585th Meeting, 31st Session, Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED)

Excellencies, Committee members, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome you to the 585th meeting of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances. And again, I welcome very warmly the delegation of Belize, headed by Ambassador Young, which and the delegation here in Geneva, but also those connected from Belize. And we will proceed this afternoon in the same order as we did yesterday. And today we will resume the Committee's dialogue with Belize, focusing our exchanges on Article 16 to 25 of the Convention. And now we will start with giving the floor to as rapporteurs in the committee for 40 minutes for them to raise questions on these articles, starting with the country rapporteurs. And of course, if other members have additional questions, please indicate with your sign when you want to speak. So who is starting this time? Now, started by Madam Maria Definis, please.

Your Excellency, distinguished members of delegation, I welcome you to the continuation of our dialogue, and I trust and believe that today's exchange will be just as open, fruitful, and constructive as yesterday's session. And now I will proceed with questions related to Article 16 through 22 of the Convention which correspond to paragraphs 19 through 23 of the list of issues and your subsequent reply. So regarding reply to paragraph 19, which is on principle of non-refoulement and independence of the asylum appeal process, Paragraph 23, 23, 93, sorry, notes that individuals whose refugee status is denied can appeal directly to the minister. Given that international human rights standards require appeal mechanisms regarding non-refoulement to be handled by an independent and impartial judicial body, How does Belize ensure that the Minister's review remains strictly objective and free from political or diplomatic considerations? Are there plans to transition this appealed power to an independent tribunal? While paragraph 92 highlights that the risk of enforced disappearances is evaluated during asylum assessments, the term itself does not appear in the Refugees Act. Will the upcoming legislation to domesticate the Convention explicitly amend the Refugees Act or Immigration Law, laws to establish a statutory absolute prohibition on expelling or extraditing any person where there are substantial grounds to believe they risk being subjected to enforced disappearance. Regarding the reply to paragraph 20, while paragraph 97 mentions entries made in local station diaries, Article 17 of the Convention mandates the maintenance of official, centralized, and systematically updated registers of all persons deprived of liberty. Could you please clarify, does Belize currently possess a centralized digital database accessible across all jurisdictions, or does it rely solely on isolated manual logs at individual police stations? Does domestic legislation explicitly guarantee the right of family members, legal counsel or any person with a legitimate interest to directly request and immediately receive information regarding a person's detention status, place of custody and transfer history, as strictly required by Article 18 of the CED? What are the penalties for state officials who refuse to provide this information? The visiting justice program mentioned in paragraph 95 appears restricted to the Belize Central Prison, Kolb Foundation. Are there equivalent independent and unannounced inspection mechanisms operating countrywide across all local police detention cells and temporary holding facilities where the risk of initial unacknowledged detention is highest. To ensure accountability, are the findings and reports compiled by the Visiting Justice and the Ombudsman regarding detention conditions made publicly available or are they exclusively shared with the superintendent and the minister? Regarding reply to paragraph 21, the detailed custody record procedures are currently housed within the Belize Police Department policies and procedures manual. Since the manual is an internal administrative guidance document rather than codified statutory law, what are the specific criminal penalties for an officer who failed to create or accurately maintain a custody record? Will these record-keeping mandates be elevated to binding national legislation during upcoming domestication of CEDAW. To fully comply with Article 17 of the Convention, does the current custody record form explicitly mandate the entry of: a) the identity of the judicial authority that ordered or reviewed the detention; B, comprehensive data on the detainee's physical and mental health status upon admission and transfer; and C, the precise date and time when the family or legal counsel was officially notified. Paragraph 100 states that custody records are kept for only up to six years after detention. Given that enforced disappearance is a continuous crime that may take decades to uncover and investigate, does the government acknowledge that destroying official custody logs after six years risk arising vital material evidence? Are there plans to permanently preserve or significantly extend the retention period for all deprivation of liberty records? Regarding the reply to paragraph 22, paragraph 102 states that filing of habeas corpus application must be done by an attorney at law. Given that many families of disappeared persons or vulnerable migrants may lack the financial resources to immediately retain legal counsel, Does the government acknowledge that this mandatory requirement creates a severe economic barrier to an essential lifesaving remedy? Please, could you tell us, are there plans to allow individuals, families, or human rights organizations to fill emergency petitions directly without legal representation? The text admits that Belize currently possesses no specific mechanism to impose sanctions for delay or obstruction of legal remedies. To comply with Article 22 of the Convention, will the upcoming legislation introduce strict criminal and disciplinary penalties for any state official who delays, obstructs, or fails to provide the required records and information during a habeas corpus or redressing proceeding. While the text notes that applications are heard within a few days, this timeline can be fatal in cases of suspected enforced disappearances. Will the new domesticated framework establish a strict statutory mandate compelling courts to review and rule on habeas corpus application within a maximum 24-hour window from filing? Regarding reply to paragraph 23, Paragraph 103 specifies that legal counsel or family members must write to the office of the Commissioner of Police to request information listed under Article 18 of the Convention. Given that writing to the highest police authority involves significant bureaucratic delays, What mechanisms ensure that families and lawyers can obtain this life-saving information immediately and directly at the localised point of the detention without undergoing a centralised administrative process? The text does not provide a definitive timeframe for the Commissioner of Police to reply to such information requests. Will the upcoming legislation introduce a strict statutory mandate compelling the police authorities to respond to requests under Article 18 within a mandatory window of few hours and establish criminal liability for non-compliance or failure to reply? And this is my last question for now, so thank you in advance for your answers and clarifications.

Good afternoon again to the distinguished delegation of the State of Belize. I would now present some questions that have to do with Articles 23 to 25 of the Convention. I'll start with the issue of training under Article 23. The Committee appreciates the human rights training already provided to police officers and other security personnel, judges and other public officials. But the state party in the replies acknowledged that such training has so far included neither enforced disappearances specifically nor the convention. Actually yesterday in some of the responses, the state confirmed this. So could please the delegation indicate whether a concrete program is being developed to remedy this gap? And if so, which timetable do you manage for the implementation of such program? Also, will such training be mandatory and recurrent both at the pre-service and in-service levels and cover all persons referred to in Article 23, I mean, police and military personnel, immigration officials, prison personnel, medical personnel, prosecutors, judges, and other public officials who may be involved in the custody or treatment of persons deprived of liberty. We would also appreciate information on whether the training will be specifically addressing The absolute prohibition of enforced disappearances, the duty to disobey manifestly unlawful orders, the immediate registration of all persons deprived of liberty and the minimum information that should be included in such registration, the distinction between search and criminal investigation, the rights of victims and the particular risks affecting migrants, children, women, girls. Further, has Belize already requested or received technical assistance from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights capacity building team or other instances of the UN or regional organizations for the specialized treatment programs that the State mentions in paragraph 106 of the replies. Now, coming to Article 24, I would like to start with the definition of victim, which is fundamental for the effective implementation of the whole Convention, but in particular of Article 24, which refers to the rights of victims. In response to paragraph 25 of the list of issues, the State party explained that there is no domestic legislation on enforced disappearances and refers instead to constitutional rights and judicial remedies. And yesterday, in several of the responses that we received from the delegation, this was also confirmed. But the reply does not identify a legal domestic definition of victim. And we wanted to ask whether there is a domestic definition of victim and if that definition is in accordance with Article 24.1 of the Convention. And the definition basically states that the victim is not only the disappeared person, but also any other person who might have suffered any direct consequence or harm as a result of an enforced disappearance. For instance, Could a partner who is not legally married to the disappeared person or a sibling or a child or another dependent person, any person, who can demonstrate direct harm as a consequence of the disappearance be recognized as a victim in his or her own right? Does recognition as a victim depend in any way on the filing of a criminal complaint? the identification or conviction of a perpetrator, or a formal determination that an enforced disappearance has taken place? If domestic legislation in Belize does not contain currently such a definition of victim, will the forthcoming legislation that the delegation announced yesterday that will probably start its process in June 2027, incorporate a definition of victim in terms of the definition of Article 24, paragraph 1 of the Convention. Now, Article 24 of the Convention also recognizes the right of victims to know the truth regarding the circumstances of the disappearance, the progress of the investigations and the search processes and the results of such processes. Is the right to truth expressly recognized in domestic legislation? And if not, through what legal mechanisms could victims of enforced disappearance make this right a reality in practice? The State party indicated in the replies that families are generally kept informed of developments. So we would like to know, are victims legally entitled to regular information and to participate effectively in the search and investigation processes? Or does the provision of information currently depend on the police practice or discretion of the authorities? Not necessarily the police, but the authorities' practice or discretion. Can the victims challenge decisions concerning the suspension, closure or direction of a search or investigation? Meaning that the participation extends to the possibility of questioning decisions that could imply closing those procedures. The Committee welcomes the fact that there is no waiting period before a missing person report can be filled, this is very good. It's not the same everywhere. But paragraph 115 of the reply states that depending on the circumstances, and I'm quoting the text of paragraph 115 of the replies, depending on the circumstances, the police may initiate search operations. And then paragraph 124 states that where a person remains missing and no new information is available, the investigation may be suspended. and reopened if new evidence appears. So the first question would be, when the state asserts in paragraph 115 of the replies, depending on the circumstances, to which circumstances does it refer? And then, will the state party amend its protocols so that the search is initiated ex officio and immediately whenever the authorities become aware of a disappearance, and that such search continues until the fate or whereabouts of the person who allegedly has been disappeared are established, rather than being suspended because no new leads are available. The third question that I would like to raise in this regard is, Does Belize distinguish operationally and institutionally between the search for the disappeared person and the criminal investigation into those responsible? Because these are correlated efforts, but different efforts. In many countries, actually they are managed by different agencies or branches of power. Could the delegation also provide updated information on the creation of the unified national register of missing persons announced in the replies, including a timetable for its establishment? Will that system be interoperable with detention, migration, human trafficking, forensic, and civil registration databases? And will it allow for the systematic collection of ante-mortem perimortem and postmortem information and comparison with DNA from unidentified remains and relatives of allegedly disappeared persons. Yesterday, during the opening statement of Belize, the chief of delegation said that, and I'm quoting, "Belize does not maintain a dedicated national missing persons registry. Missing person reports are recorded within the Belize Police Department's broader crime information management system, with public notices issued and widely disseminated where appropriate. So could the state clarify what it means by public notices being issued and widely disseminated where appropriate? Who is the authority in charge of deciding that it is appropriate to issue and disseminate public notices on missing persons. What is the process for such determination, and what's the average duration of the process for such determination? At present, DNA samples from unidentified bodies are collected while comparative testing may have to be performed abroad, out of Belize. So, what arrangements ensure prompt testing, preservation of samples, chain of custody, and equal access to identification procedures, regardless of the financial situation of the family or the next of kin of the allegedly disappeared person? The State Party refers and referred yesterday during the first round of questions and the responses to constitutional remedies. We already addressed the reference to the George Herbert case as an illustration of recognizing the rights of victims, compensation, restitution, institutional measures, and so on. So I would like to ask, does domestic law currently recognize a right of victims of enforced disappearance, to comprehensive reparation encompassing the forms of reparation required by in Article 24, paragraph 5 of the Convention. This is restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction, including restoration of dignity and reputation, and warranties of non-repetition, in addition to monetary compensation, which of course is very important, but is not the only form of reparation for these cases. And further, who bears the legal obligation to provide those forms of reparation, and can victims obtain them independently of a criminal conviction or the identification of the individual perpetrator, or are the reparation decisions subjected to a prior determination of criminal responsibility, which is the case in many countries, by the way? The State Party also indicated in its replies that constitutional or civil claims are generally subjected to a 12-month limitation period, and yesterday this was also referred to during the presentation of the State. Although that period may not begin while conduct is continuing, as you explained also yesterday. But does Belize intend to expressly exclude or adapt the limitation periods for reparations to claims arising from enforced disappearance cases. Is the state considering maybe having a longer limitation period instead of the one year that currently is provided for in internal legislation? The state party indicated in the replies that after seven years and subject to certain evidentiary requirements, relatives may seek a judicial declaration of death. Is there any alternative? Is there any alternative legal mechanism that would allow relatives to regularize social, security, family, property, financial, and other legal matters without having to obtain a declaration of death. This is a big concern not with Belize, but in general for the committee. Would Belize consider creating a specific declaration of absence by reason of disappearance, which would preserve the legal personality of the disappeared person and would not require the family to presume that their loved one. According to paragraph 134 of the replies, after a declaration of death, whether the police investigation remains open depends on the emergence of new leads. So I would like to ask, could the delegation confirm that a declaration of death does not terminate either the state's obligation to search for and determine the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, or its obligation to investigate and establish responsibility? Will the upcoming domestic legislation, which will start being processed in June 2027, make this explicit? Regarding the gender perspective requested by the Committee, the State party refers to equality before the law, gender-neutral statutory language and the Interpretation Act under which words expressed in the masculine are also including the feminine. So what concrete measures are taken to identify and address the differentiated consequences that a disappearance may have for women and girls, including loss of income, obstacles to inheritance and property, responsibility for dependents, exposure to violence, difficulties in obtaining legal status or social benefits, and barriers to participation in search and investigation processes. How are these measures adapted to the particular situation of persons who may face intersecting forms of vulnerability? Beyond the general constitutional protection of freedom of association, what measures could the state take to ensure that associations of relatives and victims of alleged and forced disappearances can participate effectively in the design, implementation, and evaluation of policies concerning missing and disappeared persons, including the future national register and the prospective law reform or new law that will be processed since June 2027 without any sort of limitation and without fears of intimidation, reprisals and so on. And lastly, with regard to Article 15, the Committee appreciates the safeguards contained in domestic law concerning kidnapping, child protection and adoption. We do appreciate that. But Article 25 requires states to criminalize not only the groundful removal of children, but also the falsification, concealment, or destruction of documents attesting to the true identity of children subjected to enforced disappearance, children whose parents are subjected to enforced disappearance, or children born during the captivity of their mothers. Which provisions of Belizean law specifically and autonomously criminalize each of these conducts? If Belize currently relies on general rules concerning kidnapping, falsification, or aiding and abetting, will the legislation implementing the Convention, which is projected to start being processed in June 2027, create autonomous offenses capable of being prosecuted, even where the principal perpetrator of the original removal has not been identified, prosecuted, or remains alive. The State Party provides in its replies detailed information concerning safeguards governing adoption and inter-country adoption. However, the Committee's questions in the list of issues had to do to a somewhat different issue. Does domestic law establish a specific procedure to review and where appropriate, and know an adoption, a placement, guardianship that is subsequently shown to have originated in an enforced disappearance? And in such circumstances, what procedure exists to restore the child's true identity, including his or her name, nationality and family relations, while ensuring that the best interest and views of the child are given primary consideration. The Committee welcomes the National Child Protection Protocol for unaccompanied minors and the interagency platform concerning trafficking, which was part of the information provided for by the State in its replies. Could the delegation explain what procedure is triggered when an unaccompanied migrant child disappears after entering Belize or while under the supervision of immigration authorities, social or child protection authorities in Belize? Are all such children individually registered in a manner that makes it possible to trace transfers, changes in placement, and departure from the country? And are there immediate cross-border alert mechanisms with neighboring countries, especially considering the situation in Central America and the migratory movements towards the north in the continent? And finally, This is my last point. Both the Human Rights Committee and CIDA have previously raised concerns regarding access to birth registration, particularly in rural and indigenous communities in Belize. CIDA noted in 2025 that many Maya girls reportedly lack birth certificates. We would like to know what progress has been made towards universal and accessible birth registration, particularly in rural, indigenous, migrant and border communities, in order to safeguard children's identity and reduce their vulnerability to ground full removal, trafficking and disappearance. These are my initial questions on these articles 23 to 25 of the Convention. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, rapporteurs, for your question. And now we have time if colleagues from the committee would like to pose additional questions. Yes, Mr. Kanjuro, please.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Your Excellency and the delegation. I have one question. Picking one from what the last rapporteur said about registers and national registers and connecting it to what was said yesterday in one of the responses. Could you confirm that there is a process of developing a disaggregated register? I think that was mentioned yesterday and that's appreciated. But could you provide a little more detail to the committee? Because I think it indicated that this process is likely to come to a conclusion by the end of the year. So could you just provide a little more detail in terms of where the what is actually happening in terms of that process and whether indeed this is likely to be concluded by the end of the year. So it's just a little more detail, I think, yesterday. You didn't have time to elaborate, so perhaps you could elaborate on the process and provide a little more detail in terms of what is actually being done concretely with respect to developing a disaggregated national register. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kanyoro. Now, I see no further question from the side of the Committee, and then we will have a 15 minutes break. and meet again 10 minutes to 4. And also we leave the room so the delegation can coordinate the questions. Thank you. So then, I'm glad to see you back and to welcome you back to our 585th meeting of the Committee on Enforced Disappearance. And now I give the floor for 45 minutes to the head of delegation, Ambassador Young, and to the whole delegation in order to answer the questions being raised before the break. Please.

Thank you, Madam Chair, rapporteurs, distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for this constructive dialogue so far and for the opportunity to continue our discussions on Belize's implementation of this Convention. Belize recognizes the questions raised by the Committee to be insightful and helpful. We have taken careful note of them. particularly at this important stage in Belize's process of domesticating the Convention.

We consider this dialogue to be timely.

As it provides Belize with an opportunity to reflect on existing safeguards within our legal and institutional framework.

While also identifying areas where further strengthening may be required.

Belize will first speak, or I will first speak on four broad areas. First, safeguards against enforced disappearances in the context of removal, detention and deprivation of liberty. Second, mechanisms for accountability, judicial review and access to information. Third, the protection, search for and reparation of victims and their families. And fourth, finally, the particular safeguards applicable to children, including unaccompanied and migrant children and matters concerning inter-country adoption. With respect to article 16, Belize recognizes the fundamental importance of ensuring that no person is returned, expelled, surrendered, or extradited to a situation where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person may be at risk of enforced disappearance or other serious violations of fundamental rights. Belize's existing legal framework contains a number of safeguards relevant to this obligation. Our constitution protects fundamental rights and freedoms, including the protection of the right to life, personal liberty, and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment. These constitutional guarantees provide an important basis for challenging state action that would place an individual at serious risk. Our refugee framework also provides safeguards for against refoulement and establishes procedures through which claims for protection may be assessed and reviewed. These procedures include mechanisms for appeal where refugee protection is refused. Similarly, in matters of extradition and removal, decisions are subject to the applicable statutory and constitutional framework, and where appropriate, judicial scrutiny. Belief recognizes that the assessment of risk must be meaningful and individualized, and must take must take account of circumstances that could expose an individual to enforced disappearance. Turning to Article 17, Belize places particular importance on preventing any person from being held outside the protection of law. The Constitution provides fundamental safeguards concerning personal liberty and protection of the law. Persons who are arrested or detained are entitled to be informed of the reason for the detention and of their rights, including their right to communicate with an attorney or another person of their choice. The legal framework also places limits on a period for which a person may be detained without being brought before a court.

Where a person is not released within the prescribed period, judicial oversight is required.

These safeguards are complemented by operational procedures within the Belize Police Force Department governing arrest, detention, and the treatment of persons in custody. The Department maintains detention records and requires relevant information concerning a person's custody to be documented. Belize also recognizes the importance of independent oversight of places where persons are deprived of liberty. Inspection mechanisms involving judicial officers, justices of the peace, and ombudsmen provide additional avenues through which the conditions and treatment of persons in detention may be examined and complaints may be raised. The Government also recognizes that the prevention of enforced disappearance cannot depend solely upon legislation. It requires accurate records, effective supervision, independent oversight and a culture within law enforcement and custodial institutions that places respect for human rights at the center of the exercise of the state's authority. In relation to Article 18, the lease recognizes that access to information concerning a person's deprivation of liberty is an essential safeguard against disappearance. The existing framework permits detainees to communicate with their attorney and subject to the applicable arrangements with family members. There are also mechanisms through which attorneys or family members may seek information concerning detention of a person. The maintenance of custody and detention records is particularly important in this regard. These records create an official trail of a person's arrest, detention, transfer, and release, and provide an important means of accountability. With respect to Articles 20 and 22, Belize also addresses the remedies available to challenge unlawful detention and the safeguards against interference with those remedies. The Constitution provides for redress where fundamental rights have been, are being, or are likely to be violated. In addition, habeas corpus provides a judicial mechanism through which the legality of detention may be challenged. These remedies are important because the protection against enforced disappearance must be practical and effective. A legal right is meaningful only where a person or another person acting on his or her behalf can invoke that right promptly before an independent authority. Belize recognizes that the importance of ensuring that access to judicial remedies is not frustrated by delay, obstruction, or a failure to maintain accurate information concerning a person's whereabouts. Turning to Article 23, Belize recognizes the central role of training.

Human rights principles form part of the training provided to law enforcement personnel, including recruits.

Officers are instructed concerning the rights of persons in custody and the legal requirements governing arrest, detention and treatment. At the same time, Belize acknowledges that there is scope to further strengthen specialized training, specifically addressing enforcement disappearance and the Convention. The domestication process provides an appropriate opportunity to develop dedicated training for police officers and other law enforcement personnel, as well as prosecutors, judges, lawyers, correctional officers, immigration officers, medical personnel, and others who may be involved in the custody or treatment of persons deprived of liberty. Belize sees such training not merely as a legal requirement, but as a preventative measure. The objective is to ensure that every person exercises Every person exercising authority over an individual deprived of liberty understands both the legal obligation and the practical consequences of failing to account for that person's whereabouts and treatment. Madam Chair, turning to Article 24, Belize recognizes that enforced disappearance affects not only the person who disappears, but also relatives and other persons who suffer harm as a consequence of the disappearance. legal framework provides avenues for constitutional redress and compensation where fundamental rights have been violated. However, Belize recognizes the importance of ensuring that the specific concept of victim under the Convention, together with the full range of forms of reparation contemplated by Article 24, is clearly reflected in domestic law. The search for missing persons is another critical component of prevention and protection. Belize's existing police procedures allow a person to be reported missing without a mandatory waiting period. Information concerning the missing person is collected and investigative measures are initiated according to the circumstances of the case. Where there are indications of criminality, the matter may be escalated for a criminal investigation with the involvement of the relevant investigative and forensic authorities. Particular attention is given to children and other persons who may be especially vulnerable to trafficking, exploitation, and other forms of harm. These recognizes, however, the importance of continuing to strengthen the systematic collection and preservation of anti-mortem information and the country's forensic and DNA capabilities. These are areas in which further development can significantly enhance the capacity to identify persons who are missing or unidentified and to provide answers to their families. The legal situation of persons whose whereabouts remain unknown and the position of their families is also an important consideration. Belize's legal framework provides mechanisms for dealing with matters such as property and estate administration, where.

A person has been absent for a prolonged period.

At the same time, such legal mechanisms must not be understood as bringing an investigation into a disappearance to an end where information concerning the person's fate remains unresolved.

Belize also recognizes the importance of ensuring that families and civil society organizations can.

Freely advocate for missing persons, support affected families, and seek accountability. Constitutional protections concerning freedom of expression, assembly, and association provide an important foundation for this participation. Finally, with respect to Article 25, Belize recognizes the particular vulnerability of children to enforced disappearance and the heightened risks associated with trafficking, migration, unlawful removal, and illegal adoption. Belize's criminal law contains offenses addressing unlawful taking, detention, and removal of persons, including specific protections relating to children. These provisions provide a basis for investigating and prosecuting conduct involving unlawful removal or concealment of children. In addition, Belize has established mechanisms for the protection of children who may be particularly vulnerable, including unaccompanied and migrant children. The National Child Protection Framework promotes identification, referral, and access to appropriate protection services and facilitates cooperation among law enforcement, immigration, social services, and other relevant authorities. The protection of unaccompanied minors is particularly important because the absence of family members or established support networks can increase the risk of trafficking, exploitation and disappearance. Proper identification, documentation, information sharing are therefore essential. Belize will also address the safeguards governing adoption and inter-country adoption. These include judicial oversight, assessment of prospective adoptive parents, requirements concerning consent, and safeguards relating to international placements.

These measures are intended to ensure.

That the adoption is conducted in accordance with the best interests of the child and that children are not unlawfully removed or placed beyond the reach of their families and the protection of law. Madam Chair, distinguished members of the committee, Belize approaches this dialogue in a spirit of cooperation and continuous improvement. We recognize that the prevention of enforced disappearance requires more than the existence of individual provisions. It requires a comprehensive system in which arrest and detention are lawful and recorded, where persons deprived of liberty remain accessible to the courts, lawyers and appropriate oversight bodies, where families can obtain information, where allegations are promptly investigated, where victims have access to effective remedies and reparation, and where children receive heightened protection against removal, trafficking, and disappearance. Belize is also conscious that the process of domesticating the Convention presents an important opportunity to bring these safeguards together within a clearer and more comprehensive national framework.

Our objective, therefore.

Our objective is therefore not simply to demonstrate what protections presently exist, but to identify where those protections can be strengthened, clarified, and made more accessible in practice. Madam Chair, distinguished members of the committee, thank you. Chair, with your permission, I now defer to other members of our delegation who will address these matters in greater detail and respond to specific questions raised by the committee. I first, we're going to, I'm going to first hand over to our delegation, the section of delegation in capital in Belize, and I invite Ambassador Borland from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to make the first presentation. Ambassador Borland.

Thank you, Ambassador, and good morning from Belize. It's the early part of our day. So, first, I wanted to just refer back to a question that we missed yesterday concerning mutual legal assistance and in that context, the definition of public interest. And we wanted to share with the Committee...

Excuse me. I think there is a possibility that we would also see you when you are speaking. And I think the technicians are figuring out if this is possible. Can I have a sign? Okay, thank you, thank you. So now we see you, welcome again. Please continue.

Sure, thank you very much. So this response is in relation to a question yesterday on the definition of public interest in the context of mutual legal assistance. And in our case, there is no legislative definition of public interest. Common law definition is relied on in Belize. And since the enactment of the Mutual Legal Assistance Act in 2014, that provision has never been invoked. However, it's important to mention that section 10.1 of the Mutual Legal Assistance Act provides for discretionary action and the state of Belize is mindful of its international obligation when exercising such jurisdiction, such discretion, sorry. And in relation to the question earlier on the appeals process in the context of asylum applications and the current situation where appeals are forwarded to the minister with responsibility for immigration. So the current practice that prevails is that an applicant whose application is refused by the Refugee Eligibility Committee may appeal to the minister within 14 days and the minister may confirm or set aside the decision of the committee. And the minister's decision as it stands now is final. However, a legislative process is underway to review the Refugee Act. And the proposal is that the Refugee Eligibility Committee would become the decision maker in the first instance. And there would be an appeal period for 14 to 30 days The Minister would be the first level of appeal, and he would have to take the advice of the Ministry's legal officer into account in his decision-making. Most importantly, a new part of the proposed amendments would allow for an applicant to appeal the Minister's decision to the High Court within 30 days. And so these new amendments introduce an independent judicial oversight and would represent a significant change from the current system where the minister's decision is final. So, thank you, but those were the two questions from my side that we wanted to respond to. Thank you, Ambassador.

Thank you, Ambassador Borland. I now turn it over to Ms. Juana Murillo, who is part of the, who leads the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Council for her input. Ms. Murillo.

Good afternoon everyone in Geneva, thank you for the time ambassador. Um, with regards to human trafficking, we wanted to add some statistics to clarify some of the work that we've been doing and ensuring that there's transparency investigations. and determining if there are any other factors involved with trafficking cases. As we understand that when a case comes up as human trafficking, there might be other associated crimes involved, potentially issues of missing persons. With regards to training, so that we can ensure that our public officials are equipped. Since 2023, we have successfully trained almost 1,000 police officers. And we've trained almost 200 persons from the Belize Coast Guard and the Belize Defense Force. We find it important to train persons from the enforcement agencies because sometimes they are at the border points, they are in the forest where these persons might be coming in. And we think it's important that they're able to identify vulnerable persons, especially accompanied and unaccompanied migrant children. And so within these trainings, we also train them on the protocol for accompanied and unaccompanied migrant children. And we ensure to train them on what trauma could look like and how to ensure to address it and properly refer it to the police. department, the Belize Police Department, and eventually, of course, to protection services within the government of Belize. We've also ensured to train our judiciary. This June, this July, sorry that went, we were able to successfully train 53 persons, which include senior court officers, high court officers, sorry, the the judges, magistrates, and persons from child protection and child justice committee. It was a successful training, and we believe that not just on trafficking, but we also trained on diversion and other aspects that involve the protection of children. And we believe that with this improved capacity, that they would then be able to identify potential indicators of other issues regarding cases that come before them in the courts. Moving over to present on data regarding victims. Since 2021, between 2021 and August of 2026 this year, We have currently 20 active cases. This means over the course of the years, there have been cases that have been determined to not be trafficking. They've gone to arrest, convictions, but cases that we're still currently investigating from those that period is a total of 20. And within that, most of our victims are girls. 15 of them are girls, two men, two women, and one boy as it relates to arrests. From 2021, we've had 20 persons arrested since 2021 for trafficking in persons. Most of them men, but we do have 40% of those persons arrested being women and with regards to convictions. We've had nine convictions since 2021, and we're hoping that we can continue on an upward trend to identifying persons that are involved in the exploitation of human beings and ensuring that we administer justice appropriately. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And finally, we move to Ms. Melissa Rodriguez from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who will make her contribution. Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez.

Thank you, Ambassador. I believe Ms. Poland had already responded to the issue on the asylum. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Before we go, I just like to have the honor and to also acknowledge the presence and the hard work of Cindy Novello, who you also saw at the table, and also Ms. Dawn Mitchell from Minister of Home Affairs. Ms. Novello is from Foreign Affairs, and Ms. Mitchell is from Home Affairs. I want to thank them also. Thank you, Chair. And now I'll also, then I'll turn over to the delegation here and start off with Mr. Jones, who will start off the contribution for this section.

Good afternoon, chair and distinguished members of the committee. Just to add in relation to custody records, the commissioner's guidelines for the treatment of persons in custody. Uh which mandates the every while it says the commissioner's guidelines, it applies to the police department, the Belize Coast Guard, the the customs, immigration and other agencies that have the power to arrest or detain persons, they must follow the guidelines. These guidelines include ensuring that the person's rights are read to them, or they are informed of their rights, which includes, based on our constitution, the true reason for the arrest or detention. and person must be informed within 24 hours and 24 hours being a limitation, which for whatever reason the person being maybe suffering from some mental that affects his understanding of what is happening, that is a limitation within 24 hours he must be informed. But the constitution says immediately or in the case no later than 24, the two reasons for your arrest or detention. If the person is charged with an offense, he must be taken to the court or sorry, he must be if he's detained, sorry, a detention of a person must be on reasonable suspicion of about him about to commit an offense or having committed an offense. Otherwise, and that a detention would then be unlawful. If he's lawfully detained, he must be charged with an offense within 48 hours or he must be released. And when I say he or she must be released if he has not charged within 48 hours, anything above 48 hours then will be an unlawful detention. Just to clarify. And for the custody records must be based on the guidelines. A custody record must be served on that person upon his release from custody. So he must be really, whether he's taken to court or he's released, he must be given a copy of his custody records. And the custody records includes, um, whenever he's, it should include all his movements taken out of the cell, whether he's interviewed by the detectives or whether he's taken for medical attention or whatever the case may be, must be documented in the custody record. His he must be made to sign an acknowledgement form, the acknowledgement form that he has been, is a testimony that he has been, he has been read his rights, he has been informed of his rights, his right to his attorney, and all those that were covered by Ambassador in his opening that, so he's also provided with a copy of that acknowledgement form, which is also kept on file. The question was raised, where on the application of the written application of the Commissioner for a copy of these records, it is you would the attorney would write to the Commissioner where, for example, the person would have lost the copy of his custody record that was given to him. And so he wants a copy. So he written to the Commissioner for that. The usually the turnaround time is very short in relation to that because while it did, while those letters are addressed to the Commissioner, the documents actually goes directly to the legal office, who then ensures that those are provided in a timely manner. And that is treated with great urgency. I see that. And personally, as a person responsible for legal affairs, I know that it is done. So I give that it is done. The other thing I think is important to inform the committee is that We have in Belize one central prison. In the region, in the different policing regions, there are police stations with detention facilities, which as I indicated earlier, no more than 48 hours that a person should be in those facilities. The only beyond 48 hours that the person is in custody, it has to be then that he has gone to court and he has been remanded and he was not given granted bail at his arraignment, that he has been remanded to the one central prison. So that is the one facility that we have, which may be a good or a bad thing, but the purpose, so it's easier to monitor. In relation to the visiting justices then, that they then do the visits and inspections of that one facility where persons are kept, whether pretrial detention or on conviction. To clarify in relation to the training, our ongoing engagement with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the country advisor, Dr. Coombs, we've we and we are looking at other training to enhance the current human rights training that we are providing we recognize that and enforce the disappearance is is not in there and so that will that will be our curriculum is being amended so that it is ready for instructions when the new recruits go in towards the end of October early November when their training starts so this they will be the first cohorts of that That revised curriculum will also be firm part of our in-service training program. The previous commissioner had given us standard instructions, which remains that human rights blocks of instructions must be included every year within the in-service training program. that officers must take if they are to qualify for increment in their in their salaries.

The.

Widely focused here is primarily on the Belize Police Department because the police department in Belize is the one agency that has the authority to in respect to investigation and detention for criminal offences. So it will be the agency that would most likely to in relation to the detention of of of persons. However, the Coast Guard and the Belize Defense Force. Um and immigration as part of their initial training also includes training on the commissioner's guidelines in respect to persons in custody. The high court have made pronouncements in criminal matters that the commissioner's guidelines because it falls under or was enacted or under the Supreme Court of Judicial Act, it then becomes a subsidiary legislation that must be followed. So it is not a discretionary policy that officers follow with certain level of discretion. So that is, I need to clarify that again. The clarification in respect to the data and the data. We recognize the gaps that we have. By the end of this year, persons are in capital looking at trying to disaggregate the data that we currently have and to ensure that it is kept in a manner that would satisfy the provisions of the convention. We hope to have that up and running by the end of this year, that we'd have that data then collected and stored in that. While not a full registry, but where we could at least in a few minutes with a few search words, be able to produce the necessary information as may be required from time to time. It is kept, that will be kept and maintained as the data currently kept and maintained, by our Crime Fusion Center which is the another our the main statistical department of the Belize Police Department. The police police department is the sole investigative agency where it comes to the report of of missing persons. As was highlighted to us yesterday, we recognized that we have to make the distinction between persons who are missing in times of emergencies. And so those were highlighted. We took the notes and the necessary adjustments will be made in terms of the storage of information. Now, the policy and the question was asked in terms of the breach of policy and whether it is that what sanctions for any breach. Now the missing person policy is within the police department policy and procedures manual. And in the police act, there is a provision which says that any breach of department's policy is a grave offense against discipline for which the police officers or police officer or officers who breach that policy is subject to dismissal. So, if he's found liable, can be subject to dismissal. So, that that is there in terms of sanctions for breach in relation to to this. I, the, we have incidentally, as a matter of, of practice to show that yesterday, in, in Belize time, 10 o'clock, around 10 AM, a person was reported missing. And within three hours, the photograph was already circulated to the media, just to give a practical example as to how seriously we take the issues of missing person. As I said, we recognize that we need to make the distinctions, and those will be met. Those are my submissions, Ambassador.

Thank you, Mr. Jones. And now I'll hand it off to Ms. Smith. Thank you, Ms. Smith.

To Ambassador and good afternoon. Chair and distinguished members of the committee. The Belize Police Department as Deputy Commissioner Jones has stated as it relates to the commissioner guidelines and I believe it is important to emphasize that point. Is that the commissioner guideline carries binding force, it replaces a judge's rule that existed before, and it is followed, as Mr. Jones said, by all of those agencies that interact with people in terms of detention. It is also important, in my opinion, to emphasize the distinction between detention in terms of the police setting which Mister Jones said happens for no more than 48 hours. And the extensive detention which would be at the Belize Central Prison. Whilst the custody records that are maintained at the Belize Police Department level solely speaks to the time the person comes in, whether they are moved and your Costa Rica should move moves along with you. it also reflects whether you've been fed, whether you had the opportunity to speak with an attorney who you spoke with. But the custody records that are kept by the Belize Central Prison, which is the area where the more extensive detention happens, whenever a person is taken to the Belize Central Prison for detention, a very extensive interview process, intake process occurs, which also takes into account the medical condition and other matters that are relevant to the circumstance of the person's detention, which I believe is a question asked by Mr. Allen Castro. As it relates to the inquiry pertaining to whether there is a central digital database at all stations. Largely these custody records whilst they are reflected on the SIMs which is it it has an index on oil crimes information management system. The large we where they are largely kept is physical and indeed as reflected in our report there is a six year period and that figure was arrived at because of the contemplation of the statutes of limitation when it comes to instituting constitutional actions against the state. But certainly where it is that a particular matter has already raised brows, you know, where a person that's disappeared, certainly for our own protection as a department to be able to prove that, you know, the circumstances of detention are adequately laid out. Those records would be kept in for a longer period of time. As it relates to Whether the domestic law provides for officials to give attorney or family members information about the detention of their loved ones, whilst the domestic legislation does not clearly states that. I can see in practice because we have attorneys that are constantly at the station and there is no qualms in providing that information. I think it should be, it is important to mention that Belize's small state, the size of our population is something that is unique and the very robust nature of our media that is you know within our nation it provides that adequate that added level of transparency so if a family member comes to a police station and requests information and that information is given or if um they believe they were treated in a way that was not um favorable or not just you will see them on the 6:00 news That is not something that is uncommon whenever those situation occurs. So the small state of our country affords those additional level and the media is like the third power and we are cognizant of that. And in addition to our own integrity and wanting to ensure that we do our job within the confines of the law we are also aware that there is this additional layer of supervision so to speak and we are guided by that as it relates to the question pertaining to habus corpus in terms of the requirement for the matter to be placed before the court by an attorney and that you know providing somewhat of a barrier for persons we would concede that I mean retaining a council is not something that the average person who is not of you know excessive financial means would be able to do but similarly our bar association in Belize is very active and they are very active when it comes to matters against the state because the ability to recompense whatever you invest in representing that person when you were not given a retainer fee on the spot is there. the government, the Bar Association, I think we have situation where we have attorneys seeking, you know, clients when it is a matter against the state because, you know, they know the opportunity for them to be, you know, paid is is present there so truly I cannot recall in my years of service whereby there was a circumstance where somebody um there was a need for a habeas corpus application and absolutely no attorney was there for them you know that that is not something that that I have observed happening in my almost two decades of policing career As it relates to the timeline for compelling the court to hear habeas corpus applications, we had indicated that within a few days, and that is very expedient on our circumstances, but we take note of the recommendation for it to be within 24 hours, but that is certainly a matter for the judiciary and not one that we can pronounce on. But certainly we will via our avenues reverberate that request. As it relates to, I think it's important to also mention that very many of the questions that were addressed to us in terms of the gaps are relevant questions at the time when the report was being reviewed because There was no knowledge that we have already undertaken to domesticate the legislation, the convention, sorry, and as stated yesterday, and I would like to repeat it when the matter was placed before the cabinet in the cabinet paper. it was said it is for the provision to domesticate the entire convention and we got approval for that. So there is no circumscribing or no reducing. So the intention is to give full effect to all provisions of the convention. So whether it relates to the issue in terms of the question that was raised particularly in relation to examining an opportunity for a declaration of absence rather than that long-awaited period that no obtains for seven years to have been passed. that's a matter that we believe and it is our intention and as the ambassador indicated in the opening statement whilst we were not um we are not the drafters we are not the persons who will be there you know converting the the the convention in in domestic format we having the opportunity to hear all of these questions that are raised by the distinguished committee will now go back to the drafters to ensure that when process commences that it covers fully what is necessary to realize those provisions of the conventions. As it relates to the the matter. And similarly, I think I will just be repetitious in this regard because, as I said, many of the questions, the gaps that have been identified, it's because of the absence of the thing. And we believe that the implementation and the domestication of the convention would allow for it. I know yesterday I had promised to provide the information in relation to those non-governmental organizations that participated in the draft of the report. Whilst I have received the list of those who have been invited and I can share that that includes members of the religious community, members of those persons who represent unions and other civil members. I have not as of this point been able to confirm all who directly participated but I can undertake to have that research be done and have that information provided. I think it is also important to mention, because I know one of the questions that was raised was in relation to our reality in terms of Belize and the neighboring Caribbean um Central American country and human trafficking. The question posed was whether there was a cross-border opportunity for direct communication with our neighboring countries. I can confirm that that is that we have very good relations with our neighbors, Guatemala, Mexico, and the Interpol and database we use it a lot. So, that is the extent of my intervention. I know defer to the ambassador.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. Just a very, very small point just to follow up. The list that Ms. Smith referred to of the people who were invited and organizations who were invited to the hearing included not just attending physically, but being able to attend, they were invited to attend physically, virtually, or to submit writings following up afterwards. They could make submissions afterwards.

In writing.

So just to include that as part of it.

And thank you.

That's been our presentation for this time. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ambassador, and the whole delegation in Belize and here for all your answers. And now, without making a break, I will give the floor again back to our rapporteurs. And for, sorry. Now I'm lost. I think we give it back to the, yeah. So who would like to start? Maria.

Thank you. So I have several additional questions from my part and maybe I will have some more later on on different issues. So we welcome the replies provided by the State Party regarding the implementation of Article 16 of the Convention, but to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the practical and procedural applications of these safeguards, I would appreciate additional clarification on following. first is regarding protection frameworks outside the refugee, which is connected with Article 16. Given that the state's response relies significantly on the protections enshrined in Refugees Act, what specific legal frameworks or administrative procedures protect individuals who do not qualify for refugee status or whose asylum claims are procedurally buried under domestic rules, but who nonetheless face a documented substantial risk of being subjected to enforced disappearance if returned, deported or extradited. And regarding Article 16, para 2, when evaluation whether there are substantial grounds to believe a person is at risk of enforced disappearance, what reliable and independent sources of information, such as UN human rights reports, CEDAW country findings, or international NGO documentation, Belizean immigration, police, and judicial authorities legally mandated or strictly required to consult to assess the general situation of human rights and the prevalence of enforced disappearances in the receiving or requesting state. We note the description provided by the State Party regarding administrative procedure in police custody and the visiting justice program at the Belize Central Prison, but to ensure compliance with specific legal obligations under Article 17, could you please provide us with further clarifications? The Committee originally requested information on national legal provisions that expressly prohibit secret or unofficial detention. Since the State party's response focused on internal police guidelines and constitutional right posters, could the government clarify whether secret or unofficial detention is explicitly criminalized as standalone offense under the criminal code or any other statutory law of Belize. While the State Party mentions that the appropriateness of detention is assessed on a, I'm quoted, "minute-to-minute basis", Have there been any official complaints, civil lawsuits or habeas corpus applications filed against the police for failing to respect that 48 hours limit or for holding individuals for investigative purposes without prompt judicial oversight? If so, what were the outcomes and were any disciplinary actions taken against the responsible officers? In paragraph 99, the State Party indicates that there is, again I'm quoting, "There is no data to suggest that foreigners have been denied these protections." Aside from internal police diaries or stations diaries, is there an independent oversight mechanism or an external audit process tasked with verifying that consular notifications for detained foreign nationals are actually carried out without delay in practice. Then the Committee explicitly requested information regarding past complaints concerning the failure to record the deprivation of liberty or the recording of inaccurate information. Over the last reporting period, have there been any official complaints, civil lawsuits, or internal investigations into police personnel for failing to open custody record, delaying entries, or falsifying detention logs? If so, what were the practical outcomes of these proceedings? And I think this will be the last question from my side. What specific administrative or judicial procedures are in place to ensure that when a custody record is closed, the individual has actually and physically been released safely? Are there formal release protocols or although you already spoke about that, but I would like further clarification. So, formal release protocols to verify physical integrity of the person and ensure that he is not subjected to unacknowledged rearrest immediately upon exiting the facility. Thank you.

Thank you, Maria de Finis, rapporteur. And now I give the floor to Monsieur Alban Alencastro.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the delegation for the responses provided. In particular, I would like to thank the detailed information on training. I would ask a clarification as a follow-up. Could you clarify? whether any of the programs referred to in the state responses that were provided just now already include specific modules on enforced disappearance and the Convention, or whether that specialized component is still planned for the future. And further, could you clarify whether the domestication process that will begin soon will make such specialized training mandatory and recurrent, especially considering what Madame just referred to and said that detention is to fully domesticate the convention. So then part of it has to do with training and we're wondering whether the training aspects of the obligation, obligations of the state will also be included in that bill. With regard to Article 24, thank you for recognizing that relatives and other persons may also suffer harm as a result of unenforced disappearance. That was the The initial. response made by the Ambassador. But could it be possible for the State to identify domestic legal provisions that currently recognize such persons as victims in their own right? And if there are non-specific legal provisions, will the forthcoming legislation, since it is going to fully domesticate the Convention, incorporate a definition in line with Article 24.1? I would also like to insist in a couple of previous questions that, pardon me if I did not get the whole information, maybe you already responded, but just in case, because I didn't hear this. Victims have a legally enforceable right to receive information on the progress and result of the search and investigation processes. Do they have the right legally to participate in those processes? Do they have a legal avenue to challenge a decision to suspend or close a search or an investigation process? Could the state please clarify whether the search for a missing person is automatically initiated as soon as the authorities receive information about the disappearance, or whether the decision to launch search measures depends on the assessment of the circumstances? And if so, who makes this assessment? I already asked this, but I would like to insist. Can a search be suspended simply because no new leads are available, or must it continue until the fate and whereabouts of a person who has disappeared are clarified. During the responses, the State referred to referral to criminal investigation where there are indications of criminality. Could you clarify whether Belize treats the search for the person and the criminal investigation into those responsible of the potential disappearance as distinct but coordinated obligations or as a single obligation? Thank you as well for clarifying that mechanisms dealing with property or state matters should not be understood as terminating the investigation into the disappearance. But just to be very clear, for us to be very clear, is there any legal mechanism other than a declaration of death that allows families to regulate property, family, social security, or financial matters while preserving the legal personality of the disappeared person? And I'm sorry if you already responded to this. I did not hear a specific response. What concrete measures are taken to identify and address the differentiated consequences that a disappearance may have for women and girls, including loss of income, obstacles to inheritance and property, responsibility for dependents, exposure to violence, difficulties in obtaining legal status or social benefits and barriers to participation in search and investigation processes. With regard to the responses provided with respect to Article 25 obligations, could you identify the specific offences under domestic law that criminalise falsification, concealment, or destruction of documents attesting the true identity of a children in the circumstances covered by Article 25, paragraph one. If an adoption or placement is later found to have originated in an enforced disappearance, does domestic law provide a specific procedure to review and where appropriate, to annul that adoption and restore the child's identity? Thank you for confirming the existence of direct cooperation with neighboring countries, in particular Guatemala and Mexico, which were explicitly mentioned, and with Interpol. Could you please clarify whether there is a specific rapid alert or cross-border tracing procedure that is automatically activated when an unaccompanied minor goes missing? in Belize or disappears in Belize or is believed to have crossed a border. Although I addressed the obligations under 23 to 25, considering the responses provided by the State, I would also like to present some questions concerning 26, I'm sorry, 16. of the Convention, which has to do with the non-refoulement principle and, in general, the protection of migrants from enforced disappearance. Could you clarify whether Venezuelan law expressly prohibits expulsion, return, surrender, or extradition where there are substantive grounds for believing that the person could be in danger of enforced disappearance, or whether this protection currently derives only from broader constitutional and refugee law warranties. And the state also referred to 20 active human trafficking cases. Among those 20 active human trafficking cases, or the cases prosecuted since 2021, have any involved a period in which the victims' fate or whereabouts were concealed from family or the authorities? And if so, were those cases assessed to determine whether they might fall within Article 2 of the Convention, or maybe Article 3 of the Convention, meaning enforced disappearance or a different disappearance carried out by non-state actors without support, authorization, or acquiescence from the state? And have any of those trafficking cases involved allegations of participation, support, acquiescence, or collusion by public officials? And also concerning Article 17 and the following articles, which have to do with registers, could you clarify whether this registration and inspection safeguards that have been described in the state responses apply to every person deprived of liberty, regardless of the authority responsible and the nature of the place of detention. I mean, does this include police stations, migratory detention centers, which might be an administrative facility, military facilities, psychiatric guards, I don't know, temporary holding facilities. And further concerning registers, I would like to ask if there are plans to move from predominantly physical custody records to a centralized interoperable digital system that would allow authorities, all relevant authorities, both from the executive branch, the judicial branch, any other competent body to immediately trace where a person is being held and any transfer between institutions. So these are my questions for the time being, Madam Chair. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Juan Pablo is rapporteur, and I see we have one more question from the colleague Matar Diop, no? That was a misinterpretation, but I see Carmen Rosa, please.

Thank you so much and a very good afternoon. A warm welcome once again. Well, I think there's a few questions that have been left pending in terms of tackling women that have disappeared and incorporating the gender focus as well as the intersectional perspective. And I'd just like to look at whether or not we could get some answers on that. I just want to put a few of the questions to follow up on what my distinguished colleagues have already raised. The rapporteur mentioned, really, that we need to talk about the families of victims as victims. What happens when those loved ones are not necessarily direct family members but have a direct connection to the person who has disappeared? In addition to that, I would like to know whether the legislation could consider as victims wider families or other community members. I don't know whether or not it was Act 52 or 55, I don't remember well, but that was on the question of homosexuality and the fact that it's criminalized and many of those people who disappear who are homosexual, obviously they will have loved ones, partners, who would and should be considered as victims. when the process is triggered. When you look at that in legislation, that is important. In terms of the certification process around this, I am concerned to put a direct question here, and that is to ask about women's rights, particularly. whether or not they have a direct access, because of their lesser status in certification, to knowledge about their husband and his disappearance. I would also like to ask, once the death certificate is issued in this scenario, if somebody reappears, what is done to repeal, if you like, that death status? and return them to the status they had before they were certified as dead. Is there the possibility of annulling that to allow them, obviously, to reappear in a civil sense, and the rights of the individual, the partner, and the family are thereby reinstated? The previous speakers, the rapporteur mentioned trafficking as well, and You talked about issues around capacity building and the way that you are stepping that up, and you said that 1,000 people have received capacity building, and these are police agents, custody agents and so on and so forth. Obviously, we have mentioned already the importance of incorporating the convention, but I wanted to put a particular question that I was wondering about. I was wondering whether or not you incorporated the Brasilia rules in that training on people in a particular situation of vulnerability. So we're talking about women, girls, people with disabilities, people with mental illness, people really under any of these conditions that might be provide a lens of vulnerability and how the legislation responds to that. There have been 9 rulings since 2021 and to date, 44% of those were women in the context of trafficking. And I'm wondering what happened to those cases. Those cases, were they investigated as trafficking cases? And if possible, could we know if before that was the ruling, were they actually recognised as disappeared persons? So it would be interesting to know whether or not in the investigation the status of trafficking as well as the status of disappeared person was borne in mind. And as Madame Albane said, we'd like to know whether or not in these rulings this was connected ever to state agents or people operating in an official capacity or with the acquiescence of the state, because if you look at trafficking and people crossing in borders, it's very, very complex. There's a great deal of porosity on the borders and people can disappear under the aegis of new national authorities, and very often there are national offices and agents that are connected to those cases. I'd also like to know whether or not you have early warning systems. When there is a report of a disappearance, whether or not you have any early warning systems on the ground so that when a case is flagged, there can be a very quick, concrete response. Obviously, you have the search that presumably is triggered, but the early warning system can be invaluable as a prevention mechanism. And the second step are particularly connected to women who have been victims of trafficking and also other victims of disappearance, but thinking about the families, is there a support for family members throughout the search process? Is there psychological support given to family members throughout that process? What type is it? How is it provided? How is it funded? Is it free? And finally, the connection of enforced disappearance to other types of offense or crime. So it can be connected to trafficking, it can be connected to sexual violence. We spoke yesterday about that case of femicide that was committed and the body of the woman was found in the home of a high-ranking police officer. So that would be interesting to know. Thank you very much. And I'd hope that maybe we could get some answers on those subjects. Thank you. very much for your preparedness and your work. Obviously, we're glad to be having this dialogue with you. Thank you, Ambassador, and thank you to the entire delegation.

Thank you, Madam Villa-Quintana, for your additional questions. Now I give back the floor to the delegation from Belize for 30 minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, rapporteurs and committee members for the additional questions. We'll first go to back to Belmopan to Belize, the capital. And Ms. Melissa Rodriguez will offer some responses. Ms. Rodriguez.

Thank you, Ambassador.

With respect to the Administrative procedures for individuals who do not qualify for refugee status. Where we see that the applicant does not meet the criteria for refugee status, the person is referred to the Refugee Department to regularize their status under the applicable immigration framework. where they may qualify for another lawful immigration status. And of course, this is separate from the refugee determination process.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. And so now we'll start off this section of response here, and we'll start with Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith.

Thank you, Ambassador. As it relates to the question as specifically in relation to whether secret detention is criminalized, there is no explicit reference to that, but the combination of holding somebody against their will without authority, which would be kidnapping or hostage taking, it by it it provides that but no explicit definition just to to be brief no specific um legislation there is no there is none in existence but because of the safeguards that are present in the criminal law as well as the Constitution and the judges rules which requires sorry the commissioner's guidelines which requires notification and an issuance of reason of detention and notifying the family members and the attorney by operation that operate that um operates as a criminalized not criminalization but it operates to prevent such occurrence as it relates to um the inquiry posed pertaining to the ability of the police to hold somebody for 48 hours for investigation purposes. There's if there's any judicial oversight to ensure that those detention is not just because the police officer is on duty and is bored and wants company at the station but essentially to ensure that the person is there for a legitimate purpose. We have case laws that spoke to that. Um when a person takes the matter to court, even where they are told you are detained for let's say a drug offense or a crime and you're given a a a detention acknowledgement form. When that inquiry is done before the court, the specific police officer needs to provide the court with information that warranted that reasonable suspicion. So, That shows that it is not a carte blanche for an individual officer to just rely on the provision of the constitution that they can hold somebody for 48 hours. And I will also like to further identify that we also have a case, I believe it's Shane Harrison, the Attorney General of Belize, And this is a case in relation to where a particular police officer believed that Mr. Harris was the subject of a commitment warrant. And he detained him pursuant to that. No, no. He believed he was in breach of a bail condition. And he detained him pursuant to that. He after holding Mr. Harrison in detention for maybe a few hours, he realized that the condition was not breached because the terms of the bail order did not require whatever the police officer believed was the case. So, but the police officer in this instance still decided to keep Mr. Harris for the, you know, 48 hours given that he was already there. The court was very explicit in stating that and it also awarded exemplary damages. And that case also highlighted that detention is reviewed on a minute by minute basis. So if at minute four or four, sorry, or minute 45, you realize that the detention of that person is no longer justified, you are required to release that person. And the cases, the court has been very express in this regard and they have shown their disdain for such practices. by awarding exemplary and vindicatory damages under such circumstances. So that relates to the judicial oversight and procedure and also as it relates to the question if somebody's health of a was and then released and then picked up back. Yes we must regrettably admit that in the past that was one of the loopholes that were used and by the past I mean 20 years or so ago just before into the department but and it was a practical recycling but we have been very express in our provisions that that should not happen and similarly those judicial pronouncements have you know reinforced our policy and need for that to be done. When it comes to who ensures that what is supposed to happen happens at the police station or at a places of detention. There are persons police officers who duty is simply to ensure that whatever procedure should be undertaken like the given the person and this is a senior officer given the person there acknowledgement form ensuring that they get an opportunity to be fed. And also reviewing the circumstances of detention is done. We have had instances where because of miscommunication and a particular supervising officer taking his role very serious. Um just by way of story we had a very unfortunate incident whereby a prisoner who was detained for a warrant that was issued by a neighboring country of well not neighboring by El Salvador. He had fled El Salvador because of the actions that are being taken in that state. He came to Belize and he was in detention. And the detention record the officer erroneously did not indicate on the face of the record that that person is to be handed over to the what the El Salvadoran authorities and when the supervising officer that I'm speaking about because that transfer was to happen in excess of the 48 hours. Um he wasn't aware of that. And when he came on duty and he realized that somebody's there at 40 hours and nothing has been done. He released the person and unfortunately we had that happen. I say that to see how strict these officers who are in charge of these stations are when it comes to ensuring persons are not in detention for no longer than is necessary but fortunately in that occasion I believe we were able to capture the person but that was just by way of indication of how strictly that is guarded because outside of the ramifications that comes when the matter goes before the court. There is also disciplinary ramification for that supervisory officer who you know allowed who are who was neglectful in ensuring that the procedure was not followed. As it relates to the questions pertaining to the victim's right to participate in a search or the investigation. But before I get to that, it is important to answer a specific question as to whether search and investigation are treated as distinct things. From the police department perspective, no. They are one together, but they are, and to answer the question as to whether assistance is provided to maybe family members or other NGOs who may want to continue search. I can say and confidently so that the Belize Police Department as well as the Belize Defense Force or Coast Guards who may have individual police officers or soldiers who are on standby don't have an actual you know day-to-day tasking. So those are the persons that we usually rely on to assist the family to search maybe in dense areas or to conduct searches on the sea. So there is a system in place when it comes to providing assistance to family members who want to conduct search and this is in addition to certainly the search that is conducted by the department but you know family members that is their loved ones and they have a vested interest. We have a mandate in terms of doing our maybe a murder comes up and that requires a situation, violence that requires more immediate action. We may not have the police be able to, you know, step in but we turn them on to the other resources from the BDF and the and the Coast Guard that assist in carrying out the search. As it relates to the question pertaining to whether when a person is reported missing if a search automatically occurs or if it depends on the circumstances. I think it is and also I'll I'll dovetail that question that was as if there's an immediate dissemination of the information and early warning system. That happens as we would have explained yesterday. That information is shared in the on our WhatsApp group with the media and it is, you know, widely disseminated and disseminated quickly. The vast majority of her missing persons case relates to minor females and this is also a relevant question to what Madam Quintana would have raised. And it is often in the context of those puberty stage for females between the ages of like 11 to 17. And it is important for me to mention at this point too, that we recognize that there may be situations or circumstances at home that creates such event to happen, maybe why the young female has fled. So even when a young female in that circumstance is found, she's not automatically placed back in the home without there being some sort of review or revision to see what was the social inquiry to see what was the particular circumstance in the home. In relation to the question pertaining to adoption that may occur in the context of a disappeared person and a child, a child who is the you know, the child of a disappeared person and whether there is an ability to review that adoption, to nullify it, to ensure that the child is returned. I will start off by the overarching principle, which is the best interest of the child. And certainly that includes for the child to know their identity. You are nothing if you don't know who you are, where you're from. But I think it's also important to mention that whenever an adoption occurs, the first 12 months following that adoption, there is routine inquiries that are done to ensure that the child has been placed in a family that is suitable or aligns with the best interests of that child. As it relates to the question pertaining to whether there is anything in our legislation that allows for issues such as social security and financial matters to be addressed during the period whereby a determination has not been made for the person. There is nothing in law as it stands now. the court, the banks, the these institutions are very mindful that whilst they want to be of assistance, they cannot put themselves in a position where they allow the dissipation of somebody's assets. And if that person should return, it would be on them to to recompense. But at the same time, this delegation takes recognition of the fact that if the breadwinner of a family is a disappeared person and all the finance that would have come to sustain that disappeared person's family is now tied up because the person is disappeared that creates a particular hardship for those persons that are there. And as this is one of those other opportunities that I'd say we are grateful for this dialogue interaction. Because it allows us to highlight at a granular granular level how these things truly play out I will now um turn over to Ambassador and see.

Uh thank you Miss Smith uh now turn on to turn to Mr. Jones for his follow-up responses.

Thanks thanks Ambassador and I would just seek to add to provide greater clarity on some of the questions raised to perhaps. We recognize that, and to add to what my colleague had said, we recognize that based from the questions that the gaps even exist even wider than we think. And so these are certainly going to, what we cannot answer now will certainly be taken into account as we go into the process of domesticating the convention. But to take examples from where Belize has done in the past, the Convention on the Rights of the Child was domesticated. There is the Families and Children's Act, which takes into account the provisions, many of the provisions of the conventions of the on the rights of the child. But there's a particular provision in the families and children's act, which is that where there where the act does not provides in a given situation, the the that particular act then takes into the provisions of the convention on the rights of the child as an example. And so we we it is our believe that the similar approach can be taken in respect to this convention. So if there is a particular act that will take into account the provisions of this convention, a similar provision can be made that if there is any dispute or any-- the convention, the provisions of the conventions will stand. So that is one example, one drafting example that an approach can-- that we are going to recommend that be taken in respect. On the, and just to add as I spoke about the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the, our Families and Children Act specifically indicates that when decisions are being made, the rights of the child is paramount. So that is specifically there, and that will take into, that takes into account any judicial decision, any administrative process. that is taken, the rights of the child is paramount. And so that would guide any decision that is going to be made in respect to a child, whether it is an unaccompanied minor or otherwise, that the right of the child will take precedent. When it comes to reports of missing persons, when operationally as well, And why we have, we said based on the circumstances, because we have had instances where a person has been reported missing, but the person making the report is unable to see in terms of the time frame. Perhaps they're living in one city and the one city and the victim is living in, or the person who is now being reported missing is living in another city. And they're saying that, well, I normally hear from him every two weeks or at least once a week, he communicates with me or she communicates with me, and I have not heard from him or her this week. And so that then, so before we make any publication, there is the need to communicate with that particular police formation where that person is living to find out if in fact, maybe they just lost the phone. And so, you know, so these are some of the things that would guide the search. In terms of searches, while the investigators look at interviewing with family members and so on. Our operational units would be the units along with the defense force that will whatever search that needs to be done. If it does see then we incorporate the Belize Coast Guard in the search for that particular person. So again we thank the committee for the questions which will guide some of the way forward in terms of making recommendations when it comes to what should be included in this particular legislation that is going to domesticate the convention. To be honest, while we, before coming here, we identified based on the list of issues some of the gaps, but in the discussion we know that there are other gaps that have to be addressed. That will guide our training as well in identifying training and other policies that we need to put in place. Going forward, while the domestication of the legislation will take a longer process because it has to go to Parliament. Those that from our by policy can be implemented based on the questions will be will be done.

Thank you.

Thank you. And we do a we are doing very fine with the time. Right. If you have already nearly 10 minutes left. So I just We don't have to, but we can also have additional questions, the rapporteurs, no? Okay. Rapporteur, Mr. Albin Alencastro, please.

Thank you, and thank you to the State for very candidly recognizing what is left to do. I mean, that's the purpose of this dialogue as well. I just have one, and yesterday I presented a question on this issue, but I not insisted. But if you do have information, this could be very important for us. Do you have updated data on missing or disappeared persons from the recent years? Because the data that we have that you submitted with the replies is from 2019 to 2023. But after 2023, we don't have, we don't have information. And it would be great if you could provide information on the numbers, right? If desegregated even better. That's my only my only question at at this moment. Thank you.

So the as we have persons back in capital as we speak doing in in terms of the and I can tell you that the the up to Monday we had well, now it will be up to yesterday, we had another case of missing person report will be 892. And that is being broken down and we can provide that to the, we will provide that breakdown to the committee. We acknowledge that the systems in place in terms of the follow up, many of the balance, the difference in between those that were founded and that balance we believe is within the persons have been returned but there is not the follow-up to say to tick off that box that okay we know this can no longer be considered missing because he has returned and so we're making that with those numbers to give the definitive numbers in terms of that so we'll provide that data to the committee.

Thank you.

Our dynamic team back in

Capital has just forwarded something for me to respond to that.

So the update-- it's not complete, but it gives you a better indication. So the reports for 2024 were 44 male and 88 female-- 80 female. And 2025 was 51 men and 48 women.

That's the most update that we have for today.

And we have one more question from Madame De Finis, co-deputee.

Thank you. It would not be just one, to be honest. Okay, yesterday we mentioned that new DNA act, but I would like some more clarifications on that. So Could you clarify whether stored DNA samples are systematically cross-checked against a centralized database of missing persons and their relatives, or is testing performed only on a case-by-case basis upon specific request? Is there a standardized protocol or time frame for upload and digital profile creation once a DNA sample is taken from an unidentified body? What specific bilateral agreements or institutional arrangements exist with foreign laboratories to facilitate this international comparative analysis? Who bears the financial cost of sending and analyzing these DNA samples abroad? Does Belize provide full and equal financial substitutes to ensure that low-income families can access this cross-border identification procedure? which state authority is legally responsible for managing this registry of -- the registry of burial locations, and how it is assured that these sites are protected from unauthorized disturbance while identification is pending. And this is from me personally, one concrete methodology is used to document the geographic location of these burial sites, like GPS coordination or physical marks, whatever. And what protocols regulate the chain of custody and the long-term preservation conditions of these stored DNA samples to prevent degradation or loss over the time? And as this would be The final from my point, I would like to express my real sincere appreciation to the delegation of Belize for cooperation and commitment for this constructive dialogue through this reviewing process. And I firmly believe that this fruitful exchange will continue in the future. And also, I am confident that the State Party will successfully implement all its obligations under the Convention to ensure that this absolute protection of all persons from enforced disappearances. Thank you a lot.

Thank you. We are going to respond to to your last set of questions. Thank you. But before we lose the train, Capital has update for some more data that we can provide. So, I'll pass this to Miss Novello in Capital to respond with the the updated data for 2025. On disappeared persons.

Yes, good morning and thank you, Ambassador. Just to add to the points made by Ambassador and Mr. Jones, in 2025, there were 99 missing persons. This represents a decrease of 20% when compared to the previous year, which was 124. During 2025, 49% of the missing persons were found safe. 47% are under investigation and 4% were found dead. The largest percentage of female missing persons were between zero and 19 years old. Meanwhile, for males, there was not one single age group that dominated the population. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vello. And then now I'll hand it over to Ms. Smith to carry on with the responses. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. As it relates to the question as to how we go about documenting the location of the bodies of persons who were found, with all crimes, we use the ArcGIS system that plots the exact location. And what happens most of the time when the bodies are found after an extended period of time and there's no ability to identify there is on-site burial so there is also a need for us to pinpoint it with extreme specificity to ensure that the families have the closure as it relates to the procedure for persons to come in and have the comparison analysis done as I said. The DNA act is very new. It's a 2026 act. We're still working out the kings. But as I indicated yesterday we have been from the moment that Aqua's pass inviting all persons who have missing loved one. I too am someone who should avail myself of that opportunity because I have a sibling who went missing in 2020. And we haven't seen him since. So that is a process that is undertaken and we are inviting persons to come in and provide that information. When it comes to the storage and the chain of custody, and the ministry that is responsible, it is the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the DNA is done by our forensic department, which deals with all the crimes. So they have the technical capacity to know what is required for good exhibit management and handling. So that is not a area that I believe is deficient and yeah, I think time has elapsed so I will leave it there but I think I also need to mention as it relates to the data that was provided for zero to 19 with the females that are missing and I know the representative is concerned here. The zero, though, though, they are the largest number of missing persons. They are also the ones that are returned nine times out of 10, because as I said, it was just the adolescent period. So I found it important to mention because I didn't want us to leave this room thinking that there is a large number of teenage girls that are missing. I just needed to be expressed in that regard.

Thank you, Ms. Smith, Madam Chair.

So thank you. Thank you, Excellency, and thank you the whole delegation from Belize, at home and here. It was really a very constructive dialogue. And now the delegation has 48 hours to provide additional information with regard to the questions, if you wish so, and those questions have to be raised here in the committee. And then I would like to give the floor back to you, Ambassador Young, for your final remarks.

Thank you, Madam Chair, rapporteur, thank you, MSL Committee, excellencies, distinguished colleagues. On behalf of the government and people of Belize, we express our sincere appreciation to each and every one of you and the Secretariat for these past two days of constructive and meaningful engagement.

We are grateful for the Committee's

thorough examination of Belize's report and for the questions and observations that have been put forward.

We hope that through our responses, we have been able to provide a clearer picture of how Belize is implementing its obligations under the Convention and the safeguards and measures in place to prevent enforced

disappearances, protect persons from deprivation of liberty, and ensure that there are accessible avenues for accountability and redress.

For us, this exchange has been a valuable opportunity to reflect critically on where we are, what progress has been made, and importantly, where further work needs to be done, not only in terms of legislation, but also in respect of all systems. We recognize that the implementation of the Convention is an ongoing process and that the effectiveness of the protections it provides not only depends on our laws, but on how those protections operate in practice, how accessible they are to the people and those in Belize. We are already appreciative of how this dialogue has highlighted several areas for strengthening, some of which were already on the way, but others that will be aired in a reform process on return to capital. One important area raised during this dialogue, which we acknowledge at the outset, is a need to domesticate the Convention. While existing constitutional and criminal laws address certain aspects of arbitrary detention, abduction, or related conduct, they do not fully capture the distinct legal character of enforced disappearance that we recognize. In this regard, I reiterate that a directive has been given by the Cabinet to the Attorney General's Ministry to begin this process. This will involve a comprehensive review of existing laws and institutional arrangements to identify where amendments, new legislation or other measures may be required to give full and practical effect to the Convention. The dialogue also underscored the need for more comprehensive and disaggregated data on missing persons, including differentiation between cases of missing persons, disappearances and those that may involve disappearance, sorry, may involve enforced disappearance. Accordingly, we are taking steps to strengthen this aggregation of data before the end of the year. I must also underscore the progress Belize has made through the establishment of the national DNA database.

We talked about that just a minute ago.

This will further complement efforts to improve data collection and management. support the identification of missing persons from unidentified deceased persons, and support criminal investigations. Beyond these areas, this dialogue has also allowed us to explain in greater detail the mechanisms available in the institutions responsible for complaints, investigations, and redress. Similarly, we have highlighted the safeguards available to witnesses or public officials assisting in criminal investigations or proceedings who may face intimidation or harm, such as those provided within the Protection of Witnesses Act. We trust that the examples and case law shared during this dialogue demonstrate how this operates in practice and are applied and enforced by the courts. Madam Chair, Belize is a country founded on principles of freedom, peace, democracy, and respect for human dignity. These rights are the heart of who we are as a people and extend equally to everyone within our borders, national and visitors alike. In three days, Belize will celebrate 45 years of independence. Now, I'm getting off my script here just to say something. For me, this is particularly important and significant because for many people, probably most people in this room, you would not have been alive or an adult to have experienced independence. Well, I was. I was an adult, very independent. So that's a very unique and it enhances the responsibility we feel having come to independence to take our position in the world and live up to the conventions that we have signed as an independent country. And I have lived through that from being a subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth to being in an independent country. So we take these things very seriously. This is an important milestone for our country. As a young nation, we recognize the work of nation building continues. This includes building a society where human beings are respected, the rule of law is upheld, and where there is accountability, and where people can easily access and have confidence in and trust institutions to serve them. This is why Belize places particular importance on the work now underway to expand the mandate of the Ombudsman's Office in line with the Paris Principle, compliant with the National Human Rights Institution. As mentioned during this dialogue, activities under this project have already commenced. We expect that by the end of this year, the necessary legislation will be drafted alongside the recruitment of technical expertise to strengthen the capacity of the Ombudsman's office. This is an important step towards strengthening Belize's national human rights architecture. We also see this institution playing an important role in enhancing Belize's capacity to monitor implementation and meet its treaty reporting obligations, including reporting or future engagements with this committee and the wider treaty body system. We are taking similar steps to enhance capacity and improve efficiencies across our justice and security institutions. With the support of partners like the European Union, the Commonwealth, the United Nations Department Development Program in Belize, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and regional partners, Belize has been working to modernize its justice system, prioritizing a people-centered approach by reducing digital inequalities. We are streamlining case management and integrating technology into court processes with the aim of reducing backlogs, improving the delivery of justice, and making the system more accessible and responsive. We are also investing in training and capacity building across the justice system. This has included training for judges and other relevant authorities to strengthen our responses to human trafficking, especially where children are involved. Within our security institutions, the Belize Police Department has made human rights training a mandatory part of every in-service course at the National Police Training Academy, with officers required to complete a specialized number of human rights training hours annually. Since 2020, 400 officers have been trained. The Belize Police Department is now in the process of revising its human rights training curriculum to include the matter of enforced disappearances. The revised curriculum is expected to be introduced with the new cohort of officers to be trained in October of 2026. These efforts are part of our broadening recognition that the protection of human rights and prevention of enforced disappearance or circumstances that may lead to it is not the responsibility of any single institution. It requires institutions capable of exercising oversight, authorities that understand their roles and obligations, and a culture of respect for the dignity and rights of every person. Madam Chair, Belize is resolute in its commitment to human rights. and we are actively expanding and strengthening our human rights framework. Inevitably, structural constraints of a small state and resource limitations slow our pace of implementation, but not our determination. We therefore do not see the conclusion of this dialogue as the end of the process. The lease remains committed to straightening existing safeguards and the measures required to give full effect to the convention, ensuring that our laws and practices continue to evolve where necessary. We look forward to continued engagement with the OHCHR and other international and regional partners as we move forward with the work that lies ahead. We equally look forward to receiving the committee's concluding observations, which we will review carefully with a view to incorporating them at a national level. Madam Chair, members of the Committee, if there is one message that we would like to leave with you today, it is that Belize remains committed to discharging its obligations under the Convention, the prevention of enforced disappearance, and more broadly, to promote, protect, and respect of human rights for all people without exception. Madam Chair, rapporteur, and members of the committee, colleagues, on behalf of the delegation here in the capital, thank you for your dedication, support during this process, and your ongoing commitment to human rights.

Madam Chair, I am much obliged.

Thank you, Excellency, and the whole delegation for your openness and your attitude and your competence you brought to this very constructive dialogue. Thank you very much. And also thank you actually for the technicians who helped us that the connection to Belize worked so well. And interpreters. And interpreters. And I also wish you a joyful celebration of your independence. And now to our business, to the Committee again. The Committee will now prepare its concluding observations which we will send to the Permanent Mission upon adoption. You will then have 24 hours to request any correction of facts, such as the names of institutions or persons or figures. You can only correct factual nature of the changes, you can request that. We will then enter the phase of exchanges on the implementation of the adopted recommendations and of the Convention. This is done through the procedure of requests for additional information under Article 29 and 29 of the Convention. The timing of the reports that will be requested from the State in this context will be indicated in the final paragraphs of our recommendations. And I think we said this already, but I can repeat, we count on Belize's commitment in this regard, and you can count on us to support you. And do not hesitate to contact us here through the Secretariat if you have any questions about the implementation of the recommendations or other issues related to enforced disappearance. We are here to assist and work with all State Parties, as well as with the victims of enforced disappearances and other civil society actors. So, again, thank you very much for this exchange, and now I have to close this meeting again. So, the meeting is closed.