Experts of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances Welcome Belize’s Approach to Filing Missing Persons Reports, Raise Questions on the Domestication of the Convention and Training for Law Enforcement Officials on Enforced Disappearance
The Committee on Enforced Disappearances today concluded its consideration of additional information on the report of Belize on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Committee Experts welcomed that there was no waiting period before a missing-person report could be filed, while raising questions on when Belize planned to domesticate the Convention and on training for law enforcement officials on enforced disappearance.
Juan Pablo Albán Alencastro, Committee Chairperson and Country Rapporteur, welcomed the fact that there was no waiting period before a missing-person report could be filed. This was very good and was not the case in all parts of the world.
Mr. Albán Alencastro noted that Belize had acceded to the Convention in 2015 but, more than 10 years later, the Convention had still not been domesticated and enforced disappearance had not been incorporated as an autonomous offence into domestic legislation. What concrete national plan was currently in place for the full domestication and implementation of the Convention?
Mr. Albán Alencastro also said the State party had acknowledged that the human rights training provided so far included neither enforced disappearance specifically nor the Convention. Could the delegation indicate whether a concrete programme had now been developed to remedy this gap, with a timetable for implementation? Would such training be mandatory and recurrent, and cover all persons who may be involved in the custody or treatment of persons deprived of liberty?
Introducing the report, Harold Young, Permanent Representative of Belize to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said Belize was a small, multicultural and multilingual country of approximately 440,000 people and the only English-speaking country in Central America. Although Belize had no recorded cases of enforced disappearance, there were clear procedures for responding to cases of missing persons.
Responding to questions, the delegation said the Cabinet had approved the domestication of the Convention in June 2025 and tasked the Attorney General’s Ministry with drafting the relevant legislative provisions and conducting a review of all other legislation which would have an impact on the Convention’s implementation. This process would commence in June next year.
On training, the delegation said human rights formed part of the training given to police officers, including new cadets. However, there was scope to provide additional training on enforced disappearance and the Convention. The domestication procedure was an opportunity to provide this training to all persons exercising authority over persons deprived of their liberty. This training would be an important preventative tool.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Young expressed sincere gratitude for the dialogue. In three days, Belize would celebrate 45 years of independence, which enhanced the responsibility of the State to live up to its human rights obligations. Belize remained committed to strengthening existing safeguards and measures required to give full effect to the Convention and looked forward to receiving the Committee’s concluding observations.
In her concluding remarks, Barbara Lochbihler, Committee Expert, wished Belize a successful independence celebration. The Committee stood ready to help and work with all States parties, the victims of enforced disappearance, and all actors in the struggle to combat the scourge of enforced disappearance.
The delegation of Belize consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; the Ministry of Human Development, Family Support and Gender Affairs; the Ministry of Home Affairs and Enterprise; the Attorney General’s Ministry; and the Permanent Mission of Belize to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. Webcasts of the meetings of the session can be found here, and meetings summaries can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 24 September to hold its annual meeting with States, commemorate its twentieth anniversary and close its thirty-first session.
Report
The Committee has before it the list of issues of Belize in the absence of a State report (CED/C/BLZ/QAR/1).
Presentation of List of Issues
HAROLD YOUNG, Permanent Representative of Belize to the United Nations Office at Geneva, acknowledged that Belize's initial report was not submitted within the required timeframe and that the replies to the Committee’s list of issues now constituted Belize’s initial report. The delay did not reflect any lack of importance attached to the Convention, but rather Belize’s continuing resource constraints.
Belize was a small, multicultural and multilingual country of approximately 440,000 people and the only English-speaking country in Central America. The State’s small population was spread across a relatively large territory, with extensive rural and remote areas, a long coastline and numerous islands, as well as borders shared with Mexico and Guatemala which sat along regional migration and trafficking routes. Belize had built a stable and uninterrupted democracy since independence in 1981.
The Convention had not yet been domesticated into national legislation and thus enforced disappearance was not clearly defined within laws. However, Belize had legal, institutional and operational safeguards in place designed to protect persons from circumstances that could lead to enforced disappearance and to ensure that systems and authorities were able to respond effectively, should a case arise. The Constitution of Belize provided a strong legal foundation for protecting the rights that were central to the Convention, including sections which provided safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention, and avenues for those who had been or who were at risk of being violated to seek redress.
These constitutional protections were complemented by disciplinary mechanisms applicable to public officers and law-enforcement officers who unlawfully arrested or detained persons. The courts had demonstrated these protections in practice, including in the case of George Herbert v. the Attorney General of Belize of 2003. Belize’s Criminal Code also criminalised conduct related to the deprivation of a person’s liberty against their will, such as kidnapping, stealing of a person and abduction, carrying penalties ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment.
The State acknowledged that enforced disappearance had not yet been established as an autonomous offence in Belize’s domestic criminal legislation in line with the Convention. However, Belize had legal, institutional and operational safeguards in place designed to protect persons from circumstances that could lead to enforced disappearance and to ensure that, should a case ever arise, Belize’s systems and authorities were able to respond effectively.
Even though existing constitutional and criminal law provisions may address certain aspects of arbitrary detention or abduction, Belize conceded that they did not capture the full legal character of enforced disappearance, leaving significant legal gaps which needed to be addressed. The Belize Cabinet had directed the Attorney General’s Ministry to proceed with the legislative drafting to domesticate the Convention, and the State would welcome support from international partners in this process.
Although Belize had no recorded cases of enforced disappearance, there were clear procedures for responding to cases of missing persons. A family member, or any other concerned person, may report a missing person at the nearest police station and there was no waiting period before a report could be made.
Cases involving children under the age of 18 were treated with urgency, with coordination among the Belize Police Department, child-protection services and other relevant authorities. Where a minor was believed to have been abducted and at risk of being taken out of the country, the police would immediately involve national and regional authorities, including immigration and border control.
Belize recognised, however, the need to further strengthen the collection and management of data relating to missing persons, and would welcome assistance from States in this regard. Missing-person reports were currently recorded within the Belize Police Department's broader crime information management system, with public notices issued and widely disseminated where appropriate.
The Belize Police Department had a specialised Anti-Trafficking in Persons Unit dedicated solely to investigating human trafficking and human smuggling cases.
While there had been no cases of wrongful removal of children in the specific circumstances of enforced disappearance, Belize had legal and institutional safeguards addressing the unlawful removal, protection and welfare of children, including through the Criminal Code, the family law act and the registration of births and deaths act. The national child protection protocol provided an important multi-sectoral framework for protecting unaccompanied minors and addressing risks such as trafficking and violence. Belize also had safeguards governing adoption, with particular attention to preventing illegal intercountry adoptions.
The Constitution permitted limited derogation from certain rights during a public emergency where this was reasonably justifiable. The Belize Police Department was responsible for receiving complaints and investigating alleged cases of enforced disappearance, while responsibility for prosecutions lay with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Complaints could be lodged against police officers through the Police Department, as well as the Office of the Ombudsman and the Crime Stoppers Belize platform.
Belize continued to provide human-rights training to security officers, judges, lawyers and law-enforcement personnel on issues relevant to the national context, including the excessive use of force, identification and support for trafficking victims, and gender-based violence. Belize welcomed the dialogue and looked forward to the Committee’s questions and recommendations.
Questions by Committee Experts
JUAN PABLO ALBÁN ALENCASTRO, Committee Chairperson and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee appreciated the information provided by the State party concerning the establishment of an inter-ministerial review committee, which was expected to coordinate reporting, implementation and follow-up of international human rights obligations. However, the Committee noted that Belize had acceded to the Convention in 2015 and that, more than 10 years later, the Convention had still not been domesticated and enforced disappearance had not been incorporated as an autonomous offence into domestic legislation. What concrete national plan was currently in place for the full domestication and implementation of the Convention?
Would civil society, the Ombudsman and the future national human rights institution participate systematically in monitoring the implementation of the Convention? Was the Government now able to establish a time frame for taking a decision on the recognition of the Committee’s competence under articles 31 and 32 to receive communications?
The Committee welcomed the decision to transform the Office of the Ombudsman into an institution compliant with the Paris Principles. What was the current stage of the legislative reform, its expected completion date, the resources allocated to the institution, and the measures taken to guarantee its structural, functional and financial independence?
The list of replies stated that as Belize followed a dualist system, the Convention could not be directly invoked or applied by domestic courts unless it had first been incorporated into national law. However, paragraph 18 referred to the case of George Herbert v. the Attorney General of Belize as an example of the direct invocation of the Convention. Could the delegation clarify this apparent contradiction? Given the timeframe, was the Convention itself actually invoked or applied by the court in the Herbert case? If not, were there any cases after 2015 in which domestic courts had expressly relied upon the Convention, even as an interpretative source?
How did the State party ensure that, even during a state of emergency, no person could ever be placed outside the protection of the law and that the safeguards to prevent enforced disappearance operated from the very outset of the deprivation of liberty? What was the current status of the specific provision announced in paragraph 29 of the replies to make the prohibition of enforced disappearance explicitly non-derogable?
The State party reported 589 missing person reports between 2019 and 2023, with 304 persons having been identified as returned and 17 as being found dead. What was the status and current whereabouts of the remaining 268 cases that were not accounted for under either of those categories? Could updated, disaggregated data up to 2026 be provided? An analysis conducted by the State of all missing-person reports showed that there was no State involvement in any case. What steps were systematically taken in every disappearance case to determine whether a public official may have participated directly or indirectly, or whether there may have been authorisation, support or acquiescence by the State? Was this assessment conducted by an authority institutionally independent from the police or a security institution whose members might potentially be implicated?
How did Belize distinguish in practice situations of trafficking, migrant smuggling or other forms of organized crime in which a victim was deprived of liberty and their fate or whereabouts were subsequently concealed? Which domestic offences currently punished the concealment of the fate or whereabouts of such persons? United Nations treaty bodies had recently expressed concern about reports of tolerance, complicity or collusion by public officials, including police officers, in trafficking-related offences. In light of those concerns, what procedures existed to ensure that whenever trafficking allegations involved a public official, investigators specifically examined whether the threshold of authorisation, support or acquiescence under the Convention may have been met? Had any such assessment been carried out and with what results?
Could the delegation clarify whether a draft provision for enforced disappearance now existed and, if so, provide its essential elements and the expected timetable for its adoption? Would the offence expressly cover all elements contained in the Convention? Would Belize incorporate enforced disappearance as a crime against humanity when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population?
The Committee noted the State party’s explanation that unconstitutional orders were unlawful and needed not be obeyed, which was an important safeguard.
What were the specific provisions of domestic criminal law that established liability for a person who committed, ordered, solicited or induced the commission of an enforced disappearance, or participated in it as an accomplice? How did domestic law establish the responsibility of a superior who consciously disregarded information clearly indicating that subordinates under their effective authority and control were committing an enforced disappearance, and failed to take all necessary measures to prevent, repress or report it? What concrete protection was available to a subordinate who refused an unlawful order of this nature? How did the State party ensure that the seriousness of the entire conduct constituting enforced disappearance was reflected in sentencing rather than only the initial deprivation of liberty?
MARIJA DEFINIS, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked which specific domestic offenses within the applicable criminal provisions were currently invoked to prosecute acts of enforced disappearance, and if these substitute offenses fully encompassed the involvement or acquiescence of State agents? Were there any procedural or constitutional time limits that could practically act as a time bar for prosecuting historical or long-standing offenses under the current framework?
How did Belize's domestic legal framework formally ensure that the one-year limitation period remained suspended indefinitely until the fate or whereabouts of the person were definitively established? Had Belize initiated any concrete legislative amendments to its civil limitation acts to formally enshrine the exception established in the Convention? What procedural requirements must a family member meet to successfully initiate a civil suit or access interim remedies before the exact fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person were officially established?
Could the delegation clarify the State’s official position on whether the current framework on enforced disappearance was indeed adequate, or if it required urgent legislative intervention? How did Belize legally ensure it could exercise jurisdiction over a suspected perpetrator of an enforced disappearance who was present in its territory, but where the offense was committed abroad or by/against a foreign national?
What specific safeguards or restrictions existed to prevent bail from undermining the safety of the victims' families and the integrity of the investigation? In cases involving alleged enforced disappearances perpetrated by state agents, how did Belize legally guarantee that such investigations remained entirely independent, neutral and free from executive or political interference? Was the suspension of an official suspected of involvement in an unacknowledged detention mandatory and automatic from the onset of the investigation to prevent them from obstructing justice?
What specific legal mechanisms ensured that civil investigators from the Belize Police Department had immediate, unrestricted and unannounced access to all military premises, detention logs, and internal records during an ongoing investigation involving military personnel? To ensure full transparency when prosecuting state agents or high-ranking military/police officials, did the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions possess complete institutional and financial independence from the executive branch to prevent political pressure from halting a prosecution?
What legal mechanisms ensured that law enforcement could be compelled to launch an immediate investigation if they refused to do so in a suspected case of enforced disappearance? Could a complaint be lodged directly with the Ombudsman, and did the Ombudsman have the power to independently issue binding interim measures to protect the victim or secure evidence? To prevent impunity, what strict legal definitions or judicial limits applied to the term "essential public interests" to ensure it could not be invoked to shield state actors suspected of enforced disappearance from international investigations?
Did Belize intend to enact specific legislation targeting distinct crimes against a child's identity and illegal adoption networks, rather than relying on general provisions for kidnapping or complicity? Would the proposed new legislation establish the falsification and concealment of a disappeared child’s identity as a strictly autonomous offense? Given the gaps identified in treating identity theft, did the Government plan to reassess this view to ensure comprehensive, loophole-free compliance with the Convention?
Another Expert asked if the State’s courts were competent to prosecute cases of enforced disappearance which may have occurred abroad but were present in the territory?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Cabinet had approved the domestication of the Convention in June 2025 and tasked the Attorney General’s Ministry with drafting the relevant legislative provisions and conducting a review of all other legislation which would have an impact on the Convention’s implementation. This process would commence in June next year.
Starting in 2026, a project, funded by the European Union, was launched to expand the capabilities of the Office of the Ombudsman, strengthening its ability to investigate reports. Belize’s ability to receive communications was currently under consideration.
In the case of a missing person, the missing person’s details were disseminated country-wide and a missing person poster was circulated to the media. The investigating officer was required to conduct separate interviews with relatives to determine the circumstances of their disappearance or possible suspects. The police department followed all leads in relation to missing persons. There was no registry on missing persons, but these details were stored in the State’s crime management system.
Belize recognised that the Constitution allowed for the enactment of the state of emergency in certain situations. Persons who were detained must be informed of the reason for their detention within seven days. It was also required that the State published the names of those detained within the Gazette within 14 days. Once a person had been served with the reasons for their detention, they would be issued with a copy. The State believed this safeguard met the concerns regarding persons who were detained.
Initial investigations into a missing person case included interviewing people that the missing person last had contact with. There would then be a thorough review of all places of detention to ascertain whether the person was being held there. The Belize Police Department had a WhatsApp group with members of the media who they were in contact with, with missing persons being something regularly communicated about in this group. The group included traditional members as well as publications primarily published on social media, ensuring a widespread sharing of the message. Though the Constitution afforded law enforcement seven days before notification of the family of a detained person, steps were taken to expedite notification as soon as possible.
There had been much consideration of the invocation of the state of emergency. There had been cases where the courts had determined that the state of emergency did not need to be invoked, but that the correct practice had been conducted. All cases of trafficking in persons, including when public officials may be implicated, were investigated on the same basis.
The Convention had not been signed or invoked during the Herbert case, but it could be used as an example to note how the courts could deal with cases of enforced disappearance. The State was taking steps to make invocation possible through the Convention’s domestication. The legislative gaps that the State had identified would be filled during the process of domestication of the Convention. The process involved the move to fully and comprehensively reflect all provisions of the Convention.
There was a chain of command within the Office of the Ombudsman where complaints could be made. Public officials had positions of trust, and the court was obligated to take this into account when deciding on the offence to hand down. Belize’s redress provisions within the Constitution enabled people to come before the court to seek redress when there was a violation of rights. Any relative or non-governmental group could appear before the court on a victim’s behalf.
Murder was the only offence where bail was automatically not granted; however, this did not mean bail was automatically granted for all other offences. The prosecution could put forward arguments to determine whether or not someone should receive bail.
While Belize recognised there had been human rights training within the Police Department, there had been none specific to enforced disappearance. In 2020, the Belize Police Department, in conjunction with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, revised their use of force curriculum to include a human rights element. Since this revision had come into effect, more than 400 officers had been trained. A new curriculum had been developed which would soon be rolled out, which incorporated elements of enforced disappearance. Working with the Office of the High Commissioner, Belize was developing a survey which would guide future training towards human rights.
In many cases where persons were reported missing by relatives or friends, there was often no follow-up to report them as returned to the police. The State was examining the policy to make necessary adjustments in this area.
Questions by Committee Experts
Committee Experts asked follow-up questions, including on the judgment of a minor in 2026 under emergency powers; how was it ensured that everyone detained under emergency powers received a prompt review by a tribunal; if safeguards were guaranteed to all state of emergency detainees; if the State could confirm the date for the beginning of the domestication process of the Convention and what it would entail; if there was there a target date when the legislation was expected before Parliament; if there was a legally binding time limit requiring the notification of detention within a couple of days; who conducted an investigation if police officers were suspected of involvement; if implicated officers were automatically removed or suspended from functions during their investigation; if courts in Belize were required to interpret domestic law as far as possible; what remedies the court could order in cases of enforced disappearance; whether capital punishment would be excluded for cases of enforced disappearance; and whether the State differentiated between cases of missing persons, cases of disappeared persons and cases of enforced disappearance.
Questions were also asked on whether Belize recognised the Convention itself as the legal basis for extradition; any administrative, legal or practical challenges Belize faced in negotiations in concluding further bilateral agreements; if Belize was able to execute extradition requests to other States parties; mechanisms and methodologies used to ensure broad-based public consultation; how the State party ensured independence and impartiality; if the Office of the Ombudsman currently had the capabilities to handle complaints related to enforced disappearance or violations of the Convention; countries responsible for the outsourcing of DNA testing, the processing time and whether this cost was covered by the State; if there were specific protocols developed for women’s rights; if police applied a gender sensitive approach when investigating disappearances of women; and if they were not found alive, what steps were being taken to identify the perpetrators.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said courts in Belize had a record of using human rights conventions as part of the need to understand domestic law. The closest example of this was when the rights of indigenous peoples convention was used in a landmark case in the country.
The State hoped to address the situation of data on missing persons by the end of the year. Belize had adopted a new extradition act in 2023, which could be used in case of any request for extradition. The act referenced Belize’s treaty with Mexico and the United States and outlined that the State could engage in special agreements relating to extradition.
Belize had made significant progress on establishing a DNA database, and had established a national database comprised of several indices for convicted persons, crime scenes, relatives of missing persons, and victims and volunteers. The app provided for the voluntary submission of information on missing persons. Belize continued to strengthen capacity necessary for the sustained operation of the database.
Belize had a statutory framework for witness protection, which included witness anonymity orders and protection of a witness’ address, among other measures. Where allegations involved police officers or public officials, complaints could be made through professional standard branches. Where witnesses were intimidated, the circumstances were investigated. The Office of the Department of Prosecution was constitutional, meaning it was independent.
The process of the compilation of the report had included submitting invitations to all relevant non-governmental organizations, spanning a range of sectors.
While enforced disappearance was not a problem Belize was confronted with, the State had undertaken its obligations and needed to ensure that it had all mechanisms in place to address this issue.
Belize felt confident with the current system. There had previously been cases where police officers had been charged for various offences such as drug trafficking, and the State had successfully been able to investigate and charge the perpetrators.
Belize remained highly committed to the Convention and looked forward to the Committee’s recommendations. The national human rights institution was not currently in place. However, a costed organisational strategy would also be developed to ensure the resources were in place to support the institution.
Questions by Committee Experts
MARIJA DEFINIS, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said that given that international human rights standards required appeal mechanisms regarding non-refoulement to be handled by an independent and impartial judicial body, how did Belize ensure that a Minister's review remained strictly objective and free from political or diplomatic considerations? Would the upcoming legislation to domesticate the Convention amend the refugees act or immigration laws to establish an absolute prohibition on expelling or extraditing any person where there were substantial grounds to believe they risked being subjected to enforced disappearance?
Did Belize currently possess a centralised digital database accessible across all jurisdictions, or did it rely solely on isolated, manual logs at individual police stations? Did the State’s domestic legislation explicitly guarantee the right of family members, legal counsel, or any person with a legitimate interest to directly request and immediately receive information regarding a person’s detention status, place of custody, and transfer history, as strictly required for the Convention? What were the penalties for State officials who refused to provide this information?
The visiting justices programme, which was mentioned in the State’s replies, appeared restricted to the Belize Central Prison. Were there equivalent, independent and unannounced inspection mechanisms operating countrywide across all local police detention cells and temporary holding facilities, where the risk of initial unacknowledged detention was highest? Were the findings and reports compiled by the visiting justices and the Ombudsman regarding detention conditions made publicly available?
What were the specific criminal penalties for an officer who failed to create or accurately maintain a custody record? Would the State’s record-keeping mandates be elevated to binding national legislation during the upcoming domestication of the Convention? Did the current custody record form explicitly mandate the details outlined in the Convention, including the identity of the judicial authorities that ordered the detention and whether family or legal counsel was notified?
Given that enforced disappearance was a continuous crime that could take decades to uncover and investigate, did the Government acknowledge that destroying official custody logs after six years risked erasing vital material evidence? Were there plans to permanently preserve or significantly extend the retention period for all deprivation of liberty records?
According to the State’s replies, filing of a habeas corpus application must be done by an attorney at law. Given that many families of disappeared persons or vulnerable migrants lacked the financial resources to immediately retain legal counsel, did the Government acknowledge that this mandatory requirement created a severe economic barrier to an essential life-saving remedy? Were there plans to allow individuals, families or human rights organizations to file emergency petitions directly without legal representation?
Would the upcoming legislation introduce strict criminal and disciplinary penalties for any state official who delayed, obstructed or failed to provide the required records and information during a habeas corpus or redressing proceeding? Would the new domesticated framework establish a strict statutory mandate compelling courts to review and rule on habeas corpus applications within a maximum 24-hour window from filing?
Legal counsel or family members were currently required to write to the office of the Commissioner of Police to request information, which could involve significant bureaucratic delays. What mechanisms ensured that families and lawyers could obtain this life-saving information immediately and directly at the localised point of detention without undergoing a centralised administrative process? Would the upcoming legislation introduce a strict statutory mandate compelling the police authorities to respond to requests within a mandatory window of a few hours, and establish criminal liability for non-compliance or failure to reply?
JUAN PABLO ALBÁN ALENCASTRO, Committee Chairperson and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee appreciated the human rights training already provided to police officers, security personnel, judges and other officials. The State party nevertheless acknowledged that such training had so far included neither enforced disappearance specifically nor the Convention. Could the delegation indicate whether a concrete programme had now been developed to remedy this gap, with a timetable for implementation? Would such training be mandatory and recurrent, both at the pre-service and in-service levels, and cover all persons who may be involved in the custody or treatment of persons deprived of liberty? Would the training cover certain topics, including the absolute prohibition of enforced disappearance, the rights of victims, and particular risks affecting migrants and children? Had Belize already requested or received technical assistance from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the specialised training programme mentioned in its replies?
Could the delegation indicate the provision of domestic law that recognised a victim not only as the disappeared person, but also any individual who had suffered harm as the direct result of an enforced disappearance? For instance, would a partner who was not legally married, a sibling, a child, another dependent person, or any other individual who could demonstrate direct harm be recognised as a victim in their own right? If domestic legislation did not currently contain such a definition, would the forthcoming legislation expressly incorporate the definition?
Was the right to truth expressly recognised in domestic legislation? If not, through what legal mechanism could victims enforce this right? Were victims legally entitled to regular information and to participate effectively in search and investigation processes? Could victims challenge decisions concerning the suspension, closure or direction of a search or investigation?
The Committee welcomed the fact that there was no waiting period before a missing-person report could be filed. This was very good and was not the case in all parts of the world. However, the replies stated that where a person remained missing and no new information was available, the investigation may be suspended and reopened if new evidence appeared. Would the State party amend its protocols so that the search was initiated ex officio and immediately whenever the authorities became aware of a disappearance, and continued until the fate or whereabouts of the person had been established?
Could updated information be provided on the creation of the unified national register of missing persons announced in the replies, including a timetable for its establishment? What did the State mean when it said public notices were issued “when appropriate”? What was the process for such determination and which authority was responsible for this?
What arrangements ensured prompt testing, preservation of samples, chain of custody and equal access to identification procedures regardless of the financial situation of the family? Did domestic law currently recognise a right of victims of enforced disappearance to comprehensive reparation? Who bore the legal obligation to provide those forms of reparation, and could victims obtain them independently of a criminal conviction or the identification of the individual perpetrator? Did Belize intend to expressly exclude or adapt limitation periods for reparation claims arising from enforced disappearance?
The State party said that after seven years and subject to certain evidentiary requirements, relatives may seek a judicial declaration of death. Was there any alternative legal mechanism that would allow relatives to regularise social security, family, property, financial and other legal matters without having to obtain a declaration of death? Would Belize consider creating a specific declaration of absence by reason of disappearance, which would preserve the legal personality of the disappeared person and would not require the family to presume death? Could the delegation confirm that a declaration of death did not terminate either the State’s obligation to search for and determine the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person or its obligation to investigate and establish responsibility? Would the upcoming domestic legislation make this explicit?
What concrete measures were taken to identify and address the differentiated consequences that a disappearance may have for women and girls, including loss of income, obstacles to inheritance or property, responsibility for dependents, exposure to violence, difficulties in obtaining legal status or social benefits, and barriers to participation in search and investigation processes?
How were these measures adapted to persons who may face intersecting forms of vulnerability?
What measures would the State take to ensure that associations of relatives and victims could participate effectively in the design, implementation and evaluation of policies concerning missing and disappeared persons? Which provisions of Belizean law specifically criminalised each of the conducts outlined in the Convention pertaining to children, including falsification, concealment or destruction of documents attesting to the true identity of children?
Did domestic law establish a specific procedure to review and, where appropriate, annul an adoption, placement or guardianship that was subsequently shown to have originated in an enforced disappearance? Could the delegation explain what procedure was triggered when an unaccompanied migrant child disappeared after entering Belize or while under the supervision of immigration, social or child-protection authorities? Were all such children individually registered in a manner that made it possible to trace transfers, changes in placement and departure from the country, and were there immediate cross-border alert mechanisms with neighbouring States?
Finally, two other human rights treaty bodies had raised concerns regarding access to birth registration, particularly in rural and indigenous communities, including that many Mayan girls lacked birth certificates. What progress had been made towards universal and accessible birth registration, particularly in rural, indigenous, migrant and border communities, to safeguard children’s identity and reduce their vulnerability to wrongful removal, trafficking and disappearance?
A Committee Expert asked if the delegation could confirm that there was currently a process for building a disaggregated national register?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Belize’s Constitution protected the right to life and liberty against inhumane or derogatory treatment. The State’s refugee framework provided safeguards against refoulment, including mechanisms for appeal where asylum was refused. Belize recognised that the assessment of risk must be personalised and take the risk of enforced disappearance into account. There were also limits on the period in which a person could be detained without being brought before a court.
Records created an official trail for a person’s arrest and release, and created accountability. Belize recognised the importance of ensuring access to judicial remedies in a timely manner and for this not to be obstructed by a lack of information.
Human rights formed part of the training given to police officers, including new cadets. However, there was scope to provide additional training on enforced disappearance and the Convention. The domestication procedure provided an opportunity to provide this training to all persons exercising authority over persons deprived of their liberty. This training would be an important preventative tool.
Belize’s existing police procedures allowed a person to be reported missing without a mandatory waiting period. Where there were elements of criminality, the case could be escalated for investigation. Particular attention was given to children or those who were vulnerable. The State recognised the need to strengthen DNA testing capabilities. It was important to ensure that families and civil society organizations could freely advocate for missing persons.
Children were particularly vulnerable to enforced disappearance, and had a heightened risk to trafficking and unlawful adoption. Mechanisms had been established for the protection of those who were particularly vulnerable, including unaccompanied or migrant children, and the Constitution also included safeguards to protect children. Proper identification, document and information sharing were essential.
Judicial oversight, assessment of adoptive parents, and safeguards to international placements intended to ensure that international adoptions were conducted with the best interests of the child and did not result in the unlawful removal of a child.
The process of domesticating the Convention presented the opportunity to bring all safeguards together in a clear national framework.
An applicant whose asylum decision was refused could lodge an appeal within 14 days. A new part of proposed amendments would allow the applicant to appeal the decision to the High Court, presenting a huge change from the current system where the Minister’s decision was final.
Training had been revised for enforcement agencies on trafficking, and 1,000 police officers had been trained since 2023, with 200 officers from the Coast Guard and the Police Defence Force. These people were often at the borders and therefore received training on dealing with unaccompanied minors and how to deal with trauma. There were currently 20 active cases of trafficking under investigation; 15 of the 20 victims were girls. There had been 20 persons arrested since 2021 for trafficking girls. There had been nine convictions since 2021, and the State hoped to continue on an upward trend.
When a person was arrested, it was ensured that they had their rights read to them. A person who was detained needed to be charged within 48 hours of arrest or they needed to be released. Anything beyond 48 hours was considered an unlawful detention. Whether they were taken to court or released, they needed to be given a copy of their custody records.
Belize recognised the gaps in data and was currently trying to disaggregate the data which was available and store it in line with the Convention. It was hoped this process would be complete by the end of the year. While this was not a national registry, it would hopefully be able to pull up all relevant information quickly, and would be maintained by the Belize Police Department.
The Police act stated that anyone who breached the Police Department’s policy would be subject to dismissal. Around 10 a.m. yesterday, a person had been reported missing, and their image had been circulated within three hours.
The custody records for extensive detention were kept by the Belize central prison and took into account a person’s medical history and condition, among other factors.
Belize was a small State and the robust nature of the media provided an additional level of transparency. People who believed they were treated unjustly could have direct access to the media, including in dealings with the police. This acted as an additional layer of supervision. Regarding the need to retain counsel before lodging habeas corpus, this was something the State would consider. However, the Bar Association in Belize was very active as they could recompense money from the State after representing someone. There had not been a situation where someone wanted to lodge habeas corpus and was not able to receive representation.
Belize had good relations with Guatemala and Mexico and used the Interpol database often.
Follow-up Questions from Committee Experts
Committee Experts asked follow-up questions, including what procedures protected individuals who did not qualify for asylum procedures; if secret or unofficial detention was expressly criminalised as a standalone offence; if there had there been any complaints filed against the police for failing to respect the 48-hour limit; disciplinary actions taken against responsible officers; if there had been any official complaints into police personnel for failing to initiate custody records, among other infractions; the procedures in place to ensure that when a custody record was closed, the individual was released safely; if the training programmes included a segment on enforced disappearance or if a specialised component was planned for the future; if the State could develop specific legal provisions which recognised family members as victims; if a search for a missing person was initiated as soon as officers received information about the disappearance, or if it depended on the circumstances; if a search could be suspended if no new leads were available; and the process initiated if an unaccompanied minor was believed to be missing in Belize.
Further questions were also asked about whether Belize’s law expressly prohibited extradition or expulsion where it was believed a person could be at risk of enforced disappearance; if any of the trafficking cases had involved cases where the victims’ whereabouts were concealed from people and their families; whether any of the trafficking cases had involved acquiescence, or support from public officials; whether the registration safeguards applied to every person deprived of liberty; if there were plans to move to an interoperable digital system which would allow all authorities to immediately trace where a person was being held; if there were early warning systems when there was a report of disappearance; if there was a standardised timeframe for digital upload if a DNA sample was taken from an unidentified body; and existing agreements with foreign entities to manage DNA testing.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said there was no explicit criminalisation of secret detention, but the safeguards present in criminal law operated to prevent such occurrence. Detention details were updated on a minute-by-minute basis. There had been an unfortunate instance in the country where a prisoner had fled to Belize from El Salvador and was subsequently arrested in Belize. An officer had erroneously not indicated that the person was meant to be handed over to the El Salvadoran authorities, and that this would exceed the 48 hours. When the next officer came on duty, they saw the time limit was exceeded and released the prisoner. This showed the 48-hour deadline was taken very seriously. Search and investigation processes were not treated as distinct by the Police Department. A system was in place that provided assistance to family members who wanted to conduct searches.
Following the first 12 months of an interstate adoption, there were routines and inquiries carried out to ensure that the best interests of the child were being taken into account. The families and children’s act underscored that the rights of the child were paramount in any judicial process. The Committee’s guidance was welcomed when determining the legislation being undertaken to domesticate the Convention. Some of the gaps had already been identified, but there were additional gaps which remained to be addressed.
Over the past few years, there had been 892 missing persons. The State acknowledged that the systems in place for follow-up needed to be further developed, especially when people had returned. In 2025, there were 99 missing persons, with 45 per cent found safe, 47 per cent under investigation and four per cent found dead.
With all crimes, a system was used to plot the exact location of where a body was found. If a body was found after a long amount of time, there was a need to pinpoint with extreme specificity to ensure families had closure. The 2026 DNA act was still being developed. People were invited to come in and provide information about when the missing person had last been seen. While teenage females made up the highest number of missing persons, they were also the highest number who were returned, as it was often due to adolescent situations.
Closing Statements
HAROLD YOUNG, Permanent Representative of Belize to the United Nations Office in Geneva, expressed sincere gratitude for the dialogue. The exchange had been a valuable opportunity to reflect critically and understand where changes needed to be made. The dialogue had highlighted several areas for strengthening, including the need to domesticate the Convention. In three days, Belize would celebrate 45 years of independence, which enhanced the responsibility of the State to live up to its human rights obligations.
Belize placed particular importance on expanding the Ombudsman’s Office to be compliant with the Paris Principles, which was an important step towards strengthening the State’s human rights architecture. Belize remained committed to strengthening existing safeguards and measures required to give full effect to the Convention and looked forward to receiving the Committee’s concluding observations.
BARBARA LOCHBIHLER, Committee Expert, thanked Belize for the dialogue and wished the State a joyful celebration of the country’s independence. The Committee stood ready to help and work with all States parties, the victims of enforced disappearance, and all actors in the struggle to combat the scourge of enforced disappearance.
___________
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.
CED26.011E