Source: United Nations – Geneva
Committee Experts Commemorate the Day of Remembrance for Truth and Justice in Argentina and the International Day for the Right to the Truth Concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims
The Committee on Enforced Disappearances today concluded its consideration of the initial report of Malta on its implementation of the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Committee Experts asked questions on the State’s efforts to establish a stand-alone law on enforced disappearance and a national human rights institution, and to prevent disappearances of migrants.
Several experts raised concerns that the State party did not have a stand-alone crime of enforced disappearance. Fidelis Kanyongolo, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked about steps taken to establish an autonomous offence of enforced disappearance with appropriate penalties.
Barbara Lochbihler, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the human rights and equality commission bill, which would establish a national human rights institution, had not yet been enacted. What parts of the bill were under review and what was the timeline for its adoption?
Ms. Lochbihler also cited reports of tactics of non-assistance to migrants and refugees in distress at sea, as well as pushbacks to Libya, leading to deaths and disappearances. Refugees in Libya were reportedly kept in appalling conditions, and exposed to abuse, extortion, abduction and human trafficking. What measures had the State party taken to prevent disappearances of migrants and dangerous pushbacks at sea?
Introducing the report, Fiorella Fenech Vella, Office of the State Advocate of Malta and head of the delegation, said Malta had consistently recognised that enforced disappearance was a crime under customary international law, and the State had classified enforced disappearances as inhumane acts under its umbrella provision of crimes against humanity since its independence in 1964.
The delegation added that Malta had no reported cases of enforced disappearance and the State party criminalised all elements of the crime of enforced disappearance, though it did not have a stand-alone crime of enforced disappearance or plans to create one.
The establishment of an independent national human rights institution remained a high priority for Malta, Ms. Fenech Vella said. The equality and human rights commission bill had been previously presented to Parliament; however, the legislative process was halted due to the dissolution of Parliament for the 2022 general elections. Since then, efforts had been made to develop the bill to ensure full compliance with the Paris Principles and relevant European Union directives. The delegation could not provide a timeline for its adoption, however.
The delegation said Malta had saved several migrants at sea. Maltese authorities acted on distress calls at sea in accordance with relevant international laws and had not engaged in any pushbacks to Libya. The Government signed a memorandum of understanding with Libya in 2020 on setting up coordination centres in Tripoli and Malta to improve the reception of migrants and combat trafficking in the region.
In concluding remarks, Ms. Fenech Vella said the dialogue was an essential component for further strengthening Malta’s implementation of the Convention and for strengthening protections for rights holders in the State. The State party would carefully analyse and take into account the Committee’s recommendations in its development of laws and policies.
Olivier de Frouville, Committee Chair, in concluding remarks, said the State party and the Committee’s common goal was to ensure the implementation of the Convention. Mr. de Frouville called on Malta and other States that had ratified the Convention to petition States that had not ratified to do so. The Committee looked forward to continuing to work with Malta in future.
The delegation of Malta consisted of representatives of the Ministry for Home Affairs, Security and Employment; Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Tourism; Office of the State Advocate; Office of the Attorney General; Ministry for Justice and Reform of the Construction Industry; and the Permanent Mission of Malta to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
At the end of the first day of the dialogue, the Committee heard statements marking the Day of Remembrance for Truth and Justice in Argentina and the International Day for the Right to the Truth Concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims.
Horacio Ravenna, Committee Vice-Chair, recounted that 49 years ago, the armed forces in Argentina initiated a coup against the State’s leadership and imposed a military dictatorship. In this era, when many political dissidents were subjected to enforced disappearance, the exiled mothers of victims led the fight and bravely spoke out. On this day, the Committee honoured persons who had passed away and continued to raise public awareness for the next generations, so that the horrendous crime could be eradicated forever.
Mr. de Frouville, Committee Chair, said all needed to remember the courageous struggle of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, whose actions had led to the development of the Convention.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Malta at the end of its twenty-eighth session, which concludes on 4 April. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 4 April at 5 p.m. to close its twenty-eighth session.
Report
The Committee has before it the initial report of Malta (CED/C/MLT/1).
Presentation of Report
FIORELLA FENECH VELLA, Office of the State Advocate of Malta and head of the delegation, said the dialogue was an opportunity to reaffirm Malta’s unwavering commitment to the Convention and its unwavering support to the United Nations human rights treaty bodies. Malta had consistently recognised that enforced disappearance was a crime under customary international law amounting to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. The State had classified enforced disappearances as inhumane acts under its umbrella provision of crimes against humanity since its independence in 1964. It also signed in February of last year the Ljubljana-Hague Convention on prosecuting war crimes and genocide, which would help deliver justice to victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, facilitating effective international cooperation in domestic investigations and prosecutions.
Malta’s 1964 Constitution and Bill of Rights, adopted upon Malta’s establishment as a State, enshrined key rights, including the right to life; protection against arbitrary arrest or detention, and inhuman treatment; the right to a fair hearing; and the prohibition of deportation, among others. The Constitution stipulated that detention could only occur under lawful conditions. The International Criminal Court Act incorporated international crimes, including enforced disappearances categorised as crimes against humanity, into the State’s law. Malta had ratified several international treaties aimed at preventing enforced disappearances and protecting human rights, including the European Convention on Human Rights; had ratified several United Nations human rights treaties and their protocols; and had accepted communications procedures under a number of these. It was constantly reviewing the Committee’s communications procedure and would keep it updated on any developments.
Combatting trafficking in persons remained a priority for the State. Malta had launched a national strategy and action plan on combatting trafficking in human beings in Malta (2024-2030), which aimed to strengthen the necessary national framework required to prevent human trafficking, protect victims, and prosecute offenders of this crime. Anti-trafficking actions were being developed to address root causes, risks, threats, new methods used by traffickers, and demand. The strategy took a human rights-focused, gender-sensitive, interdisciplinary, and cross-sectoral approach. The Police, via the Vulnerable Victims Unit, conducted investigations into human trafficking and collaborated closely with the Financial Crime Investigation Department to effectively target traffickers and prevent them from reaping financial gains from their criminal activities. In 2024, Malta initiated two prosecutions which combined human trafficking charges with money laundering charges, with legal proceedings currently underway.
Victims of human rights violations – including heirs of individuals subjected to enforced disappearances – were entitled to initiate court proceedings against the State Advocate in the First Hall of Malta’s Civil Court. An individual could only be presumed dead when their absence had lasted for a continuous period exceeding 10 years. The Constitutional Court could issue orders to safeguard affected individuals’ rights and ensure that any law, entity or individual, including all State officials, in breach of fundamental human rights were held accountable. Even the President could face legal action for acts committed outside the scope of functions of the Office.
Malta had incorporated effective remedies for victims of human rights violations in its legislation. The State was in full compliance with article 17(3) of the Convention, which mandated that official registers of individuals deprived of liberty were maintained by the appropriate authorities and updated as necessary.
The establishment of an independent national human rights institution in accordance with the Paris Principles remained a high priority for Malta. The equality and human rights commission bill had been previously presented to Parliament; however, the legislative process was halted due to the dissolution of Parliament for the 2022 general elections. Since then, efforts were ongoing to further develop the bill to ensure full compliance with the Paris Principles and European Union directives that established minimum standards for equality bodies’ independence, resources and powers. The proposed institution was conceived to function as an independent, well-resourced, and effective entity to be endowed with the necessary legal mandate to promote and protect human rights fervently.
Malta was resolutely committed to the promotion and protection of human rights, including related to enforced disappearances, and ensuring justice and accountability. The State party’s efforts reflected its moral commitment to uphold the dignity and rights of all individuals.
Questions by Committee Experts
BARBARA LOCHBIHLER, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the human rights and equality commission bill, which would establish a national human rights institution, had not yet been enacted. What parts of the bill were under review and what was the timeline for its adoption? Why had the State party not yet accepted the Committee’s competence to receive individual and inter-State communications? Had any national courts directly invoked the Convention? Why had the State party not consulted with civil society organizations in preparing the report?
FIDELIS KANYONGOLO, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the emergency powers act empowered the President to make necessary regulations for public safety, health and the defence of Malta in states of emergency. Had the President ever exercised this power? Which legal provisions specifically guaranteed non-derogation from legislation stipulating the right of every person to be protected from enforced disappearances during states of emergency?
Was State legislation in line with article two of the Convention? What steps had been taken to establish an autonomous offence of enforced disappearance with penalties commensurate to the seriousness of the offence in State legislation? Did the State party have a law which established its jurisdiction over the offence of enforced disappearance committed outside of Malta when the alleged offender was present in the country, including in cases where the alleged offender was not subject to military law and when the crime was not a crime against humanity?
There was no up-to-date statistical information available on the number of disappeared persons or persons involved in enforced disappearances in Malta. What challenges was the State party facing in this regard? What plans did it have to systematically collect data on enforced disappearances in future? How many cases of enforced disappearance had been investigated by the State? What measures had been taken to ensure the impartiality of such investigations and that public officers allegedly involved in the crime did not take part in the proceedings?
Malta’s whistleblower act offered some degree of protection to whistleblowers and witnesses. However, it did not extend its protection to members of a “disciplined force”, the Security Service or persons employed in the foreign, consular or diplomatic service of the Government. What measures were in place to protect such internal whistleblowers and witnesses, as well as relatives of victims and defence counsel? Did the Code of Ethics of Police Officers provide protection to police officers who witnessed acts of violence, inhumane or offensive treatment?
Had the State party concluded any extradition agreement with other State parties? Had it participated in mutual legal assistance and cooperation with other States in respect to offences of enforced disappearances and abduction? Were there any inter-country procedures in place to govern the search for and release of disappeared persons, and the identification and return of their remains in case of death?
A Committee Expert asked whether the Convention could be directly enforced in Malta. The State party did not have a stand-alone crime of enforced disappearance. What mechanisms were in place to harmonise domestic law with the Convention?
Another Committee Expert asked about plans to involve civil society in the development of State party reports.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Malta had no reported cases of enforced disappearance and the State maintained a robust legal framework to prevent occurrences of enforced disappearance. The Criminal Code classified enforced disappearance as a crime against humanity. It was in line with article two of the Convention. All cases of suspected enforced disappearance and missing persons were treated with the highest priority by the police and promptly investigated. Authorities immediately checked detention records after reports of missing persons. Investigations utilised a range of forensic techniques and legal electronic surveillance tools. In cases of cross-border activities, the State party engaged with Interpol in investigations. The police compiled a centralised system containing all reports of missing persons and disappearances, which was used to track searches and investigations.
Several oversight mechanisms were in place to investigate alleged human rights violations by State officials, including the police’s internal investigation unit. The police conducted regular human rights training, which addressed the prohibition of enforced disappearance and arbitrary detention. Early warning mechanisms were in place to identify arbitrary detentions at an early stage. All persons in police custody needed to be registered in the police detention registry. The maximum period of police detention, which was 48 hours, could be extended for an equivalent period for serious offences when permitted by a magistrate.
The Criminal Code stated that detained persons had the right to a lawyer and to communicate with consular authorities if they were foreigners. When detained persons required an interpreter, one needed to be provided without delay. Police officers were required to follow the Police Code of Ethics, considering the potential effects of their actions. They were required to take immediate action to protect people and private property from violence.
Persons subjected to extradition proceedings had the right to engage with lawyers and to appeal extradition decisions. Malta had the competence to try cases of enforced disappearance that were crimes against humanity committed inside and outside of Malta. When unable to extradite a person accused of enforced disappearance, the State had the competence to prosecute the person domestically. Malta had colonial-era extradition agreements with the United States, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. It was bound by the European Convention on Extradition, which superseded any provisions implemented by bilateral agreements. There had been no cases of extradition of persons accused of enforced disappearance, but there were cases related to abduction and trafficking in persons.
Detention services had a central registry of detentions. All immigration detentions and involuntary admissions to psychiatric institutions were registered. Persons under arrest could challenge the lawfulness of their detention at any time. The detention of persons in places that were not classified as prisons was an offence. Police investigations into trafficking cases checked for enforced disappearance. Persons who had conspired to commit enforced disappearance were prosecuted. All public officers accused of enforced disappearance or abductions were immediately suspended and were not involved in searches or investigations.
Maltese law was derogable; Parliament had the power to change national laws, except for the Constitution. All directives given by the President needed to be in line with the Constitution, which prevailed in cases where domestic legislation conflicted with it. Parliament could not make amendments to laws without reaching a two-thirds majority, meaning that the ruling party could not impose laws on its own.
The bill establishing the national human rights institution had been suspended in 2022 due to the general election and assessment of it had started afresh. Malta was not able to provide a date for the enactment of the bill. There were no civil society organizations active in the field of enforced disappearance in Malta.
Questions by Committee Experts
FIDELIS KANYONGOLO, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked about the State party’s jurisdiction over enforced disappearances that did not amount to crimes against humanity. Suspensions could be imposed by the heads of government departments in cases of allegations against inferiors. Were there provisions that ensured that heads of departments exercised this discretion from the beginning of investigations and for their entire duration? To what extent did domestic legislation address concealment of the fate or whereabouts of disappeared persons? To what extent was the State obliged to investigate when enforced disappearance was perpetrated by non-State actors? Was the right to be protected from enforced disappearance derogable in Malta? Could persons be extradited to places where they could be subjected to enforced disappearance? Were police officers who reported enforced disappearances to persons other than their superior officers protected under whistle-blower legislation?
BARBARA LOCHBIHLER, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said enforced disappearances related to issues such as trafficking in persons and migration. Why were civil society organizations that dealt with these issues not involved in preparing the State party’s report?
Another Committee Expert asked if State legislation addressed the act of aiding and abetting the crime of trafficking in persons. There were barriers to enforced disappearance being invoked as grounds for an extradition in Malta due to the principle of double jeopardy, which required both the extraditing and receiving States to have the same laws on the crime. How would the State party address this issue?
A Committee Expert asked if the Executive, the Attorney General, non-governmental organizations or private individuals had the power to develop legal norms that could be assessed and approved by the legislature.
One Committee Expert said the Committee was delighted that Malta had never recorded cases of enforced disappearances, but the Convention required that the State party set up legal mechanisms, including a stand-alone offence of enforced disappearance, that would allow it to deal with enforced disappearances that could occur on national territory in future.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the State party criminalised all elements of the crime of enforced disappearance, though it did not have a stand-alone crime of enforced disappearance or plans to create one. The State party could prosecute all cases of enforced disappearance occurring on its territory. The emergency powers of the President had never been applied. The delegation was unable to provide a timeline for the adoption of the bill establishing the national human rights institution.
There were no bilateral agreements that Malta had concluded that addressed enforced disappearances. Acts that constituted offences to the laws of Malta were extraditable offences. Double criminality was adopted in most extradition cases. When offences listed as grounds for extradition in a foreign State’s extradition request were not included in Malta’s laws, the State party was obliged to indicate an applicable domestic law. How certain countries interpreted trafficking in persons crimes could differ, which could lead to complications. The State party needed to do its best to find common ground between jurisdictions in cases of this kind.
Comprehensive witness protection measures were in place. Witnesses whose safety was at risk were entitled to identity changes and relocation measures. Punishments could be mitigated based on witnesses’ cooperation.
When there were allegations against a police officer, the officer involved was immediately suspended. When a civil servant under suspicion of having committed a crime was suspended, they could appeal their suspension with the civil service complaints authority.
Malta was a Westminster democracy, so the Executive could not submit draft laws for consideration, but citizens could.
State laws addressed aiding and abetting crimes of human trafficking and abduction, including financing and supporting the crime and making use of products obtained through the crime of trafficking in persons.
Questions by Committee Experts
BARBARA LOCHBIHLER, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked about mechanisms applied prior to an extradition to assess whether persons could be at risk of enforced disappearance. Did registers of detained persons include all the details required by the Convention? Were registers regularly updated? Had the State party revised its legal definition of “places of deprivation of liberty” in line with the recommendation of the Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture
Malta’s policies and practices reportedly increased the risk of enforced disappearances of migrants and victims of trafficking. Tactics of non-assistance or delay in assistance to migrants and refugees in distress at sea, as well as pushbacks to Libya, violating the non-refoulement principle, had led to deaths and disappearances of migrants at sea. The widespread use of immigration detention and alleged episodes of violence in pre-removal detention centres also continued to be a human rights concern in Malta. The State party had been called on to stop pushbacks at sea to Libya, which could not be considered a safe space. Refugees in Libya were reportedly kept in appalling conditions, and exposed to abuse, extortion, abduction and human trafficking. What measures had the State party taken to prevent disappearances of migrants and dangerous pushbacks at sea? Malta had had a Memorandum of Understanding with Libya since 2020 that included the funding of two coordination centres in Libya. What were the contents of this memorandum and how did it prevent migrant pushbacks?
Open centres for migrants in Malta reportedly lacked space, forcing the State party to place migrants in detention centres. Could the delegation update the Committee on this practice? Were there migration detention facilities that were not operated by the detention service? What progress had been made in establishing a central register for detained migrants? How long was the maximum and minimum period of migrant detention? Could data on the nationality of detained migrants be provided? What was the timeline for extending the mandate of the national preventive mechanism?
Did the content of training activities referred to in the reply to the list of issues address the Convention? Was the State party planning on providing human rights training to medical personnel in prisons, members of the judiciary, immigration personnel and social workers? Would training address illegal intercountry adoptions?
Did national laws place a time limit on access by victims of enforced disappearance and their relatives to reparation? Did laws address victims’ relatives’ rights to information and property?
What policies and measures had been taken to protect children, particularly unaccompanied minors, from enforced disappearances in the context of migration and trafficking? Could the delegation provide figures on trafficking of children? How had the State party’s policies on illegal intercountry adoption developed, taking into account international norms on the practice?
FIDELIS KANYONGOLO, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the State party’s obligations under the Convention still existed, although there were no recorded cases of enforced disappearance in the State. Were there plans to expand the definition of “victims” in Malta’s victims of crime act to align it with article 24 of the Convention, particularly to include family members of individuals who had suffered harm as a result of enforced disappearances that had not directly caused deaths? What measures were in place to provide victims’ relatives the right to know the progress of investigations and the fate of disappeared persons, and the right to be returned remains in cases of death? Did relatives have the right to various forms of reparation, including restitution, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition? Were there laws that obliged the State to continue the investigation of cases until the fate of the disappeared person had been clarified? Had measures been taken in law and practice to guarantee the right of people in Malta to establish and participate freely in associations attempting to establish the fate of disappeared persons and to assist victims and relatives?
Another Committee Expert asked how detained persons were informed of their rights, including their right to counsel? How were women and children protected in cases of enforced disappearance?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said no person was to be subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment during extradition proceedings. Persons were not to be returned if they could be subjected to inhumane treatment or other human rights violations. Under European arrest warrant laws, the State was bound by a 10-day surrender period, during which time persons subjected to extradition proceedings could appeal the extradition. Last year, a judgement was made by the Court of Criminal Appeal deciding to prevent the extradition of a person to Romania due to deficiencies in prison conditions in that State.
Malta was in the process of amending the whistleblowers act so that whistleblowers who were members of the disciplinary forces and other persons would be protected under the act.
Malta’s laws on trafficking in persons were in line with international norms and ensured protection for vulnerable groups, including women and children. The victims of crime act ensured that victims had access to legal aid, psychological support and shelter, and granted them the right to be informed about the progress of legal proceedings. The Malta police had a unit for investigating trafficking and non-governmental organizations provided shelters and support for victims. Training was provided to police on identifying victims of trafficking. The State party had ratified several international norms on trafficking, including the Palermo Protocol.
Records of immigration detention were kept in an online database that relevant State authorities could access. Data was recorded upon admission to migrant facilities. Many police officers had participated in training courses addressing human rights, investigating missing persons, and victim and witness protection.
The judiciary had received training on the rights of victims, including to access compensation and justice. The definition in the victims of crime act was not the only definition of a “victim” in State legislation. Victims had the right to be understood, and were informed about the protection and legal aid measures they were entitled to and methods of accessing compensation. There were many avenues to compensation under Malta’s legislation, including provisions in the Criminal Code addressing compensation and a process for obtaining compensation for civil cases. Agencies had been established to ensure victims received timely individual assessments regarding the support measures they were entitled to. The State party prioritised the protection of vulnerable victims and victims of serious crimes, guarding against intimidation and reprisals against victims. Child victims testified to magistrates in separate rooms to trial rooms to prevent traumatisation.
Migration remained a challenge for Malta, as the State was located on a major migration route. It had saved several migrants at sea over the past 20 years. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had assisted the State party to improve its asylum system and to establish services such as migrant health services and return counselling. The State party was dedicated to meeting its human rights obligations regarding migrants, to providing protection to those who needed it, and to returning other migrants in a safe and humane manner. Maltese authorities acted on distress calls at sea in accordance with relevant international laws.
Malta had not engaged in any pushbacks to Libya and there had been no occurrences of collective expulsions. The Government signed a memorandum of understanding with Libya in 2020 on setting up coordination centres in Tripoli and Malta to improve reception of migrants and combat trafficking in the region. Libyan authorities needed to be given the necessary resources to combat migrant smuggling. The memorandum of understanding had led to reduced loss of life in the Mediterranean region.
The detention of migrants was enforced on clear legal grounds. Detention orders were issued following individual assessments and only as a last resort. Such orders were subject to an automatic review and subsequent reviews every 14 days. Migrants were notified of removal decisions verbally and in writing. Removal orders provided explanations of the reasons for the order and options for voluntary removals. All return activities were monitored by an independent monitoring board. Free legal aid and interpretation services were provided in legal proceedings on removals.
All unaccompanied minors were protected by care orders issued by the courts. They were cared for by the agency for the welfare of asylum seekers, which collaborated with the police force and reported signs of trafficking and risks of minors leaving the country without consent.
Overcrowding in detention and open centres had not been a problem since 2021. Malta’s open centre was closed in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The centre was reopened in 2021 and an additional centre was constructed, resolving the problem. The current occupancy rate in detention centres was less than 30 per cent. Violence in detention centres was not an issue. Independent correctional centre monitoring boards had been appointed as the State’s national preventive mechanism. These boards submitted regular reports to the State regarding conditions in detention centres.
The legal status of victims of enforced disappearance was defined in the Civil Code, which specified that the assets of such persons were managed by curators who were appointed by the courts. There were safeguards on victims’ assets. Courts ensured the protection and supervision of unattended children. The directorate for child protection services operated a children’s house and had powers to carry out and request investigations into cases of violations of children’s rights.
The Constitution provided for freedom of association. Any person was entitled to associate regarding issues of enforced disappearance. No legislation could restrict the freedom of association of any person.
Questions by Committee Experts
BARBARA LOCHBIHLER, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the State party had formed a further memorandum of understanding with Libya in 2024. Did it address the prevention of enforced disappearance? Some persons employed by the Libyan Coastguard were reportedly themselves involved in trafficking in persons. How did the State party respond to these reports? How did it respond to reports that Maltese authorities had failed to rescue over 200 migrants whose vessel sank in the Mediterranean in 2013? Did migrants deprived of liberty have the right to a lawyer? Did the State party address the situation of potentially disappeared persons in its work on locating missing migrants? Had the State party referenced the Committee’s general comment on illegal intercountry adoptions in its regulations on the practice?
FIDELIS KANYONGOLO, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked about amendments being contemplated for the whistleblowers act and the potential timeline for their adoption. Did registers of persons deprived of liberty include all details stipulated in article 17 (3) of the Convention? Were the State’s registers interconnected and interoperable? Did the State’s various definitions of “victims” reflect the breadth of the definition of victims in article 24 of the Convention? Were victims entitled to compensation and remedies as broadly defined in article 24 (5)? Mr. Kanyongolo appreciated the details provided by the delegation regarding Malta’s legislation.
Another Committee Expert said the State party had proceedings to declare absences and deaths. What procedure was used to declare disappearances?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that when a person was charged with a criminal offence, victims could participate in criminal proceedings and could file a petition to claim compensation. The Criminal Code included a compensation scheme. Under Maltese law, victims could also file actions against the Government before the Civil Court requesting damages. Damages were timebound and could be renewed after certain periods. In cases where breaches of human rights were found, courts could grant pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Victims also had the right to file applications for reparation with the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights.
Adoptions were regulated by State laws and there was an authority that oversaw adoptions, including intercountry adoptions, to ensure that they were legal.
Migrants were granted the same rights as other individuals in criminal proceedings, including the right to a lawyer, the right to contact family members, and the right to medical assistance as required. They were given information on their rights upon detainment in a language that they understood.
The memorandum of understanding with Libya had been renewed in 2024 with the same terms and conditions of the previous one. It aimed to dismantle trafficking activities and prevent the loss of life of migrants at sea. When the State party received requests for information on missing migrants at sea, responsible authorities conducted necessary investigations. Malta abided by its international obligations and had never relinquished a search case for migrants in distress at sea.
Amendments to the whistleblower act were still in the drafting stage and the delegation could not provide a timeline for its adoption.
Malta was in full compliance with article 17 (3) of the Convention. Registers of detained persons were maintained by authorities and updated as necessary. They included the detainees’ personal details, and the time of and reason for arrest, among other details. Registers were regularly reviewed to ensure compliance with domestic and international norms.
The Civil Code defined the process for declaring absences. Disappeared persons could be declared as absentees. Presumptive heirs of absentees could file petitions to courts to obtain their assets. The will of the absentee was opened after 10 years of absence, and courts determined who received assets in cases where the absentee had not made a will.
Closing Remarks
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Chair, thanked the delegation for the dialogue. The Committee would prepare concluding observations based on the topics discussed and call on the State party to report on implementation of these concluding observations after a certain period. The Committee would decide whether or not to hold a follow-up dialogue with Malta based on its assessment of this report. The State party and the Committee’s common goal was to ensure the implementation of the Convention. Mr. de Frouville called on Malta and other States that had ratified the Convention to petition States that had not ratified to do so. The Committee looked forward to continuing to work with Malta in future.
FIORELLA FENECH VELLA, Office of the State Advocate of Malta and head of the delegation, said the delegation had engaged fully with the Committee in the dialogue. The Committee had posed pertinent questions related to the implementation of the Convention. The dialogue was an essential component for further strengthening Malta’s implementation and for strengthening protections for rights holders in the State. Malta had never implemented policies that had amounted to enforced disappearance, a reflection of its dedication to promoting human rights principles. The State party would carefully analyse and take into account the Committee’s recommendations in its development of laws and policies.
Statements Marking the Day of Remembrance for Truth and Justice in Argentina and the International Day for the Right to the Truth Concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims
At the end of the first day of the dialogue, HORACIO RAVENNA, Committee Vice-Chairperson, said that 24 March was a special day in Argentina, the Day of Remembrance for Truth and Justice. Forty-nine years ago today, the armed forces in Argentina initiated a coup against the State’s leadership and imposed a dictatorship. Several similar coups were also carried out in other countries in South and Latin America. Many political dissidents were killed, arbitrarily detained and subjected to enforced disappearance in this era as part of Operation Condor, and legislation in many countries did not sufficiently address the phenomenon of enforced disappearance. In this context, the exiled mothers of victims of enforced disappearance led the fight and bravely spoke out, meeting in Paris to discuss the issue, and these discussions led to the development of the Convention, which had been in force for 14 years. Today, the Committee honoured persons who had passed away and continued to raise public awareness for the next generations, so that the horrendous crime could be eradicated forever.
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Chair, said today was also, in addition to being the Day of Remembrance for Truth and Justice, the International Day for the Right to the Truth Concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims. All needed to remember the courageous struggle of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, whose actions had led to the development of the Convention. They had spoken the truth bravely to combat dictatorships.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CED25.007E
MIL OSI United Nations News –
