Experts of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances Note Positive New Birth Registration Act in Lesotho, Ask about the Domestication of the Convention and Safeguards against Enforced Disappearance in Extradition Procedures
The Committee on Enforced Disappearances today concluded its consideration of the list of issues presented by Lesotho in the absence of a State report on its implementation of the provisions on the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Committee Experts positively noted the State’s new birth registration act, while raising questions about the domestication of the Convention and how Lesotho ensured that extradition requests did not result in enforced disappearance.
In questions relating to migrants and enforced disappearance, Marina Eudes, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the State had a recent act from 2025 dealing with birth registration, which was a positive development.
Fidelis Kanyongolo, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked what practical steps Lesotho had taken to enact legislation that domesticated the Convention, and the expected timeframe? Could an update be provided on the submission to Parliament of the bill that sought to amend the Human Rights Commission act? Would the amended act include provisions that empowered the Human Rights Commission to work on enforced disappearances?
Mr. Kanyongolo also asked if there were any laws in place which ensured that a person could not be expelled or extradited if they were at risk of enforced disappearance? What measures were taken by the State party in the context of procedures of expulsion, return, surrender or extradition, to evaluate and verify the risk that the affected person may be subjected to enforced disappearance? What was the legal basis of such evaluation and verification?
Introducing the report, Richard Ramoeletsi, Minister of Law and Justice of Lesotho and head of the delegation, said since the ratification of the Convention, Lesotho had continued to rely on its constitutional, legislative, judicial and institutional framework to protect personal liberty, prevent unlawful detention and provide remedies when rights were violated. However, the State recognised that these provisions did not comprehensively define or protect against enforced disappearance, and understood the need for dedicated domestic legislation giving full effect to the Convention.
The delegation said Lesotho had not yet taken formal steps towards the domestication of the Convention, and a timeline had not yet been established. Lesotho was currently undertaking a comprehensive reform process, intended to minimise potential legal inconsistencies and prevent gaps in implementation when the time came to domesticate the Convention. The bill that sought to amend the Human Rights Commission act would be tabled in Parliament in October and would contain provisions to investigate alleged human rights violations and take steps to seek appropriate redress when rights had been violated, among others.
The delegation said that while the fugitive offenders act of 1967 did not explicitly mention enforced disappearances, it outlined that a person must not be returned if it appeared to the court that their safety was unacceptably compromised. The risk was assessed during the evidence served before the court. A dossier, which came with the extradition request to Lesotho, needed to confirm if there was a warrant for the arrest of such a person, and the law under which they would be tried. An assessment was made before the court where the fugitive offender had the right to present their case. The criteria for assessment were provided for under the fugitive offenders act.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Ramoeletsi expressed sincere appreciation on behalf of Lesotho to the Committee for the open, objective and constructive manner in which the review took place. Lesotho reiterated its readiness to cooperate with the international community to explore every avenue possible to accelerate the implementation of the Convention.
In his concluding remarks, Juan Pablo Albán Alencastro, Committee Chairperson, said the Committee stood ready to help and work with Lesotho and all States parties, the victims of enforced disappearance, and all actors in the struggle to combat the scourge of enforced disappearance.
The delegation of Lesotho consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Law and Justice; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Relations; and the Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of Lesotho 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, 16 September, to consider additional information on the report of Gabon (CED/C/GAB/A1/1).
Report
The Committee has before it the list of issues of Lesotho in the absence of a State report (CED/C/LSO/QAR/1).
Presentation of List of Issues
RICHARD RAMOELETSI, Minister of Law and Justice of Lesotho and head of the delegation, regretted that Lesotho had not submitted its report within the required timeframe and was grateful to the Committee for its patience. The delay hinged on the State’s previous reporting model, which had caused backlogs. The new reporting model, which came into effect in 2022, had significantly reduced report backlogs.
Since the ratification of the Convention, Lesotho had continued to rely on its constitutional, legislative, judicial and institutional framework to protect personal liberty, prevent unlawful detention and provide remedies when rights were violated. The Constitution safeguarded personal liberty and provided protection against arbitrary arrest and detention. The tenth amendment, passed in August 2025, further permitted public interest litigation, allowing individuals and organizations to vindicate the rights of marginalised and disempowered groups before the superior courts.
These guarantees were implemented through legislation, including the fugitive offenders act 1967, the criminal procedure and evidence act 1981, the children’s protection and welfare act 2011, the anti-trafficking in persons act 2011, as amended, and the penal code act 2010, which prohibited unlawful detention, abduction, kidnapping and deprivation of liberty. However, the State recognised that these provisions did not comprehensively define or protect against enforced disappearance, and understood the need for dedicated domestic legislation giving full effect to the Convention. Lesotho had also not yet made declarations under articles 30 and 31 recognising the Committee’s competence to consider individual and inter-state communications; this matter was still under consideration.
Progress had been made towards operationalising the National Human Rights Commission in accordance with the Paris Principles, and Lesotho had also strengthened access to justice. The High Court had been decentralised to the northern and southern regions, while legal aid and probation offices were now available in all districts. The judiciary had adopted procedures aimed at ensuring the expeditious finalisation of cases, including those involving arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Once cases were set down for hearing, judges were required to deliver written judgments within three months.
Police officers received pre-service and in-service training in criminal procedure, human rights and national and international standards, with manuals developed on police brutality and the use of force. The legal framework criminalised unlawful superior orders and prevented junior officers from relying on such orders as a defence to criminal responsibility.
The State had also investigated and prosecuted cases involving disappearances, unlawful detention, torture and killings by law-enforcement and security personnel. Cases concerning Lekhoele Noko, Molise Pakela and Khothatso Makibinyane; Mokalekale Khetheng; Mohato Seleke; and Lira Moeti were investigated and brought before the courts, and had reached finality, with convictions and sentences in some cases and sentencing pending in others.
However, Lesotho did not yet have a comprehensive, dedicated and systematically disaggregated register of disappeared persons and official data on enforced disappearances remained inadequate. This was an area requiring sustained improvement and the Committee’s assistance was welcomed.
Lesotho had strengthened measures to prevent trafficking and protect persons vulnerable to disappearance in the context of migration. The anti-trafficking in persons amendment act 2021 removed the option of fines as a sentence and aligned child-trafficking definitions with international standards. The Government had also adopted the national referral mechanism and standard operating procedures in 2021 to strengthen coordinated protection and law-enforcement responses. Joint inspections and awareness campaigns had increased, with 191 anti-trafficking and migrant-smuggling inspections conducted in four districts in 2023, compared with 75 in 2022. Specialised child-trafficking prosecutors had increased from one to six nationwide in 2025.
Despite these advances, significant challenges remained, including inadequate cross-sectoral data systems, limited specialised investigative capacity, resource constraints in law enforcement and labour inspection, and disruptions to treaty implementation caused by changes in government administration and staff turnover. The Government remained committed to addressing these challenges and sincerely welcomed the Committee’s support. Lesotho remained committed to strengthening the rule of law, protecting human dignity and progressively translating the Convention’s guarantees into effective protection for everyone within Lesotho’s jurisdiction.
Questions by Committee Experts
FIDELIS KANYONGOLO, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked what practical steps Lesotho had taken to enact legislation that domesticated the Convention, and the expected timeframe? Could an update be provided on
the submission to Parliament of the bill that sought to amend the Human Rights Commission act? Would the amended act include provisions that empowered the Human Rights Commission to work on enforced disappearances? Could the delegation provide details of the financial, technical and staffing resources allocated to the Commission? What were the reasons for the State’s decision not to make the declarations under articles 31 and 32 of the Convention?
Did the State party plan to incorporate enforced disappearance as an autonomous crime in its domestic legislation? Did the Penal Code cover all the offenses enshrined under the Convention? What plans did the State party have to establish a system of collection and management of disaggregated data on victims of enforced disappearances? Notwithstanding the lack of organised data, could Lesotho provide any information on persons who had disappeared, as well as the number of those people who may have been victims of enforced disappearance? How did the cases of Lekhoele Noko, Makarabo Majakhomo and Mokalekale Khetheng involve enforced disappearances as defined by the Convention? Had any cases of alleged enforced disappearance been attributed to security forces?
In light of derogations permitted by the Constitution, how did Lesotho comply with its obligation under the Convention to ensure that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever could be used to justify enforced disappearance? In the offence of abduction, what mitigating and aggravating factors would be considered? In executing its mandate, did the Lesotho Mounted Police Service Anti-Trafficking and Migrant Control Unit specifically addresses allegations of enforced disappearances that arose in the context of migration, including cases of the disappearance of refugees and asylum seekers? What measures were in place to prevent such disappearances, conduct investigations, hold perpetrators to account and provide victims with appropriate protection and reparation? Did the Control Unit take the Committee’s general comment relating to enforced disappearance and migration into account?
MARINA EUDES, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, thanked Lesotho for its preparation for and involvement in the dialogue. The State’s responses to the list of issues were very specific and showed there had been positive developments which seemed to be continuing. Could the State party confirm that extradition requests connected with enforced disappearance could not be rejected on the grounds of classification as a political offence? Did the extradition and cooperation agreements between Lesotho, in particular with South Africa, cover the offences of illegal kidnapping and detention and torture? How was cooperation organised with neighbouring States when a Lesotho national disappeared, for example the case of Ms. Mojakhomo who disappeared from detention in 2013?
Regarding the statute of limitations, what was the exact length of the limitation period for acts falling within the scope of an enforced disappearance? Did the right to lodge a complaint and obtain compensation only concern illegal detention, to the exclusion of other violations of victims' rights? What were the modalities and effects of the remedy of habeas corpus provided for in legislation?
Did the High Court of Lesotho have territorial jurisdiction and for what crimes?
The lack of competence of the military authorities and courts to investigate and try cases of enforced disappearance was noted. What information could be provided about the duration of procedure; the rights of defence; and admissibility of confessions or information obtained under torture? Why was opening of an investigation impossible in the absence of an official complaint or report? How were possible cases of enforced disappearance which should be investigated identified?
With regard to the procedures for the search, location and release of missing persons and the return of the remains of deceased persons, was there a precise protocol disseminated to the police authorities? Did this protocol incorporate or could it integrate in the future the guidelines on the search for missing persons adopted by the Committee in 2019? What were the specific methods for searching for missing migrants? Were there any plans to set up a national DNA database to identify victims? Did the act of 2021 provide protection for witnesses and their families?
A Committee Expert asked additional questions, including if the military justice system complied with the guarantees for impartiality, and what was done with cases involving civilians?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Lesotho had not yet taken formal steps towards the domestication of the Convention, and a timeline had not yet been established. Lesotho was currently undertaking a comprehensive reform process, intended to minimise potential legal inconsistencies and prevent gaps in implementation when the time came to domesticate the Convention. The bill that sought to amend the Human Rights Commission act would be tabled in Parliament in October and would contain provisions to investigate alleged human rights violations and take steps to seek appropriate redress when rights had been violated, among others.
The Government had undertaken reforms within the justice sector to strengthen access to justice, improve the efficiency of judicial processes and improve capacity to address complaints. The tenth amendment to the Constitution, passed in 2025, established the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission bill was scheduled to be tabled before Parliament. The precise timing of its consideration would depend on the legislative programme.
The statute of limitations applied 20 years after the date of commencement of an offence. However, regarding the offence of murder, it did not apply. The Constitution provided that once a person was detained, as soon as it was practical, it should be announced that they were detained, the offence which they were detained for, and the place of detention. This would safeguard against enforced disappearances. The Constitution also provided that a person should be given legal representation.
The Ministry of Law and Justice was actively reviewing its existing statutory framework to identify legal gaps and ensure they were being integrated into broader national reform processes. The Government was prioritising human rights training for judicial officers, prosecutors and police to ensure strict adherence to international standards.
The Constitution, the criminal procedures and evidence act, and the Penal Code, treated the deprivation of liberty as an offence mainly by an individual as opposed to a State-sponsored crime. There was no standalone provision punishing public officials specifically for the concealment of a detainee. There was no unified, fully accessible register, meaning investigations could sometimes be slow or compromised. There was also no special procedure to manage the social status of families left in limbo when the primary breadwinner disappeared.
Lekhoele Noko, Molise Pakela and Khothatso Makibinyane were kidnapped by members of the Lesotho Defence Force in 2017 and were later found to have been strangled and killed, with their bodies dumped into the Mohale dam. The perpetrators had now been convicted and found guilty of murder. Each person had received a 20-year sentence, with some of the accused being superior officials to others. Ms. Mojakhomo went missing in police custody and was still missing; this case was under investigation. Regarding the case of Mokalekale Khetheng, the relevant members of police had come before the courts and been found guilty of the offence, including murder and kidnapping. This case had also reached finality, and the accused persons had been sentenced to 30 years. Mohato Seleke and Lira Moeti were kidnapped and assaulted by security agents. Their cases had been tried before the courts, with the perpetrators sentenced to six years in prison.
Currently, due to comprehensive national reforms, Lesotho was at the consultation stage with line ministries regarding the Committee’s individual communications. A unit had been established to specifically deal with cases relating to migration, in terms of kidnapping, abduction and arbitrary detention. This unit had been strengthened in its capacity and human resources, and there would likely be many cases coming forward as a result. The unit held joint anti-trafficking and smuggling inspections, and there was a need to increase its awareness about the Committee’s general comment. The anti-trafficking in persons act 2021 spoke to safe houses for victims; however, currently the State’s shelters remained scarce. This was an area where the Government continued to seek funding and support from development partners.
Lesotho did not yet prescribe aggravating circumstances for enforced disappearances. However, conduct amounting to enforced disappearance was prosecuted as abduction or other relevant crimes under the criminal act, taking certain factors into account. Under the anti-trafficking and persons act, the heightened vulnerability of child victims was taken into account. The existing laws and social protection measures for the families of victims were applied on a case-by-case basis. If the missing person was a parent, their declaration of absence created an urgent need to establish custody but did not automatically transfer legal authority. Under law, children impacted could access medical care from the guardians fund.
Lesotho was supported by other Member States, such as South Africa, in the investigation of complex cases, where it lacked capacity. For example, in the cases of Lekhoele Noko, Molise Pakela and Khothatso Makibinyane, the Lesotho Mountain Police Service was supported by the South African police service with technologies such as sniffer dogs and divers to locate the bodies. The Defence Force did not have powers to try cases of abduction or unlawful detention; these were currently reserved for the civilian justice system.
In Lesotho, confessions needed to be legally sought, and should not be obtained under torture, coercion or any other forms of duress. Otherwise, they were strictly inadmissible in court. The Constitution strictly prohibited any form of torture or degrading treatment. There needed to be proof that the statement was made freely and voluntary and that the person who made the statement was in control of their senses.
Follow-up Questions by Committee Experts
Committee Experts asked follow-up questions, including for more information on the national reform process and its timeframe; when the bill for the Human Rights Commission was due to be presented in Parliament; if there was an incompatibly between the definition of the crime of enforced disappearance in the Penal Code, compared to the Convention; how the State would develop a system for managing disaggregated data; why the cases discussed were considered as enforced disappearance, rather than kidnapping and murder; if the right to be protected from enforced disappearance could be derogated under the Constitution; clarifications around the sentencing for crimes of enforced disappearance; conditions imposed on universal jurisdiction for the high court; the conditions for opening an inquiry; and clarification that there was no national single registry which could identify victims of enforced disappearances.
Other questions were asked on whether a citizen, prosecutor or judge could currently directly invoke the Convention; the mechanism which prevented State security agents from carrying out short-term detention; criminal sanctions for officials and how many had been prosecuted for crimes of enforced disappearance; protocols in place to ensure the immediate launching of searches in cases of enforced disappearance; concrete steps taken to move towards a formal institutionalised agreement with South Africa to systematically trace missing persons; how the State cross referenced and matched DNA profiles; how searches were conducted for missing persons in rural mountains and cross border areas; what qualified as a reliable report to allow investigations to be launched for a missing person; if Lesotho’s law distinguished between missing persons, disappeared persons, and victims of enforced disappearance; the criteria used to determine if an enforced disappearance had occurred; and the penalties applied to an enforced disappearance which did not result in death or constitute a crime against humanity.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Human Rights Commission bill was expected to come into effect in April 2027. The national reforms process was expected to conclude in 2028. After the tenth amendment was adopted, there was a provision which stated that for any ratification of an international instrument, the Parliament had to provide permission for go-ahead. Currently consultations were still ongoing amongst the ministries regarding the communications procedure.
The Government was relatively crippled in the area of data management; however, it had established a migration data and analysis system which streamlined refugee issues. There needed to be increased training provided on how to operate this system. There was no single register on disappeared persons, but there were occurrence books, civil registers and detention forms, with these records accessible to victims and their families.
The prohibition of enforced disappearance in Lesotho was a non-derogable right. The impartiality of the justice sector was ensured through the recruitment procedure. Judges went through an open selection process and were also recruited through an independent judicial commission.
The Penal Code expressly criminalised enforced disappearance when it was part of a widespread attack against a civilian population. Lesotho remained fully receptive to technical cooperation with the Committee. Regarding the cases discussed earlier, members of the Lesotho Defence Force had secretly detained the victims, strangled them and dumped their bodies in the Mohale dam. As they had originally refused to acknowledge their detention and divulge their whereabouts, this fell under the offence of enforced disappearance. However, as enforced disappearance was not yet listed as a standalone crime, they were prosecuted under crimes of kidnapping and other offences. When it came to murder and other capital offences under the law, prosecution could be brought at any time and there was no time limit.
The crime for unlawful detention or punishment was up to three years, with fines. Child trafficking had a maximum sentencing of life imprisonment. The legal framework of Lesotho stated that those giving unlawful orders were responsible for their actions.
Police authorities did not only act on reported cases; when there were suspicions that a person was missing, authorities could act without family members initiating a case. The process of investigations was conducted through available resources, including police intelligence, or even media reports. Lesotho was a legal dualist State, meaning there was no automated domestication of legal instruments.
The police issued a missing person’s notice through official platforms and social media platforms to track individual whereabouts, which formally acknowledged that a person had gone missing. Additionally, where there had been a presumption of death, this was the only time where a declaration of absence was permitted, which could allow for the issuance of a death certificate. This order could only be given by the High Court.
Questions by Committee Experts
FIDELIS KANYONGOLO, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked if there were any laws in place which ensured that a person could not be expelled or extradited if they were at risk of enforced disappearance? What measures were taken by the State party in the context of procedures of expulsion, return, surrender or extradition to evaluate and verify the risk that the affected person may be subjected to enforced disappearance? What was the legal basis of such evaluation and verification? Did an appeal against authorisation of expulsion, return, surrender or extradition have any suspensive effect on proceedings? Were there any measures which guaranteed that any person with a legitimate interest in an enforced disappearance could access the information as specified in the Convention? This included accessing information on the authority that ordered the deprivation of liberty and the authority supervising the detention, among other factors. Were relatives guaranteed the right to take proceedings before a court? Were there any limitations in this regard?
Did foreign nationals who were deprived of liberty have the right to communicate with their consular authorities? Were there any restrictions, in law and in practice, on the right and ability of any person deprived of liberty to communicate with, and be visited by, family members, legal counsel, consular representatives or any other person of their choice? Could any restrictions be imposed on access to persons deprived of liberty? Which authorities had the power to impose such restrictions, and for how long could these restrictions be applied?
Were there any measures in place to prevent or impose sanctions for delaying or obstructing the right of any person deprived of liberty to take habeas corpus proceedings before a court? Were sanctions imposed on anyone who failed to record the deprivation of liberty of any person, or who purposefully recorded inaccurate information? What measures did the State take to ensure officials did not take advantage of the lack of a unified register? How was it ensured that they were held to account? What was done to sanction anyone who attempted to prevent the right to a prompt and effective judicial remedy?
MARINA EUDES, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked if a relative of a victim could be considered as such, even if they did not live with them? Could victims obtain compensation through any means other than a court decision convicting someone of enforced disappearance? Were there other forms of compensation and which body was responsible for them? Did State legislation consider specific rules to protect the rights of the loved ones of disappeared persons? How could these people have access to social protection and land and property rights?
Were there organizations working specifically on the subject of enforced disappearance? Was their creation subject to special conditions? Could these associations ask for an investigation to be launched or conduct proceedings on behalf of the victims? Had the State been able to identify any instances of children who had been taken to South Africa or another country? The State had a recent act from 2025 dealing with birth registration which was a positive development. Could more information be provided on the provision of social services? Was there a platform for early warning of the risk of suspicion of withdrawal of children?
The Committee had received reports of a number of orphaned children in Lesotho, who had undergone illegal international adoptions; what were the procedures involved in international adoption and who was responsible for its oversight? Was the 2022 Joint Declaration on Illegal Intercountry Adoption taken into account in the 2013 law? Only four States had concluded agreements with Lesotho concerning intercountry adoption. What was happening in other States, in particular South Africa, to which children could be sent for adoption? Had measures been taken to address illicit international adoption cases from the past and ensure reparations were granted from these cases?
Was the sworn declaration by parents considered sufficient to protect unaccompanied children from abduction, illegal border crossings and trafficking? What happened to unaccompanied minors who did not have this declaration? Would they be arrested and detained? How would they be protected from secret detention? Were there accommodations, social services and guardians dedicated to underage migrants arriving in Lesotho? Was the State planning to set up a database on migrants crossing borders, whether they were adults or minors?
Committee Experts asked additional questions, including about the reality of detention conditions in police stations and the duration of detention; the maximum duration of detention which could be issued by a prosecutor; measures taken to prevent the disappearance of women and adolescents; specific measures for searching for women who had disappeared; measures in place to prevent the revictimisation of women victims of trafficking; documentation required in the event of the denial of a lawyer; and how the State guaranteed attorney/client confidentiality.
Other questions raised were if a consulate was notified straight away in regard to the arrest of a foreign national; if there was specific mandatory training on enforced disappearance and the Convention for police, military, judges and anyone involved in the deprivation of liberty processes; if there was a specific protocol governing the search for someone who may have been subject to enforced disappearance; how victims and relatives were informed and enabled to participate in this search and investigation; and if Lesotho would consider establishing a declaration of absence which protected the rights of disappeared persons and their relatives.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said while the fugitive offenders act of 1967 did not explicitly mention enforced disappearances, it outlined that a person must not be returned if it appeared to the court that their safety was unacceptably compromised. The risk was assessed during the evidence served before the court. Foreign nationals who were arrested had the right to communicate with their home country’s embassy under international law. The legal system of Lesotho strictly observed lawyer/client confidentiality. Such communication was not monitored or recorded.
Foreign nationals had the right to communicate with their consular missions, or legal representatives if applicable. When a foreign national had been apprehended, the communication was brought to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who then communicated with the relevant embassies. Most embassies accredited to Lesotho were based in Pretoria, South Africa, which caused some delays.
There had been a recent case where a Lesotho individual had committed heinous crimes in South Africa and fled to Lesotho, with an extradition request made by South Africa. However, due to an error in the procedure, he was able to appeal his arrest. The suspect was currently remanded in custody. This highlighted that the right to appeal was indeed in place.
Lesotho had ratified the Hague Convention on Inter-country Adoption, which acted as the key document for this process. Cases of adoptions were only dealt with by one ministry, and only its social workers were involved in case management. Before the country adoptions were carried out, a background check of the adoptive parents was conducted. Work was also done with the authorities in the other countries to monitor the adoption once it was in place. If it seemed that a child was facing any dangers, including that of enforced disappearance, the application for adoption would be denied.
Safeguards were in place to ensure the protection of unaccompanied children crossing borders who did not have a signed affidavit from their parents. Border officials had been trained in this regard, and were required to hand undocumented, unaccompanied children over to social workers to assess the situation.
The speedy courts trial act of 2002 stipulated that the accused person may not be remanded into custody for more than 60 days, unless a judge or magistrate recorded such prolonged custody and had a compelling justification for it. Where the detainee had been imprisoned for a long time, they could institute their right to apply for bail. Recently, comprehensive human rights training was held for all law enforcement actors. Police cadets were also mandated to take training courses covering group rights. The State acknowledged the need to include the Convention in the training, and to further build capacity in this area.
If the 48-hour initial limit was exceeded, an extension needed to be sought through the courts. The State would be held liable for any compensation for the families of any person in detention. Any person unlawfully arrested or detained had a right to compensation.
Lesotho currently did not have civil society organizations working specifically on enforced disappearances. However, there were several non-governmental organizations working specifically on human rights, including civil and political rights. The Government had widened the civic space and increased trainings on human rights mechanisms. Due to these trainings, civil society organizations frequently submitted shadow reports alongside reports to the United Nations treaty bodies.
Lesotho recognised the need to ensure its legal framework covered the family members of those who were victims of enforced disappearance. Families and persons with a legitimate interest could access detention information and institute habeas corpus proceedings. The Committee’s joint statement on intercountry adoption was welcomed, and the State party would study this and incorporate it within its current reforms.
Lesotho’s anti trafficking in persons amendment act had gone a long way to safeguard the rights of women and children. It had removed the options of fines in sentencing and provided for increased penalties. The Lesotho Mounted Police embarked on continuous awareness raising campaigns all around the country, especially with South Africa. Joint border management meetings were held to raise awareness of trafficking in persons between these countries.
Follow-up Questions by Committee Experts
Committee Experts asked follow-up questions, including on issues relating to the frameworks, standards and criteria used for the risk assessment for extradition requests; particular examples of extradition requests; if families could obtain information pertaining to a person’s detention, as outlined under the Convention; specific examples of cases regarding adoption in South Africa; practical challenges in implementing the 48-hour rule; if there had been cases where persons had been sanctioned for depriving persons of liberty beyond this time; examples of officers who had been held liable for the delay of habeas corpus; and the forms of reparation allowed for families under State legislation.
Questions were also asked on follow-up taken for children of Lesotho who worked abroad and did not return; what happened when there was no consular support in the case of a foreign national; how long a foreign national could be kept in detention; if there was a list of women who were victims of trafficking but whose whereabouts were unknown; if there had been exchanges with South Africa on this issue; mechanisms to undertake searches for these women, teenage girls and children; and alternative documentation accepted at the border for unaccompanied minors.
Responses by the Delegation
On the conditions for extraditions, the delegation said a dossier, which came with the extradition request to Lesotho, needed to confirm if there was a warrant for the arrest of such person, and the law under which they would be tried. An assessment was made before the court where the fugitive offender had the right to present their case. The criteria for assessment was provided for under the fugitive offenders act.
When the police went beyond the 48 hours afforded by law, the suspects were likely to face further human rights violations. There was no weekend court access, which meant the 48 hours needed to be applied during the week. The Office of the Ombudsman came into play when victims approached the Office. There had been examples where State agents had compensated victims, based on directives from the Ombudsman.
The Republic of South Africa was generally quick to respond to cases of foreign nationals who were imprisoned. Before communication was transmitted through diplomatic channels, there were other ways where information could be transmitted quickly. If the consulate did not respond, the person had to stand trial.
Training had been provided to police officers, in regard to the 48-hour rule and knowledge had improved in this area. If unaccompanied children were found by the border, they was treated as a child in need of care and protection and were referred to the Ministry responsible for the social welfare of children and placed under temporary safe care. Where anti-trafficking was suspected, identification needed to be provided and referrals for children involved. There was no single national database providing figures of the children who were unaccompanied around the borders.
Closing Statements
RICHARD RAMOELETSI, Minister of Law and Justice of Lesotho and head of the delegation, expressed sincere appreciation on behalf of Lesotho to the Committee for the open, objective and constructive manner in which the review took place, thanking the Committee and all those who had made the dialogue possible. Lesotho had noted the existing gaps in the legal framework and the urgent need for the domestication of the Convention, and appreciated the need for the operationalisation of an independent national human rights institution in line with the Paris Principles. The State had also taken note of the limitations pertaining to data collection mechanisms. Lesotho reiterated its readiness to cooperate with the international community to explore every avenue possible to accelerate the implementation of the Convention.
JUAN PABLO ALBÁN ALENCASTRO, Committee Chairperson, thanked Lesotho for the constructive dialogue. The Committee stood ready to help and work with Lesotho and 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.
CED26.009E