Table of contents
Element
P.57. Evidence inferred from an utterance, a document or a deed.
P.57.1. Evidence of the State authorities denial of arrest.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Chumbivilcas v. Perú, Case 10.559, Report No. 1/96, IACtHR., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.91 Doc. 7 at 136 (1996):
"The Commission considers that forced disappearance has occurred when a person is arrested by State agents or with the acquiescence of same, with or without orders from a competent authority, and this arrest is then denied and no information is made available as to the destination or whereabouts of the detainee."
P.57.2. Evidence of the State authorities denial of detention.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
?i?ek v. Turkey, Application no. 25704/94, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction)(European Court of Human Rights), 27 February 2001, para. 32:
"32. On July 1994 Feride Cicek filed two petitions with the Diyarbakir Public Prosecutor asking whether her brothers, who had been taken away by the security forces on 10 May 1944, were actually held in custody. She only received a verbal reply to the effect that they were not in custody. The same day she filled another petition with the public prosecutor as regards the disappearance of her nephew, Cayan Cicek. Again, verbally, she was told that Cayan was not in custody."
Fairén-Garbi and Sol?s-Corrales v. Honduras, Petition No. 7951, Judgment, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 15 March 1989, para. 153(d)(iv):
"153. [ ] (d) [ ](iv) When queried by relatives, lawyers and persons or entities interested in the protection of human rights, or by judges charged with executing writs of habeas corpus, the authorities systematically denied any knowledge of the detentions or the whereabouts or fate of the victims. That attitude was seen even in the cases of persons who later reappeared in the hands of the same authorities who had systematically denied holding them or knowing their fate."
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Taş v. Turkey, Application no. 24396/94, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction)(European Court of Human Rights), 14 November 2000, para. 85:
"85. The authorities have failed to provide a plausible explanation for the whereabouts and fate of the applicants son after that date."
Kurt v. Turkey, Application No. 24276/94 , Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfac-tion)(European Court of Human Rights), 25 May 1998, para. 128:
"128. The Court concludes that the authorities have failed to offer any credible and substantiated explanation for the whereabouts and fate of the applicants son after he was detained in the village and that no meaningful investigation was conducted into the applicants insistence that he was in detention and that she was concerned for his life."
Fairén-Garbi and Sol?s-Corrales v. Honduras, Petition No. 7951, Judgment, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 15 March 1989, para. 153(d)(iv):
"153[ ] (d) [ ] (iv) When queried by relatives, lawyers and persons or entities interested in the protection of human rights, or by judges charged with executing writs of habeas corpus, the authorities systematically denied any knowledge of the detentions or the whereabouts or fate of the victims. That attitude was seen even in the cases of persons who later reappeared in the hands of the same authorities who had systematically denied holding them or knowing their fate."
Chumbivilcas v. Perú, Case 10.559, Report No. 1/96, IACtHR., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.91 Doc. 7 at 136 (1996):
"The Commission considers that forced disappearance has occurred when a person is arrested by State agents or with the acquiescence of same, with or without orders from a competent authority, and this arrest is then denied and no information is made available as to the destination or whereabouts of the detainee."
