of human rights violations involving migrants passing through the Darien jungle? Was there a registry of migrants who had disappeared, and was there a search protocol to look for migrants?
In her concluding remarks, Committee Chair Carmen Rosa Villa Quintana commended the delegation for their positive attitude, and for their flexibility in overcoming technical difficulties. She underscored that the Committee was open to assisting Panama in its implementation of the Convention.
Ms. Castro, Deputy Minister in Charge of Multilateral Affairs and Cooperation and head of delegation, confirmed Panama’s good faith in appearing before the Committee, and noted that Panama remained open for further dialogue where improvement was needed.
The delegation of Panama consisted of representatives of the Government, the Ministry of Public Security, the Supreme Court, the Appeals Court, the Attorney General’s Office, the National Immigration Service, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the General Directorate of the Penitentiary System, the Office of Legal Counsel of the Ministry of Government, the National Office for Refugees, the Office of the Presidency, the Ministry of Public Security, and the Permanent Mission of Panama to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Panama at the end of its twenty-first session on 24 September. Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage.
The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed at https://webtv.un.org/.
The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Friday, 17 September to hold its dialogue with Spain.
Report
The Committee has before it the initial report of Panama (CED/C/PAN/1)
Presentation of the report
JUAN ALBERTO CASTILLERO CORREA, Permanent Representative of Panama to the United Nations Office at Geneva, opened by thanking the Chair and the Committee members and stated that Panama was looking forward to the dialogue with the Committee.
ANA LUISA CASTRO, Deputy Minister in Charge of Multilateral Affairs and Cooperation and head of delegation, introducing the report, said her country based its development policy on human rights, which did not allow for any enforced disappearances. Panama had created an international standing committee to ensure follow-up to its commitments in the area of human rights, including recommendations by the United Nations human rights treaty bodies. The Constitution of Panama stood for liberty, democracy, institutional stability and human dignity. In Panama’s legal system, certain powers were granted to State authorities for the purpose of protecting the rights of nationals and foreigners in Panama, but they were not absolute, as a 2004 amendment to the Constitution stipulated that those powers should be considered as a minimum standard. State authorities in the exercise of such powers must respect the fundamental rights and human dignity of all persons.
Enforced disappearance was a crime on many fronts, as it directly attacked constitutional standards that offered protection to individuals, such as the rights to life, liberty and the due process guarantees. In 2016, Panama had introduced amendments to its criminal code in order to criminalize enforced disappearances in accordance with international standards. Enforced disappearances were regulated as a crime carrying a penalty of 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment. While the Constitution allowed for the declaration of a state of emergency and the suspension of some rights in cases of external war or internal disturbances threatening peace and public order, the country also recognized and incorporated into its legal structures the Inter-American standards which regulated international human rights law. State authorities were obligated to refrain from suppressing the fundamental guarantees that protect individuals from unlawful and indefinite imprisonment in accordance with the legal procedures enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights, because they constituted judicial guarantees indispensable to protect rights and freedoms that could not be suspended under a state of emergency.
Panama had made progress in addressing the problem of enforced disappearances through legislative policies and jurisprudence, she said. Thanks to political will and civil society’s commitment to human rights, legal obstacles were being progressively removed. Those responsible for enforced disappearances were being identified and punished through the reopening of judicial cases throughout the country, with full guarantees to their rights to due process. Panama’s conciliation procedure, provided by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, allowed complainants to file cases of enforced disappearance.
While highlighting the positive measures, she noted that Panama had a long road ahead to address the problem of enforced disappearances, especially with emerging challenges facing Latin America. Notwithstanding the pronouncement of a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Panama had not suspended the fundamental rights that protected individuals against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. During the pandemic, the Public Prosecutor’s Office had continued doing its constitutional duty of investigating and prosecuting all crimes, while the judicial branch of the government had provided the necessary checks by ensuring that individuals’ guarantees of due process were protected. Panama faced challenges ahead, she acknowledged, underscoring her country’s constructive stance for truth. Panama was a pro-active State party coming before the Committee for its dialogue.
Questions by the Committee Experts