Experts of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances Praise Lack of Cases of Enforced Disappearance in Samoa, Raise Questions on Cases of Missing Persons and Extradition in the Context of Enforced Disappearance
The Committee on Enforced Disappearances today concluded its consideration of the initial report of Samoa on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Committee Experts praised the absence of cases of enforced disappearance in Samoa, and raised questions on the cases of two missing persons from the State party and extradition in the context of enforced disappearance.
Matar Diop, Committee Vice Chair and Country Rapporteur for Samoa, said to date, no case of enforced disappearance had been reported or brought before the courts in Samoa, which was excellent news.
Marija Definis, Committee Rapporteur and Country Rapporteur for Samoa, asked if there was any progress regarding investigations in the cases of two missing persons from 2019 and 2020? Why did the State party take the position that neither of these cases were classified as enforced disappearance? Another Expert asked what search processes were being conducted for these people?
Mr. Diop also noted that in the report, the State party indicated that the Samoan police force did not provide specific training on the expulsion or return of foreigners. How did the police force implement the Conventional obligations of the State party in the absence of specific human rights training? Was there legislation which indicated that no one should be expelled, returned or expedited from Samoa to another country if there was a chance they were in danger of enforced disappearance?
Introducing the report, Peseta Noumea Simi, Chief Executive Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Samoa and head of the delegation, said Samoa was a small island developing State with a population of over 200,000 people. At present, Samoa had not recorded any confirmed cases of enforced disappearance, but had established safeguard measures through criminal legislation, individual oversight bodies, and judicial protections.
Regarding the two cases raised by the Committee of two males, one missing since 2019 and the other since 2020, the delegation said the 2019 case was widely publicised, and an investigation had been opened by the police and corrective services. He remained missing to this day. Regarding the case in 2020, this was a situation of a prisoner who had escaped. For these reasons, neither case was considered as one of enforced disappearance. These investigations remained open.
The delegation also said that currently, there were no trainings conducted on extradition as this was not something which occurred regularly in the State party. Cases were rare, and when they did arise, they were dealt with by the Office of the Attorney General, in consultation with other ministries. There was a provision within Samoa’s domestic law which gave the court discretion to make the decision not to extradite the person if it was seen to be unjust. It was a limited provision, but Samoa could look to develop this going forward.
In concluding remarks, Ms. Simi said that as a small island developing State, Samoa faced challenges in building and sustaining institutional capacity but reinforced its commitment to uphold human rights. Samoa stood ready to continue engaging with the Committee and working with partners to eradicate enforced disappearance.
In his concluding remarks, Juan Pablo Albán Alencastro, Committee Chairperson, thanked Samoa for its participation in the dialogue with the Committee. The Committee looked forward to Samoa’s continued commitment moving forward.
The delegation of Samoa consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; the Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development; the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Labour; the Ministry of Justice and Courts Administration; the Ministry of Finance; the Ministry of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet; the Samoa Embassy to Belgium; the Samoa Law Reform Commission; the Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly; the Public Service Commission; the Samoa Bureau of Statistics; the Samoa Law Reform Commission; the Office of the Attorney General; and the Permanent Representative of Samoa 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 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 11 March, to review additional information on the report of Iraq (CED/C/IRQ/A1/2).
Report
The Committee has before it the initial report of Samoa (CED/C/WSM/1).
Presentation of Report
PESETA NOUMEA SIMI, Chief Executive Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Samoa and head of the delegation, said Samoa was a small island developing State with a population of over 200,000 people, with a national vision to become an empowered, inclusive and resilient nation. This vision was guided by Fa’asamoa which emphasised respect and collective responsibility for communities, embedded in the governance structure and anchored in Christian faith and traditions. Samoa ratified the Convention on 27 November 2018 without reservations, demonstrating its commitment to ensure that enforced disappearance was prevented, criminalised, and addressed appropriately through the national legal framework. Several government agencies shared responsibility for implementing of the Convention. At present, Samoa had not recorded any confirmed cases of enforced disappearance, but had established safeguard measures through criminal legislation, individual oversight bodies, and judicial protections.
While Samoa did not yet have a standalone law domesticating the Convention, the Constitution remained the supreme law, guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary and separation of powers and setting out the fundamental rights and freedoms recognised by the State. These constitutional protections formed the backbone of the implementation of the Convention. Several pieces of legislation provided for protections against enforced disappearance, including the crimes act 2013, the criminal procedure act 2016, the extradition act 1974, the mutual assistance in criminal matters act 2007, and the prisons and corrections act 2013, among others. The International Criminal Court act 2007 criminalised enforced disappearance as a crime against humanity and provided for severe penalties, including life imprisonment.
The Office of the Ombudsman served as Samoa’s national human rights institution and was mandated to investigate complaints against public authorities, law enforcement officials, and government entities. The Samoa Police Service also maintained a Professional Standards Unit that investigated complaints against police officers for misconduct. To date, no complaints relating to enforced disappearance had been received in Samoa.
Crimes against humanity, including enforced disappearance, had no limitation period under Samoa’s legal framework and would be investigated under criminal procedure laws. Foreign detainees were guaranteed consular access, and Samoa maintained legal systems for extradition and mutual legal assistance to support international cooperation. Persons deprived of liberty were protected by safeguards including family visits, communication rights, complaint mechanisms, accurate detention records, and access to information about their detention. Extradition could be refused where there was a risk of discrimination, political persecution, or unfair treatment.
Samoa’s legal framework provided for reparations, including compensation and rehabilitation for victims. While these provisions had not yet been applied due to the absence of cases, they remained available to ensure accountability and support. Although Samoa did not have specific legislation on enforced disappearance of children, existing laws criminalised kidnapping, unlawful detention, and concealment of identity. Courts must prioritise the best interests of the child in all decisions. Despite the challenges faced as a small island developing State, Samoa remained committed to promoting and protecting human rights and reaffirmed its commitment to the principles of the Convention.
Questions by Committee Experts
MATAR DIOP, Committee Vice Chair and Country Rapporteur for Samoa, said Samoa’s participation demonstrated the State’s commitment to human rights and its willingness to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. Samoa had ratified the Convention in November 2012 and submitted its report in March 2023. In the list of issues, Samoa informed the Committee that there was no law aimed at transposing the Convention into domestic law. Was it not imperative for the State to transpose the Convention into domestic legislation?
To date, no case of enforced disappearance had been reported or brought before the courts in Samoa, which was excellent news. Was there a national register on all persons considered disappeared, which could corroborate this statement? What was the role of the Office of the Ombudsmen in enforced disappearance? What work did it do in connection with the Convention? Why was civil society’s participation in the preparation of the initial report limited to an observer role?
The 2007 law of the International Criminal Court pre-dated the ratification of the Convention, meaning it could not take into account the definition of enforced disappearance outlined in the Convention. The definition of the 2007 act was missing some aspects consistent with the Convention, namely that the crime must be committed by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of the State. In light of the shortcomings of the 2007 law, did the State party intend to legislate to give enforced disappearance a specific, standalone definition in line with the Convention?
Did Samoa intend to domesticate article 3 of the Convention into domestic legislation? Did the State party always see enforced disappearance as one of the most serious offences, given it carried a maximum of life imprisonment? How did the State party prosecute one-off cases of enforced disappearance, as opposed to a widespread and systematic practice? Did it still carry the penalty of life in prison? What legal frameworks were applied to these cases?
MARIJA DEFINIS, Committee Rapporteur and Country Rapporteur for Samoa, asked which provisions of legislation would apply to cases of enforced disappearance which could not be classified as crimes against humanity? When did the State party intend to adopt a definition of enforced disappearance as a separate offence in accordance with the Convention? How did the State party plan to exercise jurisdiction over the offence of enforced disappearance if that offence did not exist?
How did Samoa report and investigate the crime of enforced disappearance if it did not exist in criminal law? What were the measures of protection for complainants, witnesses, and relatives against ill-treatment or intimidation due to complaints? What were the preventive activities for acts that could hinder the process of investigation, including possible corruption of those conducting the investigation? How did the State plan to protect those who participated in investigations? What was the status of the three reform bills adopted in 2020 to reform the judicial system?
Did the Ombudsman have a mandate to receive, investigate and determine complaints against military commanders and other superiors who were responsible for offences that included crimes against humanity? Was there any progress regarding investigations, in the cases of two missing persons from 2019 and 2020? Why did the State party take the position that neither of these cases were classified as enforced disappearance? How did Samoa investigate, prosecute or respond to extrajudicial requests in relation to enforced disappearance offences which did not amount to crimes against humanity? Under what circumstances could Samoa refuse assistance if a request by a foreign State was against the interest of justice?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Samoa did not have a national register for those who may have been disappeared, but a missing persons register was kept with the Ministry of the totality of Samoan laws, to ensure there was infrastructure allowing institutions to enforce legislative requirements of the Convention before developing national legislation in this regard. It was also important to bring the politicians and leaders of the country up to speed to ensure they were aware of the developments of domestic law, which would reflect Samoa’s commitment to upholding its obligations under the Convention.
The Office of the Ombudsman was established in 2014 and was an independent office focusing on the protection of human rights in Samoa, and also allowing it to undertake investigations on human rights complaints. Samoa did not have specific civil society organizations working on enforced disappearance. The preparation of the report was spearheaded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and a taskforce comprised of a wide range of Government stakeholders. Under law, no exceptional circumstances whatsoever could justify enforced disappearance. There were no cases in which anyone had been abducted by the State in Samoa. Making enforced disappearance provisions in national legislation would take some time and was a process.
Samoa did not have a military; however, the Ombudsman had a mandate to investigate any complaints, including against police officers and prison officials. Regarding the two cases raised by the Committee of two males, one missing since 2019 and the other since 2020, the 2019 case was widely publicised by the Committee, and an investigation had been opened by the police and corrective services. He remained missing to this day. Regarding the case in 2020, this was a situation of a prisoner who had escaped. For these reasons, neither case was considered as one of enforced disappearance.
Questions by Committee Experts
MATAR DIOP, Committee Vice Chair and Country Rapporteur for Samoa, asked if there was a local or national register held by the police which would include all individuals who were missing or disappeared? Was this available nationally or was it just held within police stations? Was the Ombudsperson able to receive complaints on people reported disappeared and could they engage in an investigation on the basis of this disappearance? Did the State allow for the views of non-governmental organizations to be considered in the report? To what extent was the State party considering creating legislation in-step with article 2 of the Convention, as well as respecting the definition of enforced disappearance, which could be a crime against humanity, or a standalone offence? In a scenario where a case of enforced disappearance was brought to the court, what legislation would apply?
MARIJA DEFINIS, Committee Rapporteur and Country Rapporteur for Samoa, said Samoa did not have specific legislation that was in conformity with the Convention, which was a key issue.
One Expert highlighted that hybrid briefings could be held for small island developing States, such as in this case. However, these exceptional circumstances were not an exemption for States to have an appropriate hybrid system to clearly convey their opinions. Today, the Committee was struggling to hear the answers from the State party which created issues for the interpreters and made the dialogue more laboured.
Another Expert asked if there had been studies conducted in Samoa on harmonising the Convention into legislation? What would be required for this study? Was there a police register? How did Samoa coordinate information between police stations? How did the Ombudsman record the results of visits to places of detention? What system was in place for witness protection? Were there extradition treaties with other countries and legal assistance and cooperation mechanisms? If so, which countries? Were there concrete examples of these treaties being used to request information? Had there ever been a case or complaint of abduction or kidnapping in Samoa’s history? If there was a case, how would the investigation of such a case begin?
Another Committee Expert asked what information was contained in the missing persons registry, and did it include disaggregated data? What was the observer role of civil society in the preparation of the report? Which organizations were selected for this role? In the absence of a specific legal framework defining cases of enforced disappearance, how did the State take the decision that a deprivation of liberty was not defined as a case of enforced disappearance? Under what legal system was it considered? What happened if a person in Samoa wanted to denounce that someone was deprived of their liberty in an unknown location, and that the State was involved? On what basis would Samoa investigate the report of this disappeared individual? Regarding the two cases of people who had disappeared in 2019 and 2020, what search processes were being conducted?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said under the International Criminal Court act 2007, the only penalty for enforced disappearance was life imprisonment upon conviction. Samoa had gaps in its legislation which needed to be addressed. Any crimes akin to enforced disappearance would be prosecuted under the crimes act. Samoa was a small country and police officers centralised the register for missing persons nationally. The Ombudsman was mandated to look into police misconduct and misconduct in prisons. The police services had units where any neglect of police duty was reported.
Samoa had carried out compliance reviews before the Convention was ratified. Cases of enforced disappearance were not prevalent in Samoa right now, and so the State was focused on domesticating issues which were more pressing, keeping in mind the limited resources they had. However, Samoa still planned to focus on the issue of enforced disappearance when possible.
Civil society organizations were part of the national monitoring implementation and reporting framework, which was instrumental in the drafting of the report.
Samoa did not have a standalone witness protection act; however, witness protection measures existed within a combination of existing legislation. Samoa had mutual assistance in place with other countries, including Australia and New Zealand. There was room to consider more countries.
Police initiated investigations into cases of missing persons and referred them to the Office of the Attorney General for review and prosecution. During the reporting period, there were no reported cases of kidnapping. However, missing persons were reported occasionally to police and made known to media, with these persons usually found within 24 hours.
The development and drafting of local legislation and implementing articles of the Convention was subject to further discussions. The delegation named several civil society organizations involved in the drafting of the report. Samoa could investigate cases of enforced disappearances under legislation concerning kidnapping, human trafficking or smuggling. All parties were obligated to cooperate with the Ombudsperson’s investigations. In the cases of the two men missing in 2019 and 2020, these investigations remained open.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert asked what kind of criminal scenario applied if the police received a description about a case of enforced disappearance? Was there a referral of the results of the Ombudsperson’s investigations to the Attorney General’s Office? Were draft bills in place for the legislative reform? How long did it take to develop a draft bill in this regard? Was there a mechanism for searching for people who had gone missing?
Another Expert asked what happened if somebody refused to carry out an order from a superior which could lead to enforced disappearance? Would it be ensured that this person was not punished? What search-related activities were being conducted for the two men missing in 2019 and 2020. What kind of protection measures were adopted for witnesses?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said whenever cases were reported to the police for missing persons, the police were required to wait 24 hours, after which they would then use communications such as social media to announce the missing person, as well as television networks. Investigations were carried out based on reports received. When investigations were carried out, the Ombudsman needed to report the findings, usually through publishing a report, unless there were legal reasons that the publication needed to be supressed. Currently, there was no draft bill for legislating the Convention in Samoa, but current reporting mechanisms helped the country highlight the legislative gaps to be addressed. Enforced disappearance was an area which Samoa needed to consider carefully, and which would require country-wide consultations with stakeholders.
If an order to investigate an enforced disappearance was refused, this would be taken up with the Ombudsman. Witnesses were entitled to protect their identity, especially children.
Questions by Committee Experts
MATAR DIOP, Committee Vice Chair and Country Rapporteur for Samoa, said it was important to prevent enforced disappearance from occurring in the first place. In the report, the State party indicated that the Samoan police force did not provide specific training on the expulsion or return of foreigners. How did the police force implement the Conventional obligations of the State party in the absence of specific human rights training? Was there legislation which indicated that no one should be expelled, returned or expedited from Samoa to another country if there was a chance they were in danger of enforced disappearance? What judicial authority passed judgement on these cases? Could an expedition order be appealed? Who would the appeal be lodged with and who would hear it? Was the order paused while the appeal was heard?
How would the State party proceed if it received an extradition request from a country which was not Australia or New Zealand, with whom they already had extradition treaties in place? What safeguards were in place to ensure no one could be returned to Australia or New Zealand if they were in danger of enforced disappearance?
Were the registers on deprivation of liberty manual or electronic? Who registered them and had access to them? What were the different forms of deprivation of liberty which existed in the State party? Who gave a detention order? For example, the police or the court? What was the maximum duration of custody? Was it the same irrespective of the crime? Who could extend custody? At what point was a person in custody informed of their rights and reason for detention? At what point could they contact a lawyer? Within what time frame were consular authorities informed of detention, in the case of a foreigner? In addition to the Ombudsman, what other bodies were permitted to visit places of deprivation of liberty? Did the State envisage providing training and capacity building activities to police and other officials responsible for the dispensation of justice on enforced disappearance?
MARIJA DEFINIS, Committee Rapporteur and Country Rapporteur for Samoa, asked what steps the State party took to ensure the definition of victim outlined in the Convention was reflected in national legislation? What measures could be taken to ensure the right of each victim regarding the circumstances of enforced disappearance, the progress of investigations, and the fate of disappeared persons? What procedures were in place for issuing the declaration of death of a disappeared person, and the obligation to continue to search until the fate of the disappeared person was clarified?
What measures were in place to search, locate and release disappeared persons, or those to search for and locate human remains in a dignified manner? Who was qualified to perform these tasks, including identification? What procedures were available to victims of enforced disappearance, including restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition? Was there a time limit for victims of enforced disappearance to have access to compensation and reparations? What mechanisms were in place to guarantee the rights of victims to participate in search processes for disappeared persons? Had the State considered introducing additional measures to protect vulnerable groups, such as women?
How and when would the State strengthen legislation relating to children in the context of the Convention? What would be the process for searching and locating children? When did the State intend to strengthen legislation for protecting children who were being adopted, and put measures in place for after adoption to ensure these children did not become victims of enforced disappeared? What safeguards were in place for inter-country adoption? What steps had been taken to strengthen birth registration and remove the risk of removal of children?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said human rights training for police was conducted by the National Human Rights Institute, the Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development, and the Office of the Ombudsman. New police recruits went through police college and were therefore aware of the basic human rights requirements to carry out their work.
Currently, there were no trainings conducted on extradition as this was not something which occurred regularly in the State party. Cases were rare, and when they did arise, they were dealt with by the Office of the Attorney General, in consultation with other ministries. There was a provision within Samoa’s domestic law which gave the court discretion to make the decision not to extradite the person if it was seen to be unjust. It was a limited provision, but Samoa could look to develop this going forward.
Detention registers were administered by police stations. Police commissioners and judges could issue a detention order. The court could extend custody, as could the Police Commissioner and relevant Minister. Once the person in custody was cautioned of any charges, they were informed of their rights to seek legal counsel and representation. Judges and some civil organizations had access to prisons, as well as cabinet ministers, lawyers and auditors’ offices. The Public Service Commission could also request access to inmates for investigation purposes.
Samoa acknowledged the legislation gaps which needed to be addressed, including clarifying the definition of victim. Currently, Samoa had a childcare protection bill in the pipeline which could be an opportunity for further discussions on the protection of children from enforced disappearance. There was no time limit for victims to access compensation.
Samoa was reviewing its adoption legislation in the context of overseas adoptions, particularly for Australia and New Zealand, with the aim of increasing the protection of these children.
Questions by Committee Experts
MATAR DIOP, Committee Vice Chair and Country Rapporteur for Samoa, asked what a deportation or refoulment procedure for a foreigner at the border would entail? Could this procedure be contested and if so before which authority? If an appeal was filed, did that suspend the deportation or refoulment decision? What was the legal length of possible custody before a person could be brought before a judge? What procedures were in place to declare somebody as being “absent”?
MARIJA DEFINIS, Committee Rapporteur and Country Rapporteur for Samoa, asked what procedures were in place for issuing a declaration of absence or death for a disappeared person? Did the State intend to create a database which would include medical data? Did healthcare professionals receive human rights training? Did the State intend to apply the 2015 Mandela Rules? Would the State consider signing and ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention which would strengthen the mandate of the Ombudsman?
A Committee Expert said training and prevention of enforced disappearance was vital. What was the content of the training sessions? What impact did it have on the implementation of the Convention?
Another Expert asked if there was any specific legislation in the State party to prevent and combat human trafficking, particularly in the context of the State witnessing a rise in forced labour in the Pacific region, including in agriculture and fishing industries? Had Samoa undertaken investigations to determine whether trafficking occurred in these spaces? What measures had been taken to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of enforced disappearance in the context of human trafficking or migration? Was there a specialised mechanism in place for searching for a missing person? Did the framework under the Convention guide the investigation undertaken by the team? What was the timeframe under which someone had to appear before a competent authority and who was that authority?
Had the Ombudsperson referred to the Mandela Rules and taken any action to improve detention conditions? Were reparations purely financial? Was it possible to hold authorities responsible and have them pay reparations via the civilian courts? Could the State access phone records to determine if someone was in a specific location? Were there forensic experts and laboratories to review crucial evidence in the search for a disappeared person? Did the State party intend to ratify other core United Nations human rights treaties?
An Expert said an adoption agency in Samoa had sent around 80 children to the United States under the pretence that they were receiving better health care, while in reality offering them to potential adoptive parents and stating they were abandoned. What reforms to the adoption process had already been enacted and what reforms would the State continue to enact? There was no process to monitor the adoptive process of the Samoan child once it was in a different country. Multiple recommendations had been made to the State party in the area of adoption by the Committee on the Rights of Child; had these been taken into account?
After the cases of children adopted to the United States, a judge had recommended that a restitution trust be established, which would receive the fines of those prosecuted in the adoption agency, to facilitate family reunification for the Samoan children and their parents. Could more information and feedback on this innovative procedure be provided? This could be a good model for addressing illegal adoptions in other countries.
Another Expert asked if there were examples when Samoa had denied international assistance because it believed it may contravene justice? What data was included in registers kept by the police? Was it a single registry at the national level or did each police unit have their own? Were there registers in other facilities such as psychiatric hospitals and adoption centres? What kind of information did they contain?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said deportation orders were executed by police officers. Suitable travel arrangements needed to be made before a person could be deported to their country of origin. In Samoa, a person could be formally declared dead if they had been missing and had not been heard from in seven years. An application needed to be made to the Samoan courts, and the judge needed to be convinced that the person was deceased. The applicant needed to prove that a diligent search had been conducted and that the person was not found alive. Following this, a death certificate could be issued allowing for the management of the estate and other affairs.
The police had the authority to detain someone for 24 hours. The court authority could extend the pre-trial custody subject to a request from police, or the approval of the Attorney General.
Samoa had a national biometrics database which was operational and police and forensic officers were granted access to it.
The Office of the Attorney General needed to certify that no suitable care remained in Samoa before an inter-country adoption could proceed.
Human rights training was regularly conducted on the treaties which Samoa had ratified, with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as police forces from other countries, including the Fiji police. The State saw potential opportunities for collaborative training on the Convention with countries that had experience with enforced disappearance. The law on human trafficking was enshrined in the law on crimes and in 2017 the human trafficking policy was improved.
Non-governmental organizations could visit places of detention. These organizations could enter prison cells and conduct rehabilitation programmes such as sewing and baking, which was where they received limited access to prison cells.
The Office of the Ombudsman monitored Samoa’s detention facilities in compliance with the Mandela Rules. A new prison had been built in 2019, containing a remand centre and high-risk cells. Regular monitoring visits were conducted.
Civil reparations were purely financial. Civilians could seek compensation from the Government against the court. All forensics were sent overseas as this service was not available in Samoa yet.
The Samoan Government was working on reviewing its national legislation in relation to adoption. The workplan of the National Human Rights Institute included the ratification of all core United Nations human rights treaties. This was a work in progress.
Police services had a master register at the national level, with details including personal details of inmates, charges, dates of convictions, and other details.
Regarding the more than 80 Samoan children illegally adopted and taken to the United States, reforms had been taken since 2010, and substantial judicial safeguards were in place.
Trafficking guidelines were used when there was a suspicion of transnational crime. Samoa also partnered with the International Organization on Migration and had held a workshop to strengthen anti-trafficking measures in the fishing sector, an area at high risk of trafficking.
Closing Remarks
PESETA NOUMEA SIMI, Chief Executive Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Samoa and head of the delegation, expressed Samoa’s appreciation for the opportunity to present its report under the Convention, which had been an opportunity to reaffirm the State’s commitment to uphold human rights. While Samoa had not recorded any cases of enforced disappearance, prevention remained the priority. The Constitution, legislation and institutions provided a strong foundation, but continuous improvement was essential. The State would enhance the legal framework, expand training and awareness raising, and ensure institutions remained vigilant. As a small island developing State, Samoa faced challenges in building and sustaining institutional capacity but reinforced its commitment to uphold human rights. Samoa stood ready to continue engaging with the Committee and working with partners to eradicate enforced disappearance.
JUAN PABLO ALBÁN ALENCASTRO, Committee Chairperson, thanked Samoa for its participation in the dialogue with the Committee, as well as all the Committee members for the dialogue. The Committee was here to work with States parties, victims of enforced disappearance, and all those involved in combatting this terrible crime. Civil society played a key role, and States were responsible for permitting their full participation proceedings under the Convention. Nobody who cooperated or met with the Committee should be subjected to reprisals. The Committee looked forward to Samoa’s continued commitment moving forward.
___________
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.
CED26.002E