Le Comité CED marque les vingt ans de l’adoption de la Convention internationale pour la protection de toutes les personnes contre les disparitions forcées

The Committee on Enforced Disappearances today held an informal meeting to mark the twentieth anniversary of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and to launch a project entitled "We Are Still Here: Putting Victims at the Centre of the Human Rights Movement", an initiative developed under the Global Alliance for Human Rights.

It subsequently closed its thirty-first session, during which it reviewed the initial reports of Belize and Lesotho, and reports on additional information from Armenia and Gabon. The concluding observations will be made available on the session's website tomorrow, 25 September.

Opening the meeting, Juan Pablo Alban Alencastro, Committee Chair, said the year 2026 marked the twentieth anniversary of the Convention. This anniversary was a unique opportunity to take stock of what had been done so far, with realism and commitment to move forward. The victims were at the centre of the Convention and the work of the Committee, he said.

Awa Dabo, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said in an opening statement that, at a time of growing pressure on human rights, sustained collaboration was indispensable. On the Convention's twentieth anniversary, she called for its universal ratification and urged all States that had not yet done so to become parties and to give full effect to its obligations.

The Committee then held its first panel discussion for the meeting, entitled "Dialogue on the adoption of the Convention: What happened behind the scenes?"

The panel was moderated by Nassera Dutour, President of the Euro-Mediterranean Federation against Enforced Disappearances and of the Collective of Families of the Disappeared in Algeria, and mother of Amine Amrouche, disappeared since January 1997. The panel's speakers were Federico Andreu, International Litigation Coordinator, Colombian Commission of Jurists; Catherine Calothy, Deputy Director, Directorate for Strategic Affairs, Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France; and Angkhana Neelapaijit, founder of the Justice for Peace Foundation and former member of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand.[MC1]

Representatives of France and Germany and members of civil society took the floor to pose questions to panel members.

Next, the Committee held the second panel discussion, the theme of which was "The work of the Committee over the past 20 years: Taking stock and the way forward". The first half of the panel focused on cooperation with the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, while the second half examined lived experiences of the impact of the Committee's work.

The first half of the panel was moderated by Olivier de Frouville, former Chair of the Committee and of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, and Director of the Paris Human Rights Centre of Paris-Panthéon-Assas University; and featured statements from Mr. Alban Alencastro and Grażyna Baranowska, Chair of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.

The second half of the panel was moderated by Committee Vice-Chair Carmen Rosa Villa Quintana, and included a video testimony from an anonymous survivor of an enforced disappearance and statements from persons whose loved ones had fallen victim to enforced disappearance, including Leeladevi Ananda Nadarajah, General Secretary, Association of Relatives of the Enforced Disappeared; Alejandra Cartagena, Coordinator of the National Citizens' Council of the National Search Council of Mexico and researcher with the Programme on Enforced Disappearance of the Jesuit University of Guadalajara; and Amina Masood Janjua, founder of Defence of Human Rights; wife of Masood Ahmed Janjua, disappeared since 2005; as well as from Mossaad Mohamed Ali, Executive Director of the African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies.

After the statements from panel members, representatives of Ecuador, Eritrea and civil society took the floor to pose questions.

Subsequently, the Committee held a panel discussion to launch the Global Alliance for Human Rights initiative "We are still here: Putting victims at the centre of the human rights movement". Laura Dolci, Coordinator of the Global Alliance for Human Rights, and Talia Khan Khattak, Associate Information Systems Officer, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, gave statements to mark the launch, and discussions were moderated by Barbara Lochbihler, Committee Vice-Chair. Representatives of France and civil society also took the floor to pose questions to panel members.

Next, Marija Definis, Committee Rapporteur, presented the Committee's final report on the thirty-first session. She said that this session, in addition to considering the initial reports of Lesotho and Belize, and reports on additional information submitted by Armenia and Gabon, the Committee had also adopted the lists of priority themes for Colombia, Cuba, Italy, and Paraguay.

Further, the Committee adopted its periodic report on requests for urgent actions, she reported. Between 1 March and 31 August 2026, the Committee received 181 new requests for urgent action. Since the last session, 28 cases had been closed following the location of the disappeared person, bringing the total number of located persons found since the beginning of the proceedings to 574, including 437 found alive.

In closing remarks, Mr. Alban Alencastro thanked all those involved in the hard work that had been carried out throughout the session, and thanked victims and their families for their support of the Committee. While victims' families continued to seek justice, so too would the Committee.

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 of the Committee's thirty-first session and other documents related to the session can be found here.

Details regarding the Committee's thirty-second session have yet to be confirmed and will be released on the Committee's website on a later date.

Opening Statements

JUAN PABLO ALBAN ALENCASTRO, Committee Chair, said the year 2026 marked the twentieth anniversary of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. This anniversary was a unique opportunity to take stock of what had been done so far, with realism and commitment to move forward. The victims were at the centre of the Convention and the work of the Committee.

The Committee had developed a campaign on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the Convention under the slogan: "Victims First, Action Now". Immediate action was urgent to ensure that enforced disappearances were fully eradicated and prevented, and that the victims - the disappeared persons and any person who had suffered direct harm as a result of enforced disappearance - were heard and taken into account.

The presence of many participants from Member States and civil society was a clear demonstration of their commitment to continue the fight against enforced disappearances; of commitment to the work of the Committee; but also an illustration of the will to continue to move forward together, including in the development of the intersectoral project of the Global Alliance for Human Rights that would be launched today: "We Are Still Here".

The international community needed to continue its efforts to prevent and eradicate enforced disappearances, to support victims and to promote their right, as well as the right of societies as a whole, to know the truth and to have access to justice and reparation. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights was the Committee's close ally in achieving this goal.

AWA DABO, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the purpose of today's commemoration was captured most clearly in the words of those who continued to live with enforced disappearance. She quoted messages from family members of victims of enforced disappearance, whose touching testimonies were collected on a commemorative wall on display at the meeting. These messages spoke to a distinct experience. Together, they represented one principle that was unmistakable: that victims, survivors and families needed to always be at the centre of efforts to prevent and eradicate enforced disappearance.

Twenty years after the Convention's adoption, there was important progress which needed to be recognised. The Convention had strengthened legal protection, supported national reforms, advanced international cooperation, and reinforced victims' pursuit of truth and justice. Drawing on the recommendations from the Committee and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, the Office of the High Commissioner had advised States parties across regions on amending their legislation, developing an autonomous crime of enforced disappearance in accordance with the Convention, establishing protocols for searching and investigating the disappearances of persons, and reforming their related institutional framework.

Today, the Office was launching "We Are Still Here," one of the first initiatives under the Global Alliance for Human Rights, which responded to the recurring barriers faced by victims, survivors, and families, in their dealings with public and private institutions. Healthcare systems, banks, insurers, social services and administrative authorities often relied on procedures that did not account for the legal and practical circumstances created by a person's disappearance. Through consultations with survivors and families of disappeared persons from different regions, the initiative would develop a practical guide for navigating these challenges and would formulate recommendations for public and private institutions.

At a time of growing pressure on human rights, sustained collaboration was indispensable. Preventing and eradicating enforced disappearance remained priorities for the Office. At the Convention's twentieth anniversary, Ms. Dabo reiterated the call for its universal ratification and urged all States that had not yet done so, to become parties, and to give full effect to its obligations.

Panel One - Dialogue on the Adoption of the Convention: What Happened Behind the Scenes?

In the panel discussion, speakers recounted the process of drafting and adopting the Convention. One speaker said that this process began in 1981, when an international symposium on enforced disappearance was held in the Parliamentary Assembly of France. This work was built on by the Vienna Human Rights Conference of 1993 and by subsequent meetings of civil society organizations.

Another speaker paid tribute to the courage and determination of those who had worked to elaborate the Convention and adopt it. They recalled that the drafting process involved tireless days of discussion and debate, and translation of emotional testimony into technical and legal discourse. The process was a unique opportunity to highlight the tragedy of enforced disappearances and their consequences for the families of victims. It involved making difficult choices and compromises. Drafting had been completed within three years, which was a record within the United Nations system.

Several speakers recalled that there was an outpouring of emotion and joy when the final text was adopted on 23 September 2005, along with a motion to dedicate the text to Marta Vásquez, a "Mother of the Plaza de Mayo", as a representative of all courageous families worldwide.

Addressing the difficulties faced related to negotiating the Convention, one speaker said that provisions on the rights of family members to know the fate of their loved ones had been difficult to negotiate, given the context of the recent terrorist attack on the United States. Many States had also opposed the idea of a clause that prohibited military courts from judging perpetrators of enforced disappearance. Deciding on a mechanism to oversee the Convention had also been a challenge.

Another speaker said some States believed the issue of enforced disappearances was a problem that was solely present in Lain America, meaning convincing delegations to invest time and money in negotiations on the Convention was difficult. The more that the Convention clashed with national systems, the more States would need to change their laws to ratify it. Addressing these points of opposition required the drafters of the Convention to adopt wording that was not as clear as they had hoped it to be.

One speaker said that adoption of the Convention was just one stage and more work lay ahead. They said they would strive to continue this work, despite the growing tide of opposition and denial of human rights in many parts of the world.

Another speaker said victims of enforced disappearance needed to be more than just beneficiaries of justice and reparation; they needed to be at the heart of these processes, as voices shaping the search for truth and justice. Their experiences needed to influence policies to ensure that no one had to suffer the same tragedy again.

One speaker paid tribute to the extraordinary courage of victims and their families, who, in the face of unimaginable pain, uncertainty and loss, had found the strength to continue searching, to speak out and to demand truth and justice. Their courage transformed personal grief into a collective struggle for justice and helped bring the issue of enforced disappearance to the attention of the world. The speaker called on the international community to carry their voices forward so that their suffering was never forgotten and that no family, anywhere in the world, had to endure the same fate again.

The speaker called on new generations to remember the courage of those who came before, to listen to the voices of victims and their families, and to never take human rights for granted. Future generations needed to have the courage to say "never again" whenever human dignity was threatened. They needed to not only remember what had happened but also ensure that it never happened again.

Questions by Participants

One participant said that people could lose contact with their families along border and migration routes. Civil society organisations documenting border violations were often among the first identifying protection gaps.

France said it had been very active in supporting the process to develop the Convention. What recommendations did panellists have for convincing more States to ratify the Convention? What lessons had they learned from the negotiation process that could be applied today?

Another participant asked about lessons learned by States that had adopted the Convention but had continued to have enforced disappearances. How could universal adoption of the Convention be achieved?

Germany asked how non-ratifying States and countries that had recently overcome conflict be convinced to ratify the Convention?

Answers by the Panel

Responding to questions, one panellist said that there was a coalition of diverse States, non-governmental organizations and victim representatives that had worked together to conclude negotiations on the Convention quickly. Citizens needed to mobilise, so that they could prevent enforced disappearances from happening again in future.

Another panellist said that enforced disappearances could reappear at any time and in any place, even in countries that had never seen enforced disappearances. Convincing States required consideration of their particular situation and experience. The rules on extradition and prosecution in the Convention could be useful for States that had not experienced enforced disappearances, for example.

A panellist said that it was important for victims to be involved in the drafting of law on enforced disappearances. It was very difficult for victims to negotiate with States on issues concerning State crimes. However, the victims knew best how important the right to truth, justice and reparation was. All States needed to encourage victims to speak out and contribute to laws on enforced disappearance. Every country ratifying the Convention was an important step in eradicating the phenomenon.

Panel Two - The Work of the Committee Over the Past 20 Years: Taking Stock and the Way Forward

Part One - Taking Stock and Cooperation with the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances

In the panel discussion, one speaker said that this was a victim-centred initiative that allowed the world to hear their voices, which were often reduced to silence. The panel was about taking stock of the Committee's progress over the past twenty years, and its cooperation with the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.

Another speaker said that the Convention had changed international law and extended the number of tools available to tackle enforced disappearance. There was a gap, however, between the norms and laws in place and the reality of what thousands of families experienced. Thanks to the Convention, there was a much stronger legal architecture than there was 20 years ago. It established the prohibition of enforced disappearance and incommunicado detention. It also provided for safeguards for detainees and supported cooperation between States and United Nations systems. Above all, it created an oversight and monitoring mechanism for the phenomenon.

However, 20 years on from the adoption of the Convention, the Committee continued to receive information of enforced disappearances and new forms of disappearances. There was still impunity, and people searching for their loved ones continued to face violence and reprisals. The Convention could not replace the will and capacity of national institutions. It did not identify mass graves or preserve evidence. Interpretation of its text by national courts was what really counted.

The biggest challenge that the Committee would face over the coming years was to ensure that the standards that it had adopted and would continue to adopt would yield better results, including immediate searches, institutional reform and responses to individual communications. Thanks to the Convention, victims and their families were in a better place than they were 20 years ago. But they had not been afforded the full protection that they had been promised 20 years ago. This was the Committee's task.

Another speaker addressed complementarities between the mandates of the Committee and the Working Group, saying that before a State had ratified the Convention, it was the role of the Working Group to investigate cases of enforced disappearance; after ratification, it was the mandate of the Committee. The speaker cited one reported case of enforced disappearance occurring in Belarus, in which one of the perpetrators had moved to Switzerland. As Switzerland had ratified the Convention, it was able to bring a legal case against the perpetrator. This was a case that the Working Group and the Committee had worked together to address. The speaker also cited reports of disappearances occurring in Sudan committed by both State authorities and non-State actors. The Working Group had adopted a procedure for investigating cases against non-State actors, while the Committee addressed offences committed by State actors.

Based on cooperation between the Committee and the Working Group, two joint statements had been adopted on illegal trans-national adoptions and on short-term disappearances. Cooperation between these entities occurred on a day-to-day basis.

Part Two - The Impact of the Committee's Work: Lived Experiences

In the panel discussion, the Committee heard a testimony from a victim of enforced disappearance, who said that they had been tortured, handcuffed, blindfolded and lived through enforced disappearances. These acts had left permanent scars, both physical and psychological, and had wide-reaching impact. The victim said that his daughter could no longer attend school after the incident, and the victim's family was inconsolable. However, he and other victims had refused to be silent. Thanks to the Committee's urgent action procedure, the victim's disappearance had been registered, important information about the incident had been shared and eventually the victim had been released.

Speaking out and standing in solidarity with victims made them visible and reminded perpetrators that they could not be hidden. The victim said that he wished to continue to carry the voice of victims and their families, including those who could not speak up. Some families went on searching for loved ones for months and years. Enforced disappearance could never be justified by crisis, conflict or the fight against terrorism. The victims' families needed to know the fate of their loved ones. The Committee was the last hope for victims. This was why States needed to support the Committee, as it worked to fight impunity and save lives.

Another speaker said that she had witnessed her son surrender to the Sri Lankan army during the final days of the armed conflict in 2009. Sixteen years on, she and other family members of victims were still searching for thousands of people, including 29 children who disappeared after surrendering. She said that she had lost faith in the possibility of a free and fair domestic investigation. This was why she continued to demand that the Committee pursue truth, accountability and justice.

She had keenly followed the Committee's review of Sri Lanka. This was a historic moment, which gave the State the opportunity to present the scale of enforced disappearance used as a counter-insurgency tactic by consecutive Sri Lankan Governments throughout the armed conflict with complete impunity. The victims were waiting in anticipation for the State to formally recognise and implement the Committee's concluding observations, which included recommendations to conduct investigations with credible international mechanism to identify victims and perpetrators; developing a roadmap for truth, justice and reparation; publishing all reports of human rights commissions of inquiry; and repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act; and consider acceding to the Rome Statute.

One speaker said that there were more than 130,000 people who had disappeared in Mexico. Behind this figure were stories, families and a society deeply marked by pain and incertitude. The speaker said she had continued to work after her family members disappeared, searching, learning about laws and lobbying. She said she was now a spokesperson for 39 victims' associations.

The speaker said the Committee had identified persistent problems in Mexico when it came to search, investigation, coordination, forensic identification, impunity and victim protection. The State had not prevented disappearances sufficiently. There needed to be immediate short- and long-term action to ensure prevention. The Committee's recommendations were important, but they needed to reach the grassroots level and translate into actions that led to truth, justice and reparation, and to finding loved ones. Victims did not want words on paper, they wanted action and results, and for the 130,000 disappeared persons in Mexico to return home.

A speaker said enforced disappearances were an increasing feature in Sudan since the outbreak of armed conflict in April 2023. Civilians had been subjected to arbitrary arrest, incommunicado detention, abduction and disappearance by different parties to the conflict. Individuals had reportedly disappeared following arrests at checkpoints, raids on homes, detention in unofficial facilities or abductions linked to perceived political affiliation, ethnic identity or community ties. In this context, the work of the Committee was highly important. The Committee was key to maintaining international attention on this issue and to supporting the rights of victims and their families. The Committee's statements and jurisprudence provided important guidance for civil society organizations, lawyers and human rights defenders. However, significant challenges remained, including the lack of awareness of victims and their loved ones of international mechanisms. The speaker called on the Committee to continue its import work and to address these challenges.

Another speaker said that she had become an activist when her husband was disappeared 21 years ago. Her organisation had provided psychosocial assistance to 4,000 families of the disappeared. It was still arguing thousands of cases in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Much had transpired in Pakistan over the past 20 years, but justice for victims was still far off. The trauma, the financial setbacks and other issues faced by victims' families persisted. Pakistan had never signed or ratified the Convention.

However, victims did not lose hope, she said. The Committee had developed a guide to ratification. It needed to consider regional ratification dialogue through bodies across Aisa, America and Africa. The Committee needed to also consider appointing a Goodwill Ambassador to engage with non-signatory nations. Through these platforms, more could be done to encourage ratification.

Questions by Participants

Ecuador welcomed the commemoration of the twentieth anniversary of the Convention. The Convention enshrined the absolute prohibition of enforced disappearance and the right of victims to truth. In a future general comment, would the Committee tackle the responsibility of States for acts committed by non-State actors?

One participant asked about how panellists reacted every time that Mexico rejected an allegation of enforced disappearance. Would the delegate from Mexico address to importance of the Convention for Mexico?

Another participant asked about measures taken by the Committee and the Working Group to urge States to reveal the fate of disappeared persons?

Eritrea said the Convention was an essential framework for communities facing the phenomenon on a large scale, including the people of Eritrea, where tens of thousands of people had been disappeared. The Committee, along with the Working Group, could help the State build a global network on enforced disappearance, connecting families and ensuring early responses and support.

Answers by the Panel

One panellist said that they would continue to work to make the victims of enforced disappearance visible and ensure that this did not happen to any more people. All disappeared persons needed to return home.

Another panellist said that the Committee had adopted a statement on non-State actors in 2023 in the context of the Convention. The Committee had also issued a statement on the right to truth and was always pushing for real information about the fate of the disappeared.

Mexico expressed its support for the Convention and victims. The Government was strengthening the national search mechanism and working to identify persons and strengthen coordination between families and State authorities. There was comprehensive data in the National Register of Disappeared Persons, which contained files on each investigation. The State had also developed an identity platform that informed the work of the National Search Commission. Mexico was also working to strengthen searches in medical institutions and prosecution-led activities. Through its activities, Mexico was able to identify more than 40,000 cases of disappeared persons and had issued nearly 7,000 reports on their whereabouts. It had held more than 3,000 meetings with family members and civil society organizations.

One panellist said that the large number of unsolved cases of persons who had been disappeared was not a backlog, it was a tragedy. There needed to be clear and transparent dialogue with family members of the disappeared, as well as strategies to find the whereabouts of disappeared persons.

Another panellist said that the Committee had met secretly with parliamentarians and senators in Pakistan to appeal to the State to ratify the Convention. However, there was still much to do and challenges to overcome. Victims would continue to raise their voices and keep driving ratification processes forward.

Amina Masood Janjua, founder of Defence of Human Rights; wife of Masood Ahmed Janjua, disappeared since 2005, read a poem in honour of the disappeared.

Panel Three - Launch of the Global Alliance for Human Rights Initiative "We Are Still Here: Putting Victims at the Centre of the Human Rights Movement"

In the panel discussion, one speaker said that this panel would assess how the movement to put victims at the centre was growing across the world. The Committee was continuing to work to find the truth about disappearances in each country and find out what happened to disappeared persons. It was also continuing to approach Governments that had not ratified. However, for families, the search for truth, justice and reparation was linked with daily struggles with banks, schools, healthcare and other State services. This struggle remained largely invisible. Responding to it required mobilising actors beyond the traditional human rights community. This was the goal of the Global Alliance for Human Rights initiative "We Are Still Here: Putting Victims at the Centre of the Human Rights Movement".

Another speaker presented a testimony describing the difficulties that she had faced after her father had disappeared in 2019. She said that when she lost her father, she lost emotional and financial support. Because he had not died, there was nothing to inherit. Because he was not there, there was nothing he could sign. This led to challenges in applying for visas, bank accounts, and property purchases.

She said there were thousands of stories like this around the world. Victims everywhere faced challenges that had serious impacts on their psychological health. It was through victims' networks that they found support. Victims and their families did not choose to become experts in enforced disappearance. They were made experts by what was done to them. Victims and their families were still present, even if the State tried to hide them. Their voices needed to be heard.

One speaker said that the Global Alliance for Human Rights initiative was launched three months ago by the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The project was multi-sectoral, involving victims, civil society, businesses and other stakeholders, who were coming together to promote human dignity. The initiative created a framework for reimagining dialogue based on lived experience. It was anchored in the norms and the capital of the human rights ecosystem and involved connecting different sectors to identify practical solutions to human rights challenges. At the World Congress to end enforced disappearance last year, several States made pledges and commitments. The initiative sought to revitalise and enhance this pledging system. The speaker said that victims and their families would be included in the Global Alliance, which would be scaled up to better promote human rights.

Questions by Participants

France commended the Global Alliance and its multi-stakeholder approach and asked how States could provide support.

One participant pledged support for the initiative and asked how civil society organizations could contribute to it.

Another panellist asked for more information about the composition of the Alliance, its objective and plan for work. What was its relationship with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights? What follow-up actions had been taken after the World Conference?

Answers by the Panel

A panellist said that the activities of civil society organizations to promote the rights of victims and their families was a significant source of emotional support for victims and families. They expressed hope that the Global Alliance would help to bring civil society organizations and victims' families together to make their collective work stronger.

Another panellist said that as part of the Global Alliance, a system would be set up in the coming days through which organisations and public figures could sign up to participate in it and to make pledges. States could pledge their support for specific topics and fields of activity, and there were opportunities for cooperation with various stakeholders through it. The expertise of civil society would be an important element of the initiative, which would work to accelerate activities that were in place to promote human rights. The Alliance had identified various tracks of activity that it would carry out through to December 2028.

Statements Marking the Closure of the Committee's Thirty-First Session

MARIJA DEFINIS, Committee Rapporteur, presented the Committee's final report on the thirty-first session. During the opening meeting, she said, the Committee paid tribute to the victims of enforced disappearance by hearing the video testimony of María Adela Antokoletz, who shared the story of her brother, Daniel Víctor Antokoletz, a human rights lawyer abducted with his wife by the Argentine dictatorship in November 1976. The Committee also received the solemn declaration of new member Marina Eudes of France, who replaced former Expert Olivier de Frouville. The Committee expressed its appreciation to Mr. de Frouville for his great and passionate contribution to its work.

This session, the Committee considered the initial reports of Lesotho and Belize, and reports on additional information submitted by Armenia and Gabon. The adopted concluding observations would be transmitted to the States concerned and made public tomorrow, 25 September. The Committee also adopted the lists of priority themes for Colombia, Cuba, Italy, and Paraguay, which would guide and streamline upcoming constructive oral dialogues during future sessions.

Further, the Committee adopted its periodic report on requests for urgent actions, in which it highlighted trends observed since the last session. Between 1 March and 31 August 2026, the Committee received 181 new requests for urgent action, compared with 161 in the previous reporting period. Since the last session, 28 cases had been closed following the location of the disappeared person, bringing the total number of located persons found since the beginning of the proceedings to 574, including 437 found alive.

During the current session, the Committee held its annual meeting with the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to identify joint projects and enhance our permanent interaction and cooperation. It also held discussions on its methods of work, particularly in connection with the outcome of the thirty-eighth meeting of treaty body chairs. The Committee also adopted its second general comment on the impact of enforced disappearances on women and girls. Further, together with the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, the Committee considered a draft statement on enforced disappearances in the context of transnational repressions and discussed future courses of action on the issue. The Committee also held productive meetings with States Parties civil society organizations, national human rights institutions, and victims.

Ms. Definis said the session was a vital part of the activities marking the twentieth anniversary of the Convention. This anniversary was a profound opportunity to reflect on the Committee's progress and renew its commitment to preventing enforced disappearances, combating impunity, and ensuring truth, justice, and reparation for victims. She called on the international community to carry the spirit of this anniversary forward. The launch of the "We Are Still Here" initiative was a reminder that enforced disappearances remained a daily reality, and that the world's unwavering focus needed to always remain on the victims.

In closing, Ms. Definis expressed deepest gratitude to all who had contributed to the intense nine-day session.

JUAN PABLO ALBAN ALENCASTRO, Committee Chair, thanked all those involved in the hard work that had been carried out throughout the session. He also expressed thanks to victims and their families for their support of the Committee. The Committee had begun the session and closed it by listening to victims; this was what it did all the time. While victims' families continued to seek justice, so too would the Committee.