Experts of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances Appreciate Benin’s Policy to Suspend Public Officials Who Committed Crimes, Raise Questions on Ex Officio Investigations of Disappearances and Expulsions
The Committee on Enforced Disappearances today concluded its consideration of the initial report of Benin on its implementation of the provisions on the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Committee Experts expressed appreciation for information provided by the State regarding the suspension of public officials who had committed crimes, while raising questions on the State’s approach to ex officio investigations into enforced disappearances and expulsions.
Juan Pablo Alban Alencastro, Committee Chair and Co-Rapporteur for Benin, said the Committee was grateful for the information that any public official who committed a crime was suspended from their duties.
Mr. Alban Alencastro also said the authorities in Benin had stated that when a disappearance was recorded, an investigation began, and the prosecutor could act ex officio. Was that ex officio investigation provided for in law and was it compulsory? If there was no formal complaint, how would the prosecutors proceed? Were there any guidelines which compelled the authorities and the police to carry out immediate searches?
Matar Diop, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Benin, asked about the rules governing the prohibition of expulsion or refoulement if there were serious grounds to believe that the person involved was a victim of enforced disappearance. What authorities were able to take expulsion measures? Could these decisions be subject to an appeal lodged by the victim? Once the decision had been challenged, was the expulsion suspended?
Introducing the report, Yvon Detchenou, Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice and Legislation and head of the delegation, said since Benin’s ratification of the Convention in 2017, the Criminal Code had been revised to change enforced disappearance from a common crime to a crime against humanity when it was of a widespread nature. The national register of deprivations of liberty set up by the Ministry of Justice ensured the real-time traceability of arrests, police custody, detentions, and transfers, preventing hidden detention and allowing for useful statistics for public policies.
Mr. Detchenou, responding to questions, said investigations of enforced disappeared were systematically triggered, governed by the Code of Criminal Procedures. Authorities needed to be informed of a disappearance before they could launch an inquiry. This information could be provided by victims, their family members or civil society. An ex officio inquiry would be carried out for cases in which a person could not be located at a specific place of detention and it was suspected that a person had been subjected to an enforced disappearance.
The delegation said the Beninese law on the status of refugees and stateless persons prohibited anyone from being the subject of non-refoulement. When a person was at risk of being in this situation, they could appeal expulsion decisions, and this had suspensive effect before the Commission on Stateless Persons and Refugees.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Detchenou said Benin looked forward to the Committee’s concluding observations and reaffirmed Benin’s commitment to the Convention. It had been an honour to be involved in the dialogue, he said.
In his concluding remarks, Olivier De Frouville, Committee Vice-Chair, thanked the delegation of Benin for the construction dialogue, as well as the Committee members and members of the Secretariat who were involved in the dialogue. Benin could count on the Committee’s support in implementing its recommendations.
The delegation of Benin consisted of the Keeper of the Seals and Minister of Justice and Legislation; the Assistant Keeper of the Seals; and the Permanent Representative of Benin to the United Nations Office at Geneva, as well as State officials participating via video link from Benin.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Montenegro at the end of its twenty-ninth session, which concludes on 2 October. 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, 26 September at 10 a.m. to begin its consideration of the initial report of Sri Lanka (CED/C/LKA/1).
Report
The Committee has before it the initial report of Benin (CED/C/BEN/1).
Presentation of Report
YVON DETCHENOU, Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice and Legislation and head of the delegation, said Benin was a West-African State with an estimated population of 13 million, where multiple communities coexisted harmoniously. This had been noted by a recent visit from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the counter-terrorism and human rights. Benin was a State of law and pluralist democracy. Since the 1990 National Conference, Benin consolidated the institutions that guaranteed human dignity, fundamental rights and public freedoms. The decentralisation initiated in 2003 brought public action closer to citizens, and the March 2025 adoption of a law on traditional chieftaincy prefigured an original and inclusive articulation between institutional modernity and legitimate traditions, actions to bring civil peace.
For centuries, Benin was one of the starting points for the transatlantic slave trade, which tore millions of women, men and children from their families, communities and homeland. This universal tragedy could be looked at as a massive and systematic form of disappearance; people deprived of their liberty, deported and erased from the protection of the law and their loved ones. For this reason, Benin felt a moral duty to ensure that never again would human beings be condemned to invisibility, oblivion and silence. This commitment was also part of the memorial process that led to the unanimous adoption by the National Assembly of Law No. 2024-31 on the recognition of Beninese nationality for Afro-descendants. Benin's commitment to fighting enforced disappearance went beyond legal techniques and was anchored in a universal human history.
Since the ratification of the Convention in November 2017, Benin had undertaken steps to incorporate efforts to prevent, investigate and provide reparation into its legal order and into its administrative and judicial practices. Significant progress has been made, including the autonomous criminalisation of enforced disappearance, hierarchical responsibility and the alignment of national legislation with international standards. The National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture also took steps to address this. The Criminal Code had been revised to change enforced disappearance from a common crime to a crime against humanity when it was of a widespread nature.
The national register of deprivations of liberty set up by the Ministry of Justice ensured the real-time traceability of arrests, police custody, detentions, and transfers, preventing hidden detention and allowing for useful statistics for public policies, thanks to its interconnection with prosecutors' offices and prisons. Additionally, local communities coordinated community radio broadcasts, social networks, decentralised authorities and “gongonneurs” (traditional town criers), who mobilised the population and quickly provided information in villages and neighbourhoods. This merger of traditional of modern techniques allowed the State to prevent and respond to enforced disappearances.
Pending a dedicated mechanism, the civil and criminal courts could award damages and order rehabilitation measures. Access to remedies was facilitated by the complaint and denunciation mechanisms, including through secure digital platforms. Benin strictly applied the principle of non-refoulement and refrained from expelling or extraditing anyone to a country where they would be at risk of enforced disappearance.
Numerous civil society actors contributed to raising awareness, documenting and following up on reported cases. However, the State acknowledged that effective protection required greater synergy between Governments, independent institutions, civil society and communities. Benin would focus on extending the digitalised national register of deprivations of liberty; strengthening reparation mechanisms and multidisciplinary support for victims and their families; and broadening awareness among communities, local authorities, security forces and judicial actors. The State remained committed to consolidating its efforts.
Questions by Committee Experts
MATAR DIOP, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Benin, said the high-level delegation of Benin demonstrated the State’s party’s determination to effectively implement the provisions of the Convention. Had the Convention, which had a higher value than domestic law, already been invoked before the Beninese courts and tribunals? Had it been published in the Official Gazette, and was it enforceable against third parties but also against the State? Could examples of judicial decisions be provided that applied the Convention to resolve complaints related to enforced disappearances?
In its replies, Benin said it did not currently plan to make declarations concerning the competence of the Committee to receive and consider individual and inter-State communications. Why would the State party not want its citizens or neighbouring States to report unresolved cases of enforced disappearance to the Committee? Would the State party reconsider its position?
In both its initial report and its response to the list of issues, Benin reiterated that there were no cases of enforced disappearance in the country and acknowledged that it did not have a unified register of missing persons or statistical data to distinguish between the different types of disappearances. What concrete steps did Benin intend to take to establish a unified national register of missing persons that recorded all cases of involuntary disappearances and distinguished enforced disappearances from other disappearances?
Another source of concern for the Committee was regarding the definition of the offence of enforced disappearance, which was mentioned in the Criminal Code and contained discrepancies. Could the State party criminalise enforced disappearance as a stand-alone offence in the revision of the Criminal Code and fully harmonise its definition with that of article two of the Convention? How did Benin intend to pursue cases of enforced disappearance that could be more numerous and frequent, but which did not meet the requirement of a widespread or systematic attack. The Committee called on the State party to transmit its concerns to the committee reviewing the Criminal Code.
In its report, the State party informed the Committee that during the period under review, Benin had not had any cases of enforced disappearance. Did this mean that the State had no cases of involuntary enforced disappearances which had been brought to the attention of the authorities?
JUAN PABLO ALBAN ALENCASTRO, Committee Chair and Co-Rapporteur for Benin, said the authorities in Benin had stated that when a disappearance was recorded, an investigation began, and the prosecutor could act ex officio. Was that ex officio investigation provided for in law and was it compulsory? If there was no formal complaint how would the prosecutors proceed? Were there any guidelines which compelled the authorities and the police to carry out immediate searches? What were the timelines and specific procedures in place to ensure coordination between authorities?
The Committee had received information on cross-border crimes including in 2024 and 2025, with State agents taking part in abductions. How did the authorities describe these events? Were they considered as disappearances or different crimes? How were they being investigated? What measures had been adopted to ensure the victims had guarantees of due process which would enable them to participate appropriately in investigative procedures? To what extent was punishment envisaged for the perpetrators, including those who issued the instructions?
The Committee was grateful for the information that any public official who committed a crime was suspended from their duties. Could more information be provided on the criteria used to adopt a decision to suspend an official? Could examples be provided on situations where the State had chosen to suspend officials due to complaints that they had committed an act such as enforced disappearance or arbitrary detention? What procedures were followed to suspend officials, particularly if they were involved in an enforced disappearance? Were those measures applied to the cross-border cases mentioned earlier? Were there any measures imposed within the State to protect persons who made authorities aware of these facts, and prevent reprisals against them, particularly if the perpetrators were State officials?
How was independence ensured when police agents were involved in the investigative process? What resources had been allocated and granted to bolster the capacities of authorities and institutions responsible for the investigations of enforced disappearances? What measures had been taken to ensure the independence of authorities responsible for investigations? What steps had the State taken so far to include enforced disappearance in extradition treaties with other countries? How was jurisdiction ensured for cases in which the crime of enforced disappearance might have been committed abroad, involving Beninese nationals?
Responses by the Delegation
YVON DETCHENOU, Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice and Legislation and head of the delegation, said the report was submitted in 2021 and did not cover all the recent events in the country. Some of these were addressed in the opening statement, including the creation of the digitised register in 2025. There were no examples involving the invocation of the Convention by a Benin court. The law ratifying the Convention was published in the Gazette; it was now part of the judicial legal machinery and could be revoked. The State might consider making a declaration on individual communications following revisions, if appropriate. Benin had a database containing reports of disappearances which criminal officers could consult. As the State revised its Criminal Code, it was seeking to harmonise the definition of enforced disappearance with that of the Convention.
Investigations of enforced disappeared were systematically triggered, governed by the Code of Criminal Procedures. If the circumstances of the disappearance were established, then there would be systematic prosecution. Regarding the two cases of cross-border disappearances, more information was required as to who was involved. The penalties for public officials accused of enforced disappearance were dismissal or suspension while awaiting the arrival of further information. Administrative authorities ensured that victims were provided with protection measures. In cases such as those involving organised crime, there were general measures provided by law to protect witnesses against reprisals, including transportation. There were guarantees in Benin law for mutual judicial assistance.
Questions by Committee Experts
JUAN PABLO ALBAN ALENCASTRO, Committee Chair and Co-Rapporteur for Benin, said in the Criminal Code, there were already provisions which referred to deprivation of liberty committed by State agents. Were there concrete cases which had made use of these provisions? What happened when there was no formal reporting of disappearance? Was there still a legal obligation to initiate an investigation? This could occur in cases where someone was scared to come forward or when the authorities were refusing to receive a case. What measures was the State taking to address cross-border cases of disappearance, taking into account the notion of “victim” within the Convention, which did not just include the victimised individual but also those close to this individual? Were there measures in place in Benin to prevent perpetrators from being in charge of investigating themselves in cases of enforced disappearance? For those who decided to go to authorities to report a disappearance, how were they protected from harassment, intimidation or acts of violence against them?
MATAR DIOP, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Benin, for more information about the registry; what was it called? Was it exclusively reserved for enforced disappearance or was it for people who were missing? What types of information did it contain? Who had access to the registry? How did it differ from other registries which already existed in other institutions?
The Committee had been informed of some disappearances and human rights violations during the 2019 and 2021 electoral processes. In 2019, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights issued a mandate calling on the Government of Benin to investigate arbitrary arrests and disappearances related to the election that year. A law on amnesty was adopted in October 2019, which was applied retroactively. Did the State plan to shed light on what happened during that electoral period? Additionally, the United Nations Committee against Torture had urged the State to investigate such cases. Regarding the cross-border cases, it seemed as though persons were abducted by public officials.
Did the State party intend to prosecute State agents or any other person involved in the kidnapping of Steve Amoussou in 2024 and journalist Hugues Comlan Sossoukpè in 2025, who was abducted abroad, allegedly involving Beninese State agents? What was the outcome of investigations of these cases?
A Committee Expert asked what measures Benin had in place to ensure prosecution of those who threatened people reporting serious human rights violations? How many reports had there been against civil servants? Had individuals been sanctioned and with what measures?
Responses by the Delegation
YVON DETCHENOU, Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice and Legislation and head of the delegation, said there was specific criminalisation of enforced disappearance in the framework of crimes against humanity. Work was underway on revising the Criminal Code. Authorities needed to be informed of a disappearance before they could launch an inquiry. This information could be provided by victims, their family members or civil society. The Code for People and the Family addressed the issue of missing individuals, however different rules covered enforced disappearances. There were mechanisms which could provide information on a disappearance to the authorities.
An individual being investigated could not participate in the inquiry as it would tarnish the investigation. There were no concrete cases of enforced disappearances to shine light on this matter. In the context of the fight against terrorism, there were protection measures for witnesses providing information to the judiciary. This did not mean this protection did not occur in other cases. There was a nationwide registry for detentions, as well as a complaints registry which received all kinds of reports, including regarding persons who were missing and cases of deprivations of liberty.
Regarding the human rights violations in the 2019 elections, these were not part of discussions on enforced disappearance. The individuals in question fully benefitted from their right to defence and enjoyed all judicial safeguards.
Regarding the cases of Steve Amoussou and Hugues Comlan Sossoukpè, in one case, there was no public authority involved and a conviction was handed down for those responsible for the arrest. These cases were still subject to judicial proceedings, so their substance could not be discussed.
Witnesses and whistleblowers were covered by protection measures to prevent them from being subjected to reprisals.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert said it seemed the State exercised discretion to ensure the exclusion from an investigation of a person who was suspected. Was it ultimately up to the judge to determine whether there was conflict of interest? Or was there a legal provision that stated that it was an obligation of the State to ensure that any person who was involved was excluded, as outlined in the Convention?
JUAN PABLO ALBAN ALENCASTRO, Committee Chair and Co-Rapporteur for Benin, asked whether there was an obligation to investigate ex officio in the absence of a formal complaint, including when relatives had not come to the authorities, but the authorities knew a disappearance could have occurred? To what extent could the prolonged nature of a detention be a barrier to identifying enforced disappearance?
MATAR DIOP, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Benin, said that following the 2019 events, it was expected there were cases of enforced disappearance. How had Benin responded to the recommendation from the African Commission to investigate these events?
Another Expert asked what protection measures were provided in law and how the State implemented them. How was the risk assessed for persons who faced intimidation or threat?
Responses by the Delegation
YVON DETCHENOU, Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice and Legislation and head of the delegation, said the State conducted risk assessments as part of its efforts in combatting terrorism, taking into account possible reprisals. Benin had two mechanisms in place to prevent accused persons from participating in investigations, including trusting the investigation to another unit or body if necessary, or to conduct an inquiry with the participation of the judicial police. There was also a disciplinary mechanism in place. The judicial authority responsible for carrying out an investigation decided whether to make persons involved in cases aware of the investigation’s elements. When a person was made available to the judicial police unit for an inquiry, they enjoyed all safeguards and guarantees and could access their lawyer.
An ex officio inquiry would be carried out for cases in which a person could not be located at a specific place of detention and it was suspected that a person had been subjected to an enforced disappearance. The national database would then be able to determine whether the person was located in one of the detention units or subject to a prosecution.
All the arrests following the 2019 elections took place within the legal framework and all persons arrested were subjected to judicial proceedings or released. Those cases involving judicial proceedings resulted in a legal position being handed down.
Questions by Committee Experts
MATAR DIOP, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Benin, said in the report, the State party stated that it respected the principle of non-refoulement under the Convention. What were the rules governing the prohibition of expulsion or refoulement if there were serious grounds to believe that the person involved was a victim of enforced disappearance? What authorities were able to take expulsion measures? Could these decisions be subject to an appeal lodged by the victim? Once the decision had been challenged, was the expulsion suspended? What was the procedure when the President ordered an extradition from another State?
Did the registers referred to by the State party supplement the existing ones? Were they in manual or electronic format? Who administered these registers and had access to them? Were they already established? To what extent did they enable traceability from custody up until the release stage? What was the maximum duration of custody? Was the duration standardised regardless of offences? Which authority could extend it? How long could it be extended for and how many times? When would the person have access to counsel? If they were a foreign national, to what extent did they have access to their foreign consulates, and were the foreign consulates informed of their detention?
What authorities were empowered to visit places of detention? Did civil society and human rights defenders have access? The Committee had been informed that during the COVID-19 pandemic, access to places of detention had been restricted for human rights organisations, and that these restrictions had not been lifted. What was the current situation?
JUAN PABLO ALBAN ALENCASTRO, Committee Chair and Co-Rapporteur for Benin, asked if there were specific protocols in place for cross-border cooperation when it was suspected that victims of human trafficking were in another State? How did Benin explain the recent situation of the search and investigation into victims of trafficking in the State? Why had services to victims been reduced and deprioritised? Was there a national strategy in place to overcome this issue?
In its response to the list of issues, the State mentioned the existence of an early warning system, the West African Police Information System, and the National Bureau of Interpol to initiate urgent searches. How did the early warning system, the West African Police Information System and the Interpol National Bureau work in practice to initiate urgent searches? Who could activate these mechanisms and how were they coordinated with civil society and the families of the disappeared?
Although Benin maintained that there were no enforced disappearances in the country, international organizations had documented an increase in kidnappings in the north of the country associated with extremist groups, with more than 100 incidents in recent years. What strategies and measures had been adopted to address abductions and disappearances committed by non-State actors in northern Benin and to prevent these acts from escalating into enforced disappearances, with the participation or acquiescence of State agents? How was the population protected and data collected on these incidents? How could the State ensure that innocent victims were not harmed in the context of anti-terrorist activities in the northern part of the country? Had members of the Fulani community been disproportionately affected by anti-terrorist activities? If so, what was being done to address the situation of this group? How was Benin ensuring that anti-terrorist efforts did not violate the rights of certain minorities?
Benin's replies indicated that victims of crime could apply for compensation and, in some cases, the children of missing persons received psychosocial and financial support. How did Benin guarantee access to these comprehensive reparations? What mechanisms existed in Beninese law to ensure the right of victims and their families to know the truth about the fate of disappeared persons? To what extent was this information disseminated publicly? Were there any specific examples of activities by the State to guarantee victims’ participation? What were some examples of reparations provided to date?
What was the status of the development of the training modules dedicated to enforced disappearance and the Convention? What were the timelines and content? How would their effectiveness be assessed? Had awareness-raising campaigns been developed on the Convention and enforced disappearance, targeting the public and communities most affected by insecurity in the north? Had these people been informed on how they could activate these measures at the local level and how they could obtain reparations?
Given the presence of armed groups in the north and the risks of forced recruitment and abduction of minors, there were concerns about the protection of children from identity theft. How did the State intend to strengthen its legal framework to prevent and punish the abduction and theft of the identity of children, and the forced recruitment of children by armed groups? What was the legal procedure for annulling an adoption or guardianship when it was proven that it originated in an enforced disappearance? How did the State ensure the process was quick and effective? Were there any mechanisms in place to investigate and provide remedy for historic falsification of adoptions, particularly in the context of international trafficking of children? Were there any legal reforms in place to prevent abuses in the future?
How had the State ensured that civil society organisations working on issues such as enforced disappearance and trafficking or smuggling of victims could provide support? What limits existed regarding freedom of speech and association? Did the Government include civil society and victims’ associations in the development of policies addressing enforced disappearance?
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Vice-Chair, said the transfer of an arrested person to a place of deprivation of liberty could sometimes take up to 15 days. What kind of legal oversight was in place during this phase? What measures were taken to ensure that families could be in contact with individuals during this time? What steps were being taken by the State party to ensure birth registration, which was a crucial protection measure when it came to preventing false adoptions?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Beninese law on the status of refugees and stateless persons prohibited anyone from being the subject of non-refoulement. When a person was at risk of being in this situation, they could appeal the decision, and this had suspensive effect before the Commission on Stateless Persons and Refugees.
A single electronic register was currently being established which would cover the moment of apprehension in police custody, all the way to conviction and sentencing. There were currently several different manual registers.
The extradition procedure was judicial in nature and began with the Attorney General being apprised of the case, who would then refer the case to the Appeals Chamber. After consideration, they would hand down a decision to the Minister of Justice, who presented the case to the Cabinet for the extradition decree to be adopted. The decision on police custody was taken by a criminal investigation officer, who was obliged to inform the General Prosecutor within 48 hours. The General Prosecutor would provide instructions about the suspect’s release or extension of the length of police custody. If the investigating officer failed to present the criminal to the prosecutor within 48 hours, they would be disciplined.
The examining magistrate, the Director of Public Prosecution, and members of the judiciary could visit places of deprivation of liberty in Benin, as could human rights organisations with visit agreements.
Benin had tools and training which Interpol proposed. As a member of Interpol, the State received rapid support on certain matters. Specialised units in the country turned to the 24/7 police cooperation mechanism, which enabled the State to quickly disseminate information about the disappeared person to identify them. An “orange notice” was issued in cases where there was a threat of an enforced disappearance, which could be used by the State to notify other countries who were members of Interpol.
Benin was committed to combatting trafficking in persons and had ratified several international conventions in this area. The State had a strong legal anti-trafficking framework, attesting to its determination to combat this phenomenon. The Criminal Code contained provisions to criminalise trafficking, with penalties of five to 20 years’ imprisonment.
The Child Code prohibited the participation of children in armed groups or the armed forces. Forced recruitment of children could be deemed to be a crime against humanity or a crime of trafficking. These practices were punished by judges and magistrates. The State did not have a procedure for the annulment of adoptions but did use a revocation procedure.
Benin’s human rights commission had “A” status under the Paris Principles. Police custody could not be extended beyond eight days, unless the crimes were exceptional, such as crimes against humanity, trafficking, or terrorism. The Benin Commission of Human Rights monitored this and found this measure had been respected nationwide. Since 9 October 2024, the Government had adopted a decree which organised the measures pertaining to isolation. Isolation time was regulated within the rules of procedure of custodial facilities of Benin and was also monitored by the Commission of Human Rights.
Since 2019, Benin had been party to the West African Police Information System, which law enforcement authorities were required to submit data to. The West African Police Information System had an agreement with Interpol and could disseminate and publish information 24/7. The detention register became effective on 1 January 2025 and was integrated with all judicial and police bodies of the country. Information was disseminated and cross-matched, ensuring better oversight across the custodial chain.
Once a person had been arrested, they could receive assistance from a lawyer. Benin had some agreements with Burkina Faso regarding terrorism. Following attacks, there were general operations in place to protect the population. To address criminal groups operating between Benin and Niger and Nigeria, there were systems within the law where the police intervened, as well as specialised units who investigated the situation and enforced sanctions.
The police had been extended throughout the country to better deal with cross-border issues, terrorism, and organised crime in real time. Persons arrested in the south could receive visits from their family members in the north. The community was not involved in the investigation stage; this was carried out exclusively by the police authority. Organisations could provide information; they were not directly involved in the inquiry but could be involved in the search for individuals.
There was a State unit that was responsible for the protection of minors and provided support and assistance. The State was keeping an eye on the phenomenon of minors who departed to European countries.
No non-governmental organization was prevented from lodging a complaint to ensure the legitimate rights of all persons. Training on the birth certification process had been extended to all health personnel, which enabled birth certificates to be issued to all individuals.
Questions by Committee Experts
MATAR DIOP, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Benin, asked if there was a need for a judicial appeal to guarantee the lawfulness of an expulsion decision? Regarding the timeframe of eight days in custody, was this standardised for all offences? Eight days seemed long. How was the person in police custody informed of their rights? Did legislation enable them to have access to counsel even if they did not have the necessary resources? Could the person being held in police custody call on a relative or a lawyer? When a foreigner was held in police custody, did the police contact the consulate authorities or was it the person themselves?
JUAN PABLO ALBAN ALENCASTRO, Committee Chair and Co-Rapporteur for Benin, asked how the State could assess if a person was at risk of enforced disappearance? The Committee was grateful for information that a detained person could maintain contact with their relatives and lawyers. Could foreign detainees have contact with their consulates and communicate with the authorities of their country? What protection measures were in place to prevent and combat people smuggling and trafficking? What institutions dealt with trafficking, including trafficking in children? How could the issue of the forced recruitment of children be tackled if it did not occur in a systematic and widespread fashion?
In the context of the fight against non-State actors in the north, how was it ensured that ethnic minorities did not end up being victims? Could organisations be present during search efforts and promote search activities? Had the State planned to create a search or truth mechanism for families historically affected by adoptions which had resulted in enforced disappearance?
A Committee Expert asked about the transfer of people from the north to the capital. During these transfers, had the State taken measures to ensure that transferees did not fall victim to enforced disappearance? There had been cases in which a transfer had led to disappearance. Had the State taken measures to provide special protection for women in the context of trafficking? What mechanisms were in place to prevent women from being victims of enforced disappearance and sexual violence? What types of adoption could be made null and void and under what conditions could they not be made null and void?
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Vice-Chair, asked if additional information could be provided on the decree on the isolation period and how it complied with the Convention? During the isolation period, could the interested party have access to information?
Responses by the Delegation
YVON DETCHENOU, Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice and Legislation and head of the delegation, said the discussion had shed light on the need to put the notion of enforced disappearance into a more general legislative framework. Individuals could only be held in remand for 48 hours and remand could only be extended in exceptional cases. It could not go beyond eight days.
The Criminal Procedure Code in Benin was evolving. When individuals of another nationality had cases in the Benin justice system, these were automatically brought to the attention of the consulate authorities. The individuals could visit the consulates online.
Appeals were brought before relevant judicial bodies, including the court of cassation and the Supreme Court. The State determined with Interpol whether there was information which could back a request for deportation. This allowed all information to be included in the decision-making process.
The President of Benin had underscored the importance of training for minority populations and transparency in judicial processes to ensure protection against terrorism.
Training on the Convention was provided for police and judicial officials, but more needed to be done to better inform people of the Convention. Most of the public in the country did not speak French or English, so it was important to translate the Convention so those on the ground could properly understand international human rights treaties in their own language. Everything which could be done to support the translation of these texts in the local languages would be useful.
At no point had there been any action by the Government to prevent a non-governmental organization from having access to information or filing a complaint. Government services were freely accessible.
The State currently did not distinguish between categories of victims in public policies; however, gender had been mainstreamed in some policies. There was a dedicated institution dealing with the rights of women, providing legal aid and support.
The delegation said much was being done on the prevention on trafficking. Every year, the Ministry of Justice carried out awareness raising and training for professionals who could encounter trafficking, including health professionals and tourism operators. The department for human rights also engaged in activities on the ground. Awareness raising had been a priority in schools nationwide. Twenty schools had been visited around the country to provide protection to children. Online surveillance of trafficking was also being carried out. There were several civil society actors who worked specifically to prevent trafficking. The State had dedicated centres for the treatment of children who were victims.
If it came to light that an adoption had taken place following an enforced disappearance, the State could call for the adoption to be annulled.
Benin was aware of the porous nature of its borders and had made significant efforts to combat trafficking, including strengthening border controls and carrying out surprise raids on establishments following tip-offs. Social media was used to monitor the actions of traffickers as well as financial flows. Benin was proactive on regional cooperation and had signed regional bilateral agreements with Gabon and Congo, as these were countries where victims of trafficking were sent. The State also planned to broker an agreement with Kuwait. The Government had also been intervening to tackle the root causes of the phenomenon, and aid had been provided to support vulnerable families. Benin had a several cells and units within different ministries responsible for monitoring borders and entry and exit points.
Closing Statements
YVON DETCHENOU, Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice and Legislation and head of the delegation, said the delegation of Benin had done its best to answer all the Committee’s questions and explain how the State was meeting its obligations under the Convention. The points for improvement raised by Committee members had been noted and Benin looked forward to the Committee’s concluding observations. Mr. Detchenou reaffirmed Benin’s commitment to the Convention. It had been an honour to be involved in the dialogue.
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Vice-Chair, thanked the delegation of Benin for the construction dialogue, as well as the Committee members and members of the Secretariat who were involved in the dialogue. The dialogue had turned an important page in cooperation with the State party and the Committee. Benin could count on the Committee’s support in implementing its recommendations.
___________
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.
CED25.010E