Tracing the Disappeared: EHRAC’s Fight for Truth and Accountability

At the start of the year, the  World Congress on Enforced Disappearances took place in Geneva, Switzerland. The first of its kind, it welcomed over 600 attendees, with around 1,200 people tuning in online from across the globe. It aimed to enhance knowledge across the world on enforced disappearance, and foster connections between those directly affected by it and those who work to reconnect families and uncover the truth. 

But what is enforced disappearance? The OHCHR defines it as such in Article 2 of its International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance:

“An enforced disappearance is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law,”

The European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) is one of many organisations working to challenge this practice. EHRAC works with partner lawyers across a number of post-Soviet states, supporting strategic litigation and advocacy work that challenges serious human rights violations. 

Created in 2003, the Centre has brought hundreds of cases of enforced disappearance perpetrated by Russia across the North Caucasus to the European Court of Human Rights, in search of the truth and justice for the relatives and those who have disappeared. Since Russia's expulsion from the Council of Europe in 2022, EHRAC has actively and directly sought resolution of these cases before  UN human rights mechanisms.

EHRAC has also created the Enforced Disappearance Legal Database, which houses over 200 case summaries of the leading judgments around the world on the crime of enforced disappearances.This resource —the first and only of its kind— documents leading jurisprudence from regional, international and domestic mechanisms as well as a full range of legal standards on the crime of enforced disappearance. It also details the domestic mechanisms that have been put in place to resolve widespread disappearances in countries around the world like legislation, truth and reconciliation mechanisms and forensic bodies. 

We sat down with EHRAC lawyer Elba Bendo to learn more. A specialist in enforced disappearances and equality and non-discrimination law, Elba Bendo is a human rights lawyer at EHRAC. She works closely with domestic partners to bring cases involving serious human rights abuses by security forces before the European Court of Human Rights and United Nations human rights mechanisms.

You recently showcased your work at the World Congress on Enforced Disappearances (WCED). What does EHRAC hope to achieve/what policy recommendations would you put forward to member states to help end the use of enforced disappearance globally?

Our animation, ‘In Limbo’, which focuses on the experience of enforced disappearance in the North Caucasus, was screened as part of the opening ceremony of the first WCED in January of this year. Our aim in having the film shown at the WCED was to highlight Russia’s continuing use of enforced disappearance to a global audience of relatives, international experts and state representatives. We hoped that relatives from Chechnya as well as those from around the world would have their experience accurately reflected in the film. We also hoped to draw attention  to the suffering of relatives who have - for more than two decades - sought tirelessly to find out what happened to their loved ones only to be left in a state of complete uncertainty. Our objective is to see states and other actors prioritise the search for disappeared victims and to actively engage Russia on these cases to push it to make progress toward determining the fate of these victims.

What was the inspiration behind creating the film? Does EHRAC feel that there needs to be greater awareness on the subject? Why did you pick Chechnya as the spotlighted region?

The inspiration behind ‘In Limbo’ came from the Chechen lawyer and human rights activist, Mariat Imaeva. We started with a diagram that Mariat had drawn, showing how the relatives of the disappeared, in their search for answers, were being ‘bounced around’ between the various authorities, who would either deny all knowledge of the case, or say they could not investigate due to lack of evidence. This pattern repeats, often over many years. If we consider that challenging the Russian authorities in these circumstances is itself an act of incredible bravery, and that these families are already marginalised, the efforts of those who pursue truth and justice are remarkable.

The film seeks to capture the depth and complexity of the suffering of the relatives  and their courage and immense effort as they lead the fight to find out what happened to their loved ones. In this sense, the film is meant to have universal relevance.

However, the film centres the experience of Chechen families impacted by enforced disappearances because this experience is not very well known around the world. Enforced disappearances have had a devastating impact on this small and ethnically distinct community: it is said that everyone knows someone who was disappeared in Chechnya yet, more than two decades on, very few people know what happened to their disappeared relatives. The film aims to draw attention to the plight of these families and in doing so it also challenges this long-held presumption that enforced disappearances are not prevalent in Europe when in fact they have long-been practiced in Europe and are on the incline as evidenced by the number of enforced disappearances currently being perpetrated in Ukraine and those that continue to be perpetrated in the Chechen Republic, especially against human rights defenders and members of the LGBT community.

Have you received cases regarding the current war in Ukraine? (The full-scale invasion)

The use of enforced disappearances in Ukraine is widespread. Russia began using enforced disappearances in Ukraine firstly in Crimea in 2014 against Crimean Tatars. By December 2020, the European Court of Human Rights had found that there existed evidence of an administrative practice of enforced disappearances on the Crimean Peninsula. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has also noted the targeting of enforced disappearances to persons linked to the Mejlis or other Crimean Tatar institutions.

Since the start of the full-scale invasion, Russia has expanded its use of enforced disappearances in Ukraine to all territories under its control, targeting human rights activists and humanitarian volunteers, those who have participated in operations in eastern Ukraine, those who serve in local government or law enforcement agencies, among others. As in Chechnya, this appears to be part of a wider strategy. In her September 2023 Ukraine Country Report, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Dr Alice Edwards, noted the occupying forces’ ‘unabating’ torture of PoWs and civilians, which was ‘orchestrated as part of a (Russian) State policy to intimidate, to instil fear, to punish, or to extract information and confessions.’ The Ukrainian government Unified Register of Persons Missing under Special Circumstances, has recorded 59,490 missing persons, 48,138 of these cases seem to involve disappeared persons. Estimates vary as to the number of Ukrainians living under Russian occupation, but if we assume 3 million continue to reside in the occupied areas, then the disappeared persons would equate to 1-2% of the remaining population

Has EHRAC noticed any patterns in enforced disappearance used by the Russian state? Do they target certain communities, use the same methods, etc.

There are clear patterns in the use of enforced disappearances by the Russian state. Namely, enforced disappearances have been used against ethnic minority communities in an effort to suppress and control these communities.

Enforced disappearances involve a unique and integrated set of acts or omissions by states. An enforced disappearance is considered to be the deprivation of liberty of a person by State agents or by persons who have the support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate of the disappeared person, the outcome of which is to place the disappeared person outside the protection of the law.

Enforced disappearances were a hallmark of the Russian-Chechen wars. It is estimated that more than 7,000 ethnic minority people were disappeared by the Russian federal security forces.

Disappearances perpetrated during this time followed a clear pattern. Most were perpetrated by groups of armed men in camouflage uniforms without insignia. They commonly targeted 18- to 40-year-old Chechen men, and occurred in the context of large-scale, military “sweeping-up” operations. Presenting no warrant or legal reason for the arrest, these groups of armed men would forcibly enter the victim’s home, search it, subject the victim and other family members to physical and verbal violence, and then abduct the victim, who they would force into the trunk or backseat of an unmarked vehicle. These vehicles would then pass freely through areas and checkpoints controlled by security services.

The victims were rarely brought before any court of law or provided with any recourse to challenge their abduction. The detention was almost never recorded. As the vast majority of those disappeared were never seen or heard from following their abduction, accounts of torture and ill-treatment during detention were underreported. However, those victims who were able to testify to their treatment during detention revealed that they witnessed detainees frequently subjected to agonising and extended periods of torture.

Given Russia’s status as a major violator of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)—and its own legal requirement to allocate funds for ECHR violation payments in its annual budget—it appears the government treats these costs as an acceptable expenditure rather than an incentive for reform. This raises concerns about the lack of pressure to address systemic abuses like forced disappearances. What measures does EHRAC take, or could take, to encourage greater compliance with international law and prevent repeat violations? Additionally, are there any institutional reforms that could help address this issue?

Following receipt of a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights or views rendered by the UN Treaty Bodies, we work to secure implementation of the findings of these international judicial mechanisms. We engage actively with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the UN mechanisms by providing updates on the progress made in individual cases as well as on general measures (systemic changes to laws, policies and practices). We see an important role for civil society in documenting the ongoing nature of these violations and we know from the victims and survivors with whom we work that the recognition by an international mechanism of state responsibility in human rights violations plays a significant role, in the absence of domestic accountability.

In terms of institutional reforms, at the Council of Europe level, following the Copenhagen Declaration there have been efforts to improve collaboration between the Court and the Committee of Ministers in an effort to better coordinate the work of the two bodies. The Court and the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Committee of Ministers now meet regularly and share information on the systemic issues arising from different countries or regions of the Council of Europe. Through this exchange the Court is made aware of the systemic issues that judgments pending implementation raise and is hopefully able to take this into account when rendering decisions in similar cases. This improved coordination could have an important impact in the way the Court addresses recurring violations and the tools it relies on to encourage States to comply with their Convention obligations.

Do authoritarian regimes learn from one another in utilising forced disappearance? Are their patterns from the cases you have covered in different countries?

Enforced disappearances have been used around the world by different regimes and, while the circumstances surrounding the practice may differ slightly, they always retain their core elements of: arrest, detention, abduction or other form of deprivation of liberty; state involvement, support or acquiescence; and the concealment of the victim’s fate so that the victim is placed entirely outside the protection of the law. This places victims of enforced disappearances at significant risk of being tortured or killed while in detention. It also leaves their relatives in a complete state of limbo where each day they wonder in agony whether their loved one is dead or alive, in a labour camp or a prison cell.

We are grateful to Elba Bendo for generously sharing her time and expertise, and for highlighting the indispensable work she and her colleagues at EHRAC, along with international partners, continue to do in support of those impacted by enforced disappearance.

EHRAC’s work highlights the urgent need to hold states accountable for enforced disappearances, especially where patterns of abuse have persisted for decades, as seen in Chechnya. Through strategic litigation, public advocacy, and powerful storytelling—such as the short film In Limbo—EHRAC demonstrates how legal and narrative tools can work in tandem to seek justice and amplify the voices of survivors. As Elba emphasized, the growing use of enforced disappearance within Russia’s sphere of influence demands greater international pressure to ensure state compliance with human rights norms, while empowering civil society to keep victims’ stories alive and push for systemic reform.

This urgency is perhaps most starkly illustrated in Ukraine, where Russian forces have employed enforced disappearance against civilians in a "widespread and systematic” manner—acts that, according to an independent United Nations Commission, amount to crimes against humanity. The eventual resolution of the conflict will require a full reckoning with these violations and justice for the thousands of individuals who have been silenced through this and other forms of state repression.

Enforced disappearance is not a relic of the past—it remains a deliberate and evolving instrument of authoritarian control. As global human rights norms come under increasing strain, renewed awareness, accountability, and international solidarity are essential to confronting this crime and ensuring it no longer thrives in silence.