1 The concept of ambiguous loss, first articulated by Pauline Boss, refers to the grief that arises when individuals and families experience a loss that remains in some manner unresolved, such as that of families searching for the fate and whereabouts of missing loved ones. This type of loss prevents individuals from obtaining the closure that may otherwise assist in navigating grief. See Pauline Boss, Ambiguous Loss; Learning to Live with Unresolved Grief, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.

2 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Accompanying the Families of Missing Persons: A Practical Handbook, Geneva, 2020, p. 16.

3 Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 3, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP I), Art. 32.

4 Sandoz, Yves, Swinarski, Christophe and Zimmermann, Bruno (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, para. 1196Google Scholar.

5 AP I, above note 3, Art. 33(1).

6 Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, Rule 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customaryihl/eng/docs/v1 (all internet references were accessed in September 2022).

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC IV), Arts 25–6.

10 Moreover, the Central Tracing Agency must receive information concerning persons reported missing by an adverse party (AP I, Art. 33(3)). It must also receive cards on children evacuated (AP I, Art. 78(3)). There are multiple other provisions providing a specific mandate and role to the Central Tracing Agency, including Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC III), Art. 123; and GC IV, Arts 25, 130 and 136–7.

11 For an overview of the law relating to the Central Tracing Agency and National Information Bureaux, see ICRC, Overview of the Legal Framework Governing National Information Bureaux, Geneva, 8 April 2022, available at: www.icrc.org/en/publication/4616-overview-legal-framework-governing-national-information-bureaux; Helen Obregón Gieseken and Ximena Londoño, “Looking for Answers: Accountability for the Separated, Missing and Dead in International Armed Conflicts”, Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog, 11 April 2022, available at: https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2022/04/11/separated-missing-dead-international-armed-conflicts/#_ftn2.

12 J.-M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, above note 6, Rule 112.

13 Ibid., Rule 113.

14 Ibid., Rule 114. As explained in the summary to this rule, “State practice establishes the customary nature of this rule in international armed conflicts. In the context of non-international armed conflicts, there is a growing trend towards recognition of the obligation of parties to a conflict to facilitate the return of the remains of the dead to their families upon their request.”

15 Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950), Art. 16; Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950), Art. 19; GC III, Arts 120 and 122; GC IV, Arts 130 and 138–9; AP I, Art. 34(2).

16 J.-M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, above note 6, Rule 115.

17 Ibid., Rule 116.

18 Ibid., Rule 116. ICRC, Missing People, DNA Analysis and Identification of Human Remains: A Guide to Best Practice in Armed Conflicts and Other Situations of Armed Violence, Geneva, 2009; ICRC, World Health Organization, Pan American Health Organization and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Management of Dead Bodies After Disasters: A Field Manual for First Responders, Geneva, 2019.

19 ICRC, Forensic Human Identification: An Integrated Approach, Geneva, 18 February 2022.

20 ICRC, Missing People, above note 18; National Institute of Justice, Mass Fatality Incidents: A Guide for Human Forensic Identification, Washington, DC, 2005, available at: www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/199758.pdf.

21 INTERPOL, “Disaster Victim Identification (DVI)”, available at: www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Forensics/Disaster-Victim-Identification-DVI.

22 ICRC, above note 2; Susana Navarro, Pau Pérez Sales and Franc Kernjak, International Consensus on Arbitrary or Extrajudicial Executions Principles and Minimum Standards for Psychological Work in Search Processes and Forensic Investigations, 2010.

23 United Nations (UN) Office on Drugs and Crime, Forensic Autopsy: Manual for Forensic Pathologists, August 2015, available at: www.theapmla.net/files/PEX02_Forensic%20Autopsy%20Manual.opt.pdf.

24 ICRC et. al., Management of Dead Bodies After Disasters, above note 18.

25 Luis Fondebrider, Forensic Guide to the Investigation, Recovery and Analysis of Human Skeletal Remains, Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team, Buenos Aires, 2021, available at: https://eaaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/EAAF-Forensic-Guide-for-the-investigation-recovery-and-analysis-of-human-skeletal-remains.pdf; Melanie Klinkner and Ellie Smith, The Bournemouth Protocol on Mass Grave Protection and Investigation, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, 9 December 2020, available at: https://issuu.com/bournemouthuniversity/docs/the_bournemouth_protocol_on_mass_grave_protection_?fr=sMjc3OTI0MjAyNzM.

26 ICRC, Guidelines for Investigating Deaths in Custody, Geneva, 2013.

27 ICRC, Management of the Dead Under Islamic Law, Geneva, 2020.

28 Blau, Soren and Fondebrider, Luis, A Practical Guide for Forensic Investigators in Timor-Leste, Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, Melbourne, Australia, 2011Google Scholar; L. Fondebrider, above note 25; International Commission on Missing Persons, Assessment of the Scope of the Missing Persons Problem in Libya, Including an Overview of Libya's Institutional, Legal, and Technical Capacities to Find Missing Persons, The Hague, 2021, available at: www.icmp.int/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/LibyaReportEnglish-1.pdf.

29 Puerto, Mercedes Salado et al., “The Search Process: Integrating the Investigation and Identification of Missing and Unidentified Persons”, Forensic Science International: Synergy, Vol. 3, 2021Google Scholar. Salado Puerto et al. highlight the importance of correcting and broadening the “tendency to understand the search only as a ‘body centred’ forensic response” and articulate a concept of the search process as one that “includes the investigation and identification phases of the missing in any state (dead or alive), in any scenario (with or without bodies), with an integrated, multidisciplinary, and multiagency approach for implementation by all actors involved in the investigation and identification phases of missing persons”.

30 See ICRC, “Restoring Family Links”, available at: www.icrc.org/en/what-we-do/restoring-family-links; ICRC, “Protection of the Dead Through Forensic Action”, available at: www.icrc.org/en/what-we-do/forensic-action.

31 ICRC, “Protection of the Dead”, ibid.

32 Ibid. See, also, Maurer, Peter, “Forward”, in Parra, Roberto C., Zapico, Sara C. and Ubelaker, Douglas H. (eds), Forensic Science and Humanitarian Action, Vol. 1, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2020, p. lviiiGoogle Scholar, noting that, as of 2020, the ICRC has more than seventy forensic experts.

33 Binz, Morris Tidball and Hoffmeister, Ute, “Forensic Archaeology in Humanitarian Contexts: ICRC Action and Recommendations”, in Groen, W. J. Mike, Márquez-Grant, Nicholas and Janaway, Robert C. (eds), Forensic Archaeology: A Global Perspective, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2015Google Scholar (emphasis added).

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

36 “The ICRC is the only organization internationally that has forensic science solely for humanitarian purposes.” See Denise Abboud, “How Does ICRC use Forensic Science for Humanitarian Purposes?”, ICRC, 19 May 2022, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/how-does-icrc-use-forensic-science-humanitarian-purposes. However, national government bodies tasked with disaster management may at times be involved in forensic science for humanitarian purposes, and on occasion international non-governmental organizations specializing in the scientific search, recovery and examination of human remains may undertake forensic activities for humanitarian purposes. For example, the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team, which advances the search for missing persons for both criminal-justice or truth-seeking purposes and humanitarian purposes, intervenes in support of forensic action for humanitarian purposes. This can include in the search for missing migrants, following natural disasters, or as part of humanitarian efforts in conflict. See, generally, Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team, available at: https://eaaf.org/.

37 See, generally, Monique Crettol, Lina Milner, Anne-Marie La Rosa and Jill Stockwell, “Establishing Mechanisms to Clarify the Fate and Whereabouts of Missing Persons: A Proposed Humanitarian Approach”, Vol. 99, No. 2, 2017.

38 For example, the Coordination Mechanism on Persons Unaccounted for in Connection with the Events of the 1992–93 Armed Conflict and After in Abkhazia “does not attempt to attribute responsibility for the deaths of any missing person, nor make any findings as to the cause of such deaths”. M. Crettol et al., ibid., p. 603. The authors note that: “A coordination mechanism bringing Georgian and Abkhaz participants to the table was established at the end of 2010 to clarify the fate of missing persons in relation to the conflict. The ICRC agreed to chair this mechanism.” M. Crettol et al., ibid., p. 603. More generally, the ICRC notes the risk to loss of impartiality that may arise with the provision of confidential information to criminal-justice institutions. See ICRC, “Confidentiality Q&A”, 15 January 2018, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/confidentiality-q. See, also, ICRC, “The International Committee of the Red Cross's (ICRC's) Confidential Approach: Specific Means Employed by the ICRC to Ensure Respect for the Law by State and Non-State Authorities Policy Document. December 2012”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 94, No. 887, 2012, available at: https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc-887-confidentiality.pdf.

39 The question of the obligation not to testify has arisen before international courts. In the case of Prosecutor v. Simić and others, the court ruled that “the ICRC has a right under customary international law to non-disclosure of the Information” that the prosecution was seeking. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, The Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simić, Milan Simić, Miroslav Tadić, Stevan Todorović and Simo Zarić, Case No. IT-95-9, Decision (Trial Chamber), 27 July 1999. While in recent times there have not been legal challenges seeking to compel the ICRC to disclose information collected during humanitarian forensic operations to courts, in a case concerning detainees held at Guantanamo Bay by the United States government, a military court initially ordered the defence in United States of America, Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: United States of America v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al., to allow a one-time inspection of ICRC records from visits to Guantanamo Bay. The ICRC in turn asserted an “absolute right to non-disclosure of the ICRC's confidential information, including the right not to be compelled to testify in judicial proceedings”. Ultimately the court ruled to uphold the ICRC privilege of non-disclosure. However, one of the judges, issuing a separate opinion in the case, noted that he was not “persuaded that the ICRC's protection against disclosure was the absolute one which it asserted”, but that concluding on that issue was not necessary to resolve based on the facts of the case. United States of America, Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, United States of America v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al., Order on the Defense Motion to Compel Discovery in Support of Defense Motion for Appropriate Relief to Compel Defense Examination of Accused's Conditions of Confinement, AE 013BBB/108T, 6 November 2013, available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20170518131534/http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2013/11/06/16/25/16cpHS.So.56.pdf.

40 ICRC, The Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement: In Brief, Geneva, August 2015, available at: www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/topic/file_plus_list/4046-the_fundamental_principles_of_the_international_red_cross_and_red_crescent_movement.pdf.

41 Ximena Londoño and Helen Obregón Gieseken, “Sustaining the Momentum: Working to Prevent and Address Enforced Disappearances”, Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog, 26 August 2022, available at: https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2021/08/26/sustaining-momentum-enforced-disappearances/.

42 ICRC, above note 40.

43 ICRC, “Confidentiality Q&A”, above note 38. See, also, ICRC, “The International Committee of the Red Cross's (ICRC's) Confidential Approach”, above note 38.

44 ICRC, “Confidentiality Q&A”, ibid.

45 Elem Khairullin, “5 Things That Make ICRC Confidential Information Unsuitable for Legal Proceedings”, Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog, 31 January 2019, available at: https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2019/01/31/5-things-make-icrc-confidential-information-unsuitable-legal-proceedings/, noting that the “operational consequences of disclosure of ICRC confidential information – which includes safety and security of ICRC staff and beneficiaries – outweigh the immediate interest in disclosing such information”.

46 ICRC, “Guantanamo Bay: The Work Continues”, 18 July 2003, available at: www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/update/5g2gt7.htm.

47 Ibid.

48 For example, in August 1992 the ICRC denounced the detention and inhumane treatment of innocent civilians in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in September 1998 issued a public statement related to the Kosovo crisis, drawing attention to the plight of the civilian population. See Kellenberger, Jakob, “Speaking Out or Remaining Silent in Humanitarian Work”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 86, No. 855, 2004, pp. 599–600Google Scholar.

49 ICRC, “Memorandum: The ICRC's Privilege of Non-Disclosure of Confidential Information”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 97, No. 897/898, 2016, available at: https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irc_97_1-2-18.pdf.

50 The UN derives its privileges and immunities from the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of 1946, and bilateral agreements with States. See note 54.

51 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, The Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simić et al., above note 39.

52 International Criminal Court (ICC), Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, First Session, New York, 3–10 September 2002 (ICC-ASP/1/3 and Corr.1), Part II.A, Rule 73(4)–(6).

53 ICRC, above note 49, p. 439.

54 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 February 1946 (entered into force 17 September 1946), specifying the forms of privileges and immunities that apply to representatives of members to the principal and subsidiary organs to the United Nations (Art. IV); UN Officials (Art. V); and experts on mission for the UN (Art. VI). The UN has created a mechanism for cooperation with judicial organs such as the ICC, whereby requests for UN staff to testify are considered by the Office of Legal Affairs, and “the Secretary-General is under an obligation to waive the immunity of United Nations personnel when the immunity would impede the course of justice and can be waived without prejudice to the interests of the Organization”. See UN, Best Practices Manual for United Nations – International Criminal Court Cooperation Pursuant to The Relationship Agreement Between the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, 26 September 2016, p. 22, available at: https://legal.un.org/ola/media/UN-ICC_Cooperation/Best%20Practice%20Guidance%20for%20UN-ICC%20cooperation%20-public.docx.pdf.

55 See, for example, Preliminary Report of the Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in the Central African Republic, Marie-Thérèse Keita Bocoum, UN Doc. A/HRC/26/53, 30 May 2014; Amnesty International, “Central African Republic: Time for Accountability”, 10 July 2014, available at: www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr19/006/2014/en/; UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA), Violations and Abuses of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Committed in Bangui, Central African Republic, Between 26 September and 20 October 2015, Bangui, 2016, available at: https://minusca.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/bangui_report_final._english.pdf.

56 ICRC, “Central African Republic: ‘We're Passionately Humanitarian’”, 22 April 2014, available at: www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/interview/2014/04-22-central-african-republic-red-cross-volunteers.htm; Kim Lewis, “Red Cross: Death Toll Mounts in Central African Republic's North”, VOA Africa, 20 January 2014, available at: www.voanews.com/a/car-violence-bangui-icrc-flee-dead-injuries-hospital-machete-people/1833898.html; ICRC, “Health Care One of the First Casualties of the Conflict”, 26 August 2014, available at: www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/article/health-care-in-danger/2014-08/hcid-field-focus.htm, noting that: “The 250 Red Cross volunteers are often among the last health-care workers to come back in off the streets, where they evacuate and care for the wounded, recover dead bodies and take them to the morgue for burial.”

57 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report of the Mapping Project Documenting Serious Violations of International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law Committed Within the Territory of Central African Republic Between January 2003 and December 2015, Bangui/Geneva, 30 May 2017, available at: www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/CF/Mapping2003-2015/2017CAR_Mapping_Report_EN.pdf.

58 Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic, “Major Step Forward for Justice as Experts Exhume and Investigate Mass Grave in the Central African Republic”, New York, 12 December 2017, available at: https://web.law.columbia.edu/human-rights-institute/news/Central-African-Republic-Boali-Investigation.

59 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, 17 July 1998 (entered into force 1 July 2002), Arts 6, 7(1)(a), 8(2)(a)(i), 8(2)(b)(xxi) and 8(2)(c)(ii).

60 ICC, Elements of Crimes, The Hague, 2008, p. 33, footnote 57, available at: www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/iccdocs/PIDS/docs/ElementsOfCrimesEng.pdf.

61 Paul Seils, Handbook on Complementarity: An Introduction to the Role of National Courts and the ICC in Prosecuting International Crimes, International Center for Transitional Justice, New York, 2016, available at: www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ_Handbook_ICC_Complementarity_2016.pdf. For an overview of relevant documents on complementarity, see ICC, “Complementarity”, available at: https://asp.icc-cpi.int/complementarity.

62 As at September 2022.

63 ICC, “Preliminary Investigations”, available at: www.icc-cpi.int/situations-preliminary-examinations.

64 See, generally, Howard Varney and Katarzyna Zduńczyk, Advancing Global Accountability: The Role of Universal Jurisdiction in Prosecuting International Crimes, International Center for Transitional Justice, New York, December 2020, available at: www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ_Report_Universal_Jurisdiction.pdf.

65 See, for example, Anne Marie La-Rosa, “ICRC and ICC: Two Separate but Complementary Approaches to Ensuring Respect for International Humanitarian Law”, ICRC, 3 March 2009, available at: www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/interview/international-criminal-court-interview-101008.htm, noting that: “The work of the ICC and that of the ICRC constitute alternative approaches to preventing IHL violations, approaches we see as complementary. While the ultimate objectives are similar, the tools are quite different. The ICC prosecutes and sanctions, whereas the ICRC promotes respect for IHL through confidential dialogue and persuasion.”

66 This challenge was highlighted by Eric Stover and Rachel Shigekane twenty years ago, and the tensions remain relevant. See Stover, Eric and Shigekane, Rachel, “The Missing in the Aftermath of War: When do the Needs of Victims’ Families and International War Crimes Tribunals Clash?”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 84, No. 848, 2002Google Scholar. Additionally, a recent article explores the possibilities of finding “a middle ground” between international humanitarian aid organizations and international justice goals. See Craggs, Sarah, Deguzman, Tiffany, Dyson, Ivey, von Nagy, Helena, Rosenbower, Bryce and Stover, Eric, “Finding a Middle Ground? International Humanitarian Aid Organizations, Information Sharing, and the Pursuit of International Justice”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2022CrossRefGoogle Scholar, noting that international humanitarian organizations often collect personal and sensitive information that may be of interest and serve international criminal-justice institutions, and exploring “four issues that affect information sharing between humanitarian organizations and international justice institutions: (1) the right to privacy and justice; (2) mandate requirements; (3) policy requirements; and (4) organizational culture”.

67 Rome Statute, above note 59, Art. 6.

68 Ibid., Art. 7(1).

69 States have an obligation to uphold international humanitarian and human rights law and investigate, prosecute and punish individuals at all levels who have committed violations that rise to the level of a crime. However, in practice following a major conflict or mass crime it is often extremely difficult, if not impossible, to provide carceral punishment to all those involved, and there may be other goals of reconciliation or social cohesion that may lead States to consider alternative approaches. The field of transitional justice has evolved to address such situations of mass conflict, and in situations of a non-international armed conflict, Article 6(5) of the Second Additional Protocol provides that “at the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavour to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in armed conflict, of those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict”. Note, this amnesty excludes persons suspected or accused of war crimes; see J.-M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, above note 6, Rule 159. It is beyond the scope of this article to have a full discussion of the relationship between amnesties and ICL, but it remains a vibrant and dynamic area of study.

70 In addition to the ICC (whose jurisdiction is binding upon parties that have ratified the Rome Statute), following specific conflicts, some States create hybrid courts, many of which also only have jurisdiction to try those more responsible. National criminal courts generally have the authority to investigate and prosecute those involved in the commission of international crimes – and the role of national prosecuting bodies is discussed below. See, also, H. Varney and K. Zduńczyk, above note 64, for a summary of universal jurisdiction.

71 Additionally, there are complications in practice in advancing the search for missing persons, persons presumed dead, and persons who are deceased but for whom the identity of their body is not known. Creating a holistic strategy formed around the search for the missing individual (whether presumed dead or alive) is extremely important, but beyond the scope of this article. See M. Salado Puerto et al., above note 29.

72 See, generally, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), New York/Geneva, 2017, available at: www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/MinnesotaProtocol.pdf. The obligation to search for and return the remains of missing and forcibly disappeared persons to their families in international human rights law “has been incrementally recognized and developed by different courts”. Baranowska, Grażyna, “Advances and Progress in the Obligation to Return the Remains of Missing and Forcibly Disappeared Persons”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 99, No. 2, 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 A.-M. La Rosa, above note 65, noting that: “The work of the ICC and that of the ICRC constitute alternative approaches to preventing IHL violations, approaches we see as complementary. While the ultimate objectives are similar, the tools are quite different. The ICC prosecutes and sanctions, whereas the ICRC promotes respect for IHL through confidential dialogue and persuasion.”

74 Ibid.

75 See, generally, Teitel, Ruti G., Transitional Justice, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000Google Scholar; Teitel, Ruti G., “Transitional Justice Genealogies”, Harvard Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2003Google Scholar; Arthur, Paige, “How ‘Transitions’ Reshaped Human Rights: A Conceptual History of Transitional Justice”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 See Truth, Coexistence and Non-Repetition Commission, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) and the Unit for the Search for Persons Presumed Disappeared in the context and by reason of the armed conflict (UBPD), Comprehensive System of Truth, Justice, Reparation, and Non-Repetition (SIVJRNR), 2019, available at: www.jep.gov.co/DocumentosJEPWP/4SIVJRNR_EN.pdf; Institute for Integrated Transitions, The Colombian Peace Talks: Practical Lessons for Negotiators Worldwide, September 2018, available at: https://ifit-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-Colombian-Peace-Talks-Practical-Lessons-for-Negotiators-Worldwide.pdf.

77 Andrés Morales, “The Rocky Road to Peace II: Additional Challenges at the Special Jurisdiction for Peace in Colombia”, EJIL:Talk!, 12 May 2022, available at: www.ejiltalk.org/the-rocky-road-to-peace-ii-additional-challenges-at-the-special-jurisdiction-for-peace-in-colombia/; VerdadAbierta.com, “Search Unit Still Does Not Fill the Disappearance Gap”, 16 November 2021, available at: https://tortuoso-camino-implementacion.verdadabierta.com/en/search-unit-still-does-not-fill-disappearance-gap/.

78 For example, in April 2022 eleven persons, including a military general, nine other military officials, and a civilian admitted before the Special Jurisdiction for Peace to committing war crimes and crimes against humanity as part of the killings of at least 120 civilians. See Julie Turkewitz and Sofia Villamil, “Colombian General and 10 Others Admit to Crimes Against Humanity,” New York Times, 27 April 2022, available at: www.nytimes.com/2022/04/27/world/americas/colombia-war-crimes.html.

79 Robert Mardini, “Transitional Justice: States Should Include Issue of Missing Persons and their Families in the Process. Statement to the UN Security Council Open Debate on Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace: Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Situations”, ICRC, 13 February 2020, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/transitional-justice-states-should-include-issue-missing-persons-and-their-families-process.