Tercera Comisión, 21ª sesión plenaria, Asamblea General, 81° período de sesiones
Asamblea General
Date: 20 October 2026
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/es/ga/c3/81/21?lang=en
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

3rd Committee · Chair [0:01]:

Good afternoon, colleagues. The 21st meeting of the Third Committee at the 81st session of the General Assembly is called to order. I now invite the Committee to continue its consideration of agenda item 17, entitled Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and its sub-items A to D. This afternoon, we will first hear a combined briefing by the Chair of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances and the chair rapporteur of the working group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, followed by a combined interactive dialogue with both presenters. The committee will then hear a briefing by the special rapporteur on the right to privacy, also followed by an interactive dialogue. I now would like to welcome the chair of the committee on enforced disappearances, Mr. Juan Pablo Albán Alencastro, and the chair rapporteur of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Ms. Gražina Baranauskaite. Participants wishing to make comments and pose questions to one or both speakers are invited to press their microphone button within the next six minutes, after which the list will be closed. The time limit for each speaker will be announced before the floor is given to the first intervention. Thank you for your cooperation. I first invite the Chair of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Mr. Juan Pablo Alban Alencastro, to deliver an introductory statement. You have the floor.


CED · Chair [1:37]:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Excellencies, it is an honour to address you this afternoon and to present the annual report of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances. This year, we are commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Convention. Its adoption represented a fundamental step forward in international protection against a crime that 20 years later continues to occur in different regions of the world under increasingly diverse and complex mechanisms. This reality requires States and the international community to redouble our efforts to prevent, combat, enforce disappearances and locate missing persons alive. The Convention has 78 States parties. While Its acceptance is a sort of gratification for us. We are still far from universal adoption of the treaty. This is why I would once again encourage those states who have not yet done so to ratify or accede to the Convention. And for those who are already parties, I would urge them to recognize the competences of the Committee provided for in Article 31 and 32 of the Convention. Ratification must be accompanied by the effective implementation of the treaty obligations. The first World Congress on enforced disappearances that was held in Geneva in January 2025 brought together participants from 118 countries and demonstrated the value of cooperation between states, victims, and civil society. To the present, the possibility of a second edition is being assessed, and we would count on your support to hold this. During the reporting period, the Committee held its 29th and 30th meetings in September 2025 and March 2026. At these meetings, the Committee examined the initial reports submitted by Benin, Sri Lanka, Malawi and Samoa, and also the supplementary information submitted in accordance with article 29 by Montenegro, Ecuador and Iraq. To this end, dialogues were held with those seven States. and their concluding observations were adopted where recommendations were formulated on the implementation. The Committee adopted lists of issues for Finland, Oman, Cabo Verde, Denmark, Slovenia and the Republic of Korea, and there are priority lists for Ecuador, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Lithuania. Reminders have been sent to those where the deadlines have passed or expired. Additional information from Armenia, Bolivia, Chile, Germany, Spain, Honduras, Japan, Portugal, Tunisia and Uruguay were received. These reports will be considered as soon as possible within the constraints imposed by the increasingly short meeting time granted to the Committee. The Committee also continued its work on the interpretation of the Convention at our most recent session. Just a few weeks ago, we adopted General Comment No. 2, which relates to the impact of enforced disappearances on women and girls, addressing the differential impacts of this crime on women and girls and specifying the obligations of the State in terms of prevention, protection and reparation. Together with the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, we issued a statement on the ill-named short-term enforced disappearances, recalling that the duration of deprivation of liberty is not a constituent element of enforced disappearance. We are also making progress on the elaboration of two new joint declarations in the working group on enforced disappearances in the context of transnational repression and another on enforced disappearances, sexual orientation and gender identity. The conventional procedure for urgent actions continues to be one of our main protection mechanisms. Between March 2025 and February 2026, we received 366 new petitions, of which 251 were registered. Since its creation, this procedure has contributed to ascertaining the whereabouts of 574 disappeared persons. and 437 of them were found alive. However, there are still difficulties in relation to the lack of cooperation from certain states, shortcomings in the search investigation process, and acts of intimidation and reprisals against victims and those supporting them. For each case, the Committee makes detailed recommendations to the state concerned, reiterating also the importance of those states complying with their treaty obligations in a timely manner and adopting effective measures to implement our recommendations. During this year, the Committee also for the first time concluded a procedure of particular importance provided for in Article 34 of the Convention. After examining the information provided by the Mexican State, the contributions of the victims and civil society organizations, together with background information gathered since 2012 when the procedure began, the Committee concluded that there were well-founded indications of the commission of enforced disappearances as crimes against humanity and of the persistence of this practice to this day. On that basis, it was decided to bring the situation to your consideration as a matter of urgency, and this is in accordance with the Convention. This decision does not constitute a determination of the international responsibility of the Mexican state. Nor did the Committee find any well-founded indications of a policy existing at the federal level aimed at the commission of enforced disappearances by deliberate action or by omission. We recognize the efforts undertaken by the Mexican authorities without discounting the persistence of serious structural problems requiring attention. Article 34 is an exceptional preventive mechanism for sounding the alarm. It is designed to mobilize international attention and cooperation in the face of particularly grave situations. In applying it, the Committee exercised competence or powers assigned to it by the States themselves through the Convention. It is now down to this Assembly to consider the opportunities for international cooperation and mobilization and support that can be offered by this procedure in order to assist Mexico, if Mexico were to find this beneficial in the areas of search, investigation, clarification of the truth, forensic investigation, protection of victims and their families. In the decision, the Committee has already made concrete proposals to guide that international cooperation. For our part, we reaffirm, as I do now, that we have a commitment to continue cooperating with Mexico through traditional procedures and through maintaining a constructive dialogue with Mexican authorities and civil society. I would also like to refer now to the treaty body system. The financial crisis the United Nations is facing has significantly impacted work across all areas of the organization. Of course, this has also meant that there has been a reduction in session time or meeting time and support staff and and in the follow-up work of all the treaty bodies, including the Committee on Enforced Disappearances. In our case, we have received a number of individual communications, and these limitations will impact the effectiveness of our mechanisms and, above all, the victims. At the 38th meeting of the Chairpersons of the Treaty Bodies, we considered the High Commissioner's proposals to improve the functioning of the system. And we actually recognised that business as usual is no longer possible. We actually need to ensure the effectiveness of our actions in the midst of a crisis that is increasingly difficult to navigate for the organisation. the preservation of the independence of the bodies, the particularities of the mandates of the bodies, for instance, we have preventive dimensions within our mandate and also ensuring effective and safe participation by victims and at the same time the pilot its implementation, there are new proposed modalities and these should be rigorously assessed or reviewed or even reversed when necessary. Above all, we insist that no reform of the system should lead to a change in the mandate. Half of the committee's membership will be renewed in next year, and I encourage States to submit sufficient qualified nominations to ensure a competitive election. And finally, I want to conclude by recalling that missing persons and their families are the raison d'etre of our work. For many victims of this heinous crime, the United Nations and its human rights mechanisms are the last hope. especially when national protection justice mechanisms prove inadequate and preserving this hope is a shared responsibility we cannot let people down when they have placed their trust in our system. Thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [11:37]:

I thank the chair of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances. I next invite the chair rapporteur of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Ms. Grzegina Baranowska, to deliver an introductory statement. Ms. Baranowska, you have the floor.


WGEID · Chair-Rapporteur [11:53]:

Madam Chair, Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, it's an honor to address this third committee on the General Assembly in my capacity as chair rapporteur of the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances. I would like to begin by reaffirming our solidarity with all victims of enforced disappearances, including the families of the disappeared. Across the world, relatives and their allies continue to search for disappeared persons, often despite intimidation, harassment, criminalization, and reprisals. Their courage reminds us that enforced disappearances do not end when a person is taken. Its consequences persist for as long as the truth remains concealed and families are denied answers and justice. During the reporting period, the Working Group has transmitted 1,723 new cases of enforced disappearances to 36 States. This is the highest number recorded by the Working Group in the past decade. It reflects a growing demand for its humanitarian mandate. Yet, these figures represent only a fraction of the true scale of the problem, as many cases remain underreported owing to fear, insecurity, lack of access, and the risk of reprisals. During the same period, the Working Group clarified 374 cases. While every clarification establishes the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared person, it does not necessarily mean a reunification with the loved one. Nearly 60% of all clarification occur only after the person's death has been established. This reminds us that time is often the most critical factor in cases of enforced disappearances. 46 years after the establishment of the working group, enforced disappearances remains a global phenomenon, but the context in which it occurs have changed considerably. In 1980, the working group dealt primarily with disappearances associated with military dictatorships. Today, the actors, methods, and justifications may change, but the purpose remains the same-- to place a person outside the protection of the law, conceal the truth, and create a chilling effect. The working group remains particularly concerned by the continued use of enforced disappearances in armed conflict, including against civilians and children. This concern arises notably in the context of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, as well as in Gaza and in Sudan. The Working Group is also concerned by unlawful cross-border transfers, transnational oppressions, deportations, and returns that expose individuals to risk of enforced disappearances, including in Tanzania, Kenya, United States of America, and Thailand. The working group is further concerned by the use of national security and counterterrorism frameworks to conceal the fate and whereabouts of detained persons, particularly in Egypt, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Finally, it is concerned by the use of enforced disappearances in the context of suspension of democratic guarantees, including in El Salvador and Nicaragua. During the reporting period, the working group completed a study on enforced disappearances and memorialization. The study highlights memorialization as an important form of preparation and an integral component of the right to truth. Memorialization must be grounded in international human rights law and developed in close consultations with victims, including families of the disappeared persons, as well as civil society. Our next study will be on militarization and enforced disappearances. The Working Group also presented its follow up report on the implementation of recommendation issued after its 2022 visit to Uruguay and welcomes the country's continued cooperation and progress in efforts to locate and identify disappeared persons. The reporting period brought positive developments. The Working Group particularly warmly welcomes Estonia's accession to the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearances. The Working Group would also like to thank the Government of Cote d'Ivoire for hosting its annual out-of-Geneva session in May 2026, which allowed to bolster its relationship with relatives' organizations, civil society and institutions, as well as with regional and sub-regional human rights mechanisms in Africa. The Working Group is furthermore thankful for the support received, including through voluntary financial contribution from France, Lithuania and the Republic of Korea. The Working Group currently has more than 50,000 cases under active consideration, while more than 8,000 additional cases are awaiting registration, review or processing. This delay is due to the limited human resources. We are deeply conscious that the backlog is not merely a collection of files. For many families around the world, the Working Group is the only international mechanism to which they can turn in case of enforced disappearances. When a submission cannot be reviewed promptly, the Working Group may lose the opportunity to intervene during the period when urgent international attention could make the greatest difference. We cannot know how many outcomes might have been different, but we do know that delay has human consequences. The growing workload and the ongoing liquidity crisis continue to strain the Working Group and its Secretariat. We are being asked to do considerably more with less. Adequate capacity is essential to sustain our work. The Working Group calls upon all States to cooperate fully and promptly with its humanitarian procedure, to investigate allegations of enforced disappearances independently, impartially, thoroughly and effectively, and to protect victims, relatives, lawyers, human rights defenders and civil society organizations from reprisals and harassment. We also urge states to respect the principle of non-refoulement, support truth, justice, reparation and memorization processes, ratify or accede to the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearances, and to recognize the competences of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive individual and interstate complaints, as well as to provide the working group and the special procedure system with the resources necessary to fulfill our mandate effectively. Every enforced disappearance begins with a person being placed outside the protection of the law. It leaves behind the family searching for answers and a society confronted with silence. The working group will continue to stand with families, seek answers for victims, and work to ensure that no disappeared person is forgotten. But to achieve these aims, the mandate must be given the means to act in time. Finally, I urge all States to stand united in safeguarding the integrity, independence, and effectiveness of the international human rights system. I unequivocally condemn the US government's sanctions against the International Criminal Court, as well as the prolonged sanction against ICC judges and the Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, and the increasing attacks against special procedures more broadly. These actions violate international law and undermine the core integrity of the UN human rights system, including special procedures as a whole. I call on all states to decisively reject and refuse to enforce these sanctions, and I urge the United States to immediately them. I thank you for your attention.


3rd Committee · Chair [18:49]:

I thank the Chair-Araportero for working group on enforced and involuntary disappearances. I will now open the floor for questions or comments to both presentations. As for past practice, I would ask the delegations to limit their comments to 3.5 minutes. I thank you for your kind cooperation. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Poland to be followed by Brazil and Azerbaijan. Poland, you have the floor, Ambassador.


Poland [19:16]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. We thank the chair rapporteur of the working group and the chair of the committee on enforced disappearances for their reports and dedicated work. Enforced disappearances is not a crime of the past. It remains a widespread tool of repression with a short-term disappearances targeting activists and journalists, growing involvement of the non-state actors and alarming patterns affecting migrants. We remain deeply concerned about Ukrainian civilians, including children, disappeared, detained, incommunicado, or forcibly transferred by the Russian Federation. Poland welcomes the Committee's work on general comment on women, girls, and enforced disappearance. Women are both direct victims of those and those bearing the burden of the search, facing stigma, economic hardship, and reprisals. Their protection and meaningful participation must be central to search, truth, and justice processes. The liquidity crisis has disrupted committee and working group sessions and country visits despite growing number of cases. The humanitarian channel these mechanisms provide to families must be preserved. We condemn intimidation and reprisal against those cooperating with them. And now comes the question, how can both mechanisms strengthen their complementarity so no family requests goes unanswered despite resource constraints? Thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [20:41]:

Thank the representative of Poland. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil.


Brazil [20:46]:

Thank you, Madam President. My delegation thanks the chair of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances and the chair rapporteur of the working group for their presentations and work. We thank the committee for its latest report to the General Assembly and reiterate our commitment to fully cooperate with its work. In particular, we thank the committee for acknowledging in its report the reactivation of the Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances, as well as the updates to death certificates to formally record state violence during the 1964 to 1985 military dictatorship in Brazil. My country remains committed to recognize under Article 31 of the Convention on Enforced Disappearances, the competence of the Committee to receive individual communications, which we view as a concrete step toward preventing enforced disappearances and ensuring justice for victims and their families. We also highlight the relevance of a fruitful collaboration between states parties and the Committee, guided by mutual trust and confidence. Finally, Brazil remains fully engaged in contributing to the draft general comment on women, girls and enforced disappearances. We emphasize that women are not merely searchers of their disappeared loved ones. They are also targeted political actors who frequently become victims of enforced disappearance themselves. In that regard, How does the Comedia assess the possibility of strengthening technical cooperation with states parties to develop investigation protocols on enforced disappearances with a gender perspective, ensuring that the legal characterization of the crime takes into account the political and gender-based motivations? I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [22:47]:

I thank the representative for Brazil. I'll give the floor next to the distinguished representative of Azerbaijan.


Azerbaijan [22:55]:

Madam Chair, enforced disappearance undermines the deepest values of any society committed to human rights and fundamental freedoms. This phenomenon, including the identification of the fate and whereabouts of missing persons, necessitates strict adherence to the obligations set out in international humanitarian and human rights law. Upholding respective obligations and effective international cooperation is of utmost importance to properly address and alleviate the suffering of victims, their families, and societies at large. Madam Chair, the issue of missing persons is one of the grave concerns of armed conflicts. This humanitarian concern should be viewed as a global challenge affecting human lives in various regions across the globe. In this regard, the fate of missing persons remains one of the most critical priorities for Azerbaijan in the post-conflict period. Over 4,000 persons are registered as missing in relation to the former conflict, including 288 women, 71 children, and 319 older persons. Search efforts have intensified following the liberation of the occupied territories. To date, the remains of 913 individuals have been found, and 328 of them have been identified through DNA testing and forensic methods. Of those identified, 273 have been handed over to their families, enabling them to perform the burial rites. In the meantime, since the end of the conflict, 32 mass graves containing the remains of 253 individuals have been discovered. These graves provide further evidence of the willful killing of civilians and other persons protected under international humanitarian law. Madam Chair, providing all necessary information on burial sites, in particular mass graves, opening of archives, and collection of witness statements are among the measures to be implemented for realization of the right to know for the missing persons' families. Transmitting all relevant information concerning missing persons, beyond being a legal obligation and a humanitarian responsibility, would serve as a practical demonstration of a commitment to peace and contribute to strengthening mutual trust. As part of its international efforts, Azerbaijan regularly initiates resolutions on missing persons in the General Assembly. In addition, the annual Baku Dialogue on Missing Persons Conference aims to address this humanitarian concern through strengthened international cooperation. The first conference was held from 7 to 10 October 2026 under the theme, "Strengthening trust and developing effective mechanisms for addressing the issue of missing persons." Madam Chair, the United Nations and other relevant international organizations should, within the scope of their mandates, play a more active role in conducting searches, facilitating exchange of information, developing forensic expertise, and increasing support for affected families. To conclude, Azerbaijan will continue to mobilize all its resources to shed light on the fate of persons whose whereabouts remain unknown. Thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [26:05]:

I thank the representative of Azerbaijan. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Croatia, to be followed by Morocco and Belgium. Croatia, you have the floor.


Croatia [26:15]:

Thank you, Chair. Croatia aligns itself with the statement to be delivered by the European Union on behalf of its member states and wishes to add a few remarks in its national capacity. We thank Mr. Abad Lencastre and Ms. Barnoska for their presentations and their continued dedication. As we mark the 20th anniversary of the Convention, the Committee's report underlines both the continuing gravity of enforced disappearances and the concrete results of international action. The work of the Committee, especially its urgent action procedure, deserves our full support, particularly amid the financial constraints facing the UN human rights system. Chair, Croatia knows what it means to search for answers decades after a conflict. Today, 1,725 persons remain missing as one of the hardest humanitarian consequences of aggression against our country. Our national model combines forensic expertise, institutional cooperation, and new technologies. But technology cannot substitute access to reliable information. Archives must be opened and information shared with those still searching for their loved ones. We also agree with the working group's recent report on memorialization, recognizing remembers as part of the right to truth and reparation. In October 2025 at UN headquarters, Croatia organized an exhibition called Behind the Sky, an artistic tribute to those missing from the war. It reminded us that remembering is not merely about the past. It restores dignity, confronts denial, and helps prevent recurrence. Yet remembrance can never replace the search for truth and justice. Finally, allow us to ask, how can the committee and the working group further strengthen state cooperation on access to information? I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [27:53]:

I thank the representative of Croatia. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Morocco.


Morocco [28:00]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation thanks the Chair of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the Chair of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances for presenting their reports. We commend both mechanisms for their dedication and for the complementary role they play in preventing enforced disappearances, supporting victims and their families, and promoting truth, justice, and reparation. Morocco affirms its firm commitment to the absolute prohibition of enforced disappearance. Our country was among the first to sign the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and we continue to call for its universal ratification. The Moroccan constitution classifies enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention, and secret detention as crimes of the utmost gravity. It also enshrines the primacy of ratified international conventions over national law, together with Morocco's commitment to bring its legislation into line with them. This commitment builds on Morocco's pioneering experience in transitional justice through equity and reconciliation commission. That experience showed how truth-seeking, reparation, and institutional reform can work together to prevent the recurrence of violations. Madam Chair, Morocco has steadily strengthened the institutional framework that underpinned these agreements. First, the National Human Rights Council, accredited with A status under the Paris Principles, the Ombudsman Institution, which examines complaints against acts of administration, and a far-reaching justice reform launched in 2013, grounded in broad national consultation and aimed at an independent and impartial judiciary that upholds the rule of law. These reforms have improved access to justice and effective remedies. Complainants can now follow up on their cases through modern means of communication, a dedicated call center, and online filing. Civil society organizations are also involved in facilitating the filing of complaints. Madam Chair, my delegation welcomes the emphasis both mechanisms place on prevention, cooperation with states, and the role of civil society and family of victims. Morocco remains committed to constructive dialogue with the working group and the committee. We believe that partnership between states, national institutions, civil society, and United Nations mechanisms is the surest path to eradicating this grave violation. I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [30:26]:

I thank the representative of Morocco. I'll now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belgium.


Belgium [30:33]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Belgium aligned itself with the EU statement to be delivered. We thank the Chair of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances and the Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances for their reports. We reiterate our full support for both mandates and welcome the continued cooperation. As we marked in 2026 the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, we also pay tribute to all victims of enforced disappearance and their families. Regrettably, enforced disappearances and the impunity that too often accompanies them, persist around the globe. While a sharp increase in reported cases has taken place over the past five years, Belgium remains concerned by the disruption affecting the work of both the Committee and the Working Group. We nevertheless commend the results they achieved despite these constraints. Belgium welcomes the Committee attention to issues such as transnational repression and the impact of enforced disappearances on women and girls as well as on persons with diverse sexual orientation and gender identities. We call on all States that have not yet ratified the Convention to do so as a matter of priority, and encourage State parties that have not yet responded to Committee's requests for urgent action to provide the necessary replies without delay. Thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [31:56]:

I thank the representative of Belgium. I'll give the floor next to the distinguished representative of Japan, to be followed by Guatemala and the European Union. Japan, you have the floor.


Japan [32:06]:

Madam Chair, enforced disappearance is a universal human rights issue that occurs all around the world. Japan expresses its respect for the Committee on Enforced Disappearances in addressing this issue. Japan also welcomes that the number of signatories to the Convention continues to increase. To effectively prevent this human rights violation from occurring globally, it is necessary to ensure the further universality of the Convention. Japan will continue to maintain a cooperative relationship with the Committee to ensure that it can fully fulfill its role and carry out fair and balanced reviews. Madam Chair, enforced disappearances occur around the world, as I mentioned, and it is a universal and serious human rights issue. Abduction of foreign nationals is one form of enforced disappearance and is a matter of grave concern of the international community. Japan expresses its respect to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances for its consistent and sincere efforts to address this issue. The abduction of Japanese nationals by North Korea is an ongoing humanitarian issue as the abductees and their families continue to age. When considering the tremendous suffering that the victims and their families have endured over the years, there is no time to spare. The report by the working group points out that the abductions and enforced disappearances occurred over several decades and that the long-standing uncertainty regarding the fate and whereabouts of the victims has compounded the suffering inflicted upon families. We strongly urge the DPRK to resolve the abductions issue immediately. Toward the immediate resolution of the abductions issue, the understanding and cooperation of the international community are essential. in addition to Japan's own proactive efforts. Japan will maintain close communication with the working group on this issue. Thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [34:22]:

I thank the representative of Japan. I give the floor next to the distinguished representative of Guatemala.


Guatemala [34:30]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Guatemala thanks the is grateful for the submission of the report, and we thank the Committee and the Working Group for their work. We thank them also for their contribution to the prevention and eradication of this practice, for the search for disappeared persons, the protection of their rights and of their families. Guatemala is well aware of the profound and lasting consequences of enforced disappearances, and we regret that this practice continues to be used as a means of repression, silencing and intimidation. 30 years after signing the peace accords that brought an end to the internal armed conflict in the country, Guatemala remains committed to the search for disappeared persons, for clarifying the circumstances of their disappearance, and supporting victims, their families, and communities. These efforts are essential to advancing truth and justice and preserving historical memory, and also to contributing to rebuilding the social fabric and ensuring non-recurrence. In 2026, Guatemala received an institute visit by the working group. They held meetings with representatives of the government, civil society, and academia. Guatemala values this exchange and stands ready and willing to maintain dialogue and cooperation with international mechanisms. to make progress in the areas, the challenging areas identified. In this regard, drawing on the working group's experience, could it share good practices and examples of cooperation that have contributed to strengthening the search for disappeared persons, for preserving historical memory and recognizing victims, their families and communities? Thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [36:17]:

I thank the representative of Guatemala. I give the floor to the representative of the European Union.


EU · EU [36:24]:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Chair of the Working Group, I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. This year, we'll celebrate the 20th anniversary of the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearance. This year, once again, we encourage, therefore, all states to sign and ratify this convention and ensure its effective implementation. The European Union would like to thank the Committee for its essential role that it plays in its efforts to prevent and force disappearance, the fight against impunity and the protection of the rights of victims and their families. In this connection, we welcome the launching of the initiative, the We Are Still Here initiative, so that families can have their voices heard, receive adequate support and participate in efforts to establish truth, to guarantee access to justice and obtain reparations. The European Union also commends the work and the efforts of the working group to address individual cases, to engage in direct dialogue with States and follow up on allegations of enforced disappearance. We particularly commend the efforts to clarify the fate and place of detention of disappeared persons, particularly thanks to their cooperation with the Committee. This strengthens complementarity of their respective mandates. The European Union remains profoundly concerned by the ongoing and forced disappearances and the alarming number of cases that remain unresolved. These violations disproportionately affect political opponents, journalists and human rights defenders and constitute grave violations of human rights. This figure is worrying and reminds us of the need for resolute and coordinated action to tackle it. Enforced disappearance can never be justified in any circumstance. As we mark the 20th anniversary of the Convention, what are the concrete priorities that the Committee and the Working Group have identified to accelerate the path towards universal ratification and strengthen the effective implementation of the Convention by States Parties? Thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [38:32]:

I thank the representative of the European Union. I'll give the floor next to the representative of Ukraine, to be followed by Argentina and Colombia. Ukraine, you have.


Ukraine [38:44]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ukraine thanks both mandates for their work. We remain committed to implementing the Convention for the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearance and welcome the Committee's guidance on documenting disappearances, preserving evidence, and supporting families. According to the ICRC, 280,000 people remain missing in connection with Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. This figure covers both sides and different circumstances, but among these are many Ukrainian civilians and captured servicemen whose detention Russia deliberately conceals. It refuses to acknowledge their captivity, disclose where they are held, or provide reliable information about their fate and health. Such practices amount to enforced disappearance, placing the victim beyond the protection of the law. Furthermore, the Commission of Inquiry has concluded that they were carried out pursuant to a coordinated state policy amounting to crimes against humanity. Behind every case is a family waiting for a phone call that never comes. Relatives do not know whether to keep hoping or begin mourning. The most basic question is my loved one alive goes unanswered. And the only reason for this suffering is Russia's deliberate withholding of information that could end the uncertainty. Crimes like these must prompt scrutiny and action. We, therefore, ask the Working Group: How can your mandate be used more effectively to address these cases and press Russia to disclose the information it withholds? How can Ukrainian authorities and families strengthen individual submissions to support urgent action? Ukraine stands ready to deepen cooperation with both mechanisms. Every disappeared person must be found, every family has the right to know, and those responsible must be held to account. Thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [40:39]:

I thank the representative of Ukraine. I'll give the floor next to the representative of Argentina.


Argentina [40:47]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We're pleased to have been able to attend the presentation of the reports in the area of enforced disappearances. This is an area of central importance in the human rights agenda and a scourge that regrettably continues to be experienced in many countries, and it is crucial that we address with the utmost urgency in order to avoid the damage that it causes both to the victims and their families who don't know the whereabouts of their loved ones. and suffer as a result of uncertainty without finding any answers. In this regard, we note that the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, on 20 December, will be celebrating its 20th anniversary, and this is a major milestone in combating this scourge. However, we note that to date, only 78 countries have ratified this convention. In this regard, it is worth asking Madam Baranowska and Mr Avon Castro what can be done in order to speed up and to increase the number of countries that have ratified the Convention and why would you recommend those countries who haven't yet done so to subscribe to and ratify this instrument? I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [41:56]:

The representative of Argentina. I'll give the floor now to the representative of Colombia.


Colombia [42:04]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Colombia is grateful for the presentation of the reports of the Committee against Enforced Disappearances, and we recognize the important work done by this body in implementing the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearances. and in providing support for victims and their families. This country shares the concern as regards the number of enforced disappearances and missing people, as well as the growing number of requests for urgent action, which is a sign of the persisting issue and the need for prevention, search and investigation. Colombia reaffirms that forced disappearance represents one of the gravest violation of human rights and international humanitarian law. This is why we have a firm commitment to finding missing people, to investigating the facts, to sanctioning those responsible, punishing them and to guaranteeing the right to truth, justice and reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence to victims and their families. We also recognize the importance of placing victims and their families at the heart of institutional responses. In this regard, we value the efforts aimed at strengthening the search, identification and localization mechanisms, as well as measures aimed at guaranteeing the participation and protection of those contributing to these procedures. We also highlight the relevance of international cooperation, the exchange of experience and good practice, and of technical assistance between states in order to address the many challenges raised by this issue. Finally, we reiterate our readiness to continue working constructively with the Committee and with the other international mechanisms of jurisdiction in this area, with the aim of advancing in the prevention and eradication of enforced disappearance and the effective protection of all persons from this crime. I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [44:04]:

The representative of Colombia. I'll give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Bangladesh, followed by Qatar and Mexico. Bangladesh, you have the floor.


Bangladesh [44:25]:

Thank you, Madam President. We thank the Chair of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances and the Chair and Rapporteur of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances for their comprehensive presentations. We remain alarmed as the report warns of severe global challenges, including a 70% surge in the reported disappearances over five years, short-term disappearances targeting journalists and human rights defenders, transnational repression, and enhanced risks faced by migrants. Moreover, Impunity, intimidation of victims' families, the disproportionate impact on women and girls, and emerging cases of transnational repression remain serious challenges. These undermine the rights to truth, justice, and reparations. Madam President, Bangladesh remains firmly committed to international human rights standards and to preventing enforced disappearances and ensuring accountability. With that spirit, we acceded to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance in August 2024. Bangladesh has become party to all nine core international human rights instruments. To give effect to the obligations under the Convention, Bangladesh also recently enacted the Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Remedy Act 2026. The Act establishes a special legal framework for addressing enforced disappearances, including the criminalization, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of enforced disappearances. It also provides for measures concerning the tracing of disappeared persons and redress for victims and their families, including compensation and rehabilitation. As we commemorate the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention, Bangladesh underscores the importance of renewed international commitment to preventing enforced disappearances, combating impunity, and ensuring truth, justice, and reparation for victims and their families. Madam President, we would like to ask both mandate holders What measures would you recommend to strengthen national investigation and search mechanisms to ensure effective accountability and deliver meaningful results for victims and their families? I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [46:49]:

I thank the representative of Bangladesh. I'll give the floor now to the representative of Qatar.


Qatar [47:00]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. We express our gratitude to the Chair of the Committee, as well as the Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group. We appreciate their efforts and their comprehensive briefings today, and we thank them for their continued effort to provide the information to States and to highlight the important efforts in their work. We emphasize through our active membership at the time being in the Human Rights Council that we continue our positive and constructive role in this important field. We emphasize our firm commitment to continue cooperation with UN mechanisms relevant to human rights. at the foremost of which is the Human Rights Council. The State of Qatar expresses its appreciation to the report of the working group contained in document A/HRC/63/28, which mentions the one pending case based on the input from the State of Qatar during the reporting period. The number of cases unresolved until now have become then zero. This reflects clearly Qatar's constructive cooperation with the mandates and its continued responsiveness to the requests for information. In conclusion, the State of Qatar reaffirms its commitment to the highest international standards in the promotion and protection of human rights. We will continue to be an active participant in supporting the quest for stable societies. Thank you, Madam Chair.


3rd Committee · Chair [48:58]:

I thank the representative of Qatar. I'll give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Mexico.


Mexico [49:04]:

Gracias.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In Mexico, the quest to find missing persons has not stopped. We recognize the pain of mothers and families who are searching for their family members, and addressing this crime is a national priority. The State of Mexico does not consent to or tolerate the disappearance of persons, however it occurs. Today, we have unprecedented coordination across federal and state authorities in order to locate missing persons, to investigate crimes, and to combat impunity. In the past, enforced disappearances were ordered from the highest echelons of political power. Today, these crimes are being committed mainly by criminal groups in some cases regrettably by authorities in the municipal sphere, in all cases it must be investigated and it must be punished. We have strengthened our national commission for searching for missing persons, the prosecutor's office and the human identification mechanisms. We have have a 24-hour, seven days a week hotline, and we call it the National Immediate Search Line to find missing persons. Where security authorities and citizens protection participate the office of the public prosecutor Ministry of the interior and the National Guard just this year the national efforts have allowed us to locate more than 16,000 people most of them were found alive Mexico rejects the interpretation of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances as regards the scope and application of Article 34 of the Convention. Our country has a policy of openness, dialogue and international cooperation. With the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nations. We are a part of a group of national and international specialists who scientifically review our national registry. We're cooperating with several other states. We work actively with the UNFPA and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to strengthen our capacity for search and identification and investigation. We recognize that there are still challenges remaining and we are working to address them. Our commitment is clear. We want to find missing persons, combat impunity, and guarantee the rights of all of the families. I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [52:27]:

I thank the representative of Mexico. I'll give the floor next to the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea, followed by Pakistan and Spain. Republic of Korea, you have the floor.


Republic of Korea [52:40]:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Republic of Korea highly values the important work of the Committee and Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance.

We commend its efforts in transmitting over 1,700 cases to 36 states between May 2025 and May 2026 alone.

We regret, however, that the liquidity crisis prevented the Working Group from conducting any country visits during this period. We urge all member states to fulfill their financial obligations in full and on time.

Madam Chair,

My delegation wishes to recall that the report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in the DPRK, released earlier this month, referred to the arbitrary detention of three Korean nationals, Mr. Kim Guk-ki, Mr. Choi Choon-gil, Mr. Kim Jeong-wook, and others. We appreciate that the Working Group is also following up on these cases. As of May 2026, 511 cases transmitted to the DPRK remain outstanding, and we urge the DPRK to cooperate fully with the working group's requests. Finally, the ROK calls on the DPRK to demonstrate genuine commitment to resolving all outstanding humanitarian issues, including the cases of detainees, abductees, and unrepatriated prisoners of war. In this regard, we underscore the need for dialogue and call on the DPRK to promptly engage in inter-Korean dialogue. Thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [54:23]:

I thank the representative of the Republic of Korea. I'll give the floor now to the representative of Pakistan.


Pakistan [54:32]:

Madam Chair, we thank the Chair of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances for the presentation and appreciate the Working Group's continued efforts to address this important human rights concern. Pakistan remains firmly committed to protecting fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under its constitution, including safeguards against unlawful deprivation of liberty and the right to due process and a fair trial. Our legal framework provides robust judicial and institutional mechanisms to ensure accountability, oversight, and access to effective remedies. At the national level, we continue to take concrete measures to address allegations of enforced disappearances. The National Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances, empowered to investigate reported cases and summon officials of law enforcement agencies, remains an important institutional mechanism in this regard. Working closely with the affected families, the Commission facilitates access to justice and provides legal assistance. Since its establishment in 2011, the Commission has resolved more than 80% of the cases registered with it. Pakistan attaches considerable importance to its longstanding and constructive engagement with the Working Group. We continue to cooperate with its mandate, including through substantive responses to communications and individual cases. and we remain committed to facilitating the resolution of outstanding cases. Madam Chair, enforced disappearances assume particular gravity in situations of foreign occupation, where affected populations face heightened vulnerabilities, restrictions on fundamental freedoms, and limited avenues for accountability. These situations warrant sustained international attention and greater engagement by relevant UN human rights commissions. In this context, we would welcome the Chair's views on how the working group can address persistent challenges of accountability in situations of foreign occupation, particularly where restrictions on access and lack of cooperation by occupying powers impede efforts to establish the fate and whereabouts of disappeared persons. I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [56:42]:

I thank the representative of Pakistan. I'll give the floor now to the representative of Spain.


Spain [56:51]:

Senora President.

Madam Chair. Spain aligns with the statement delivered on behalf of the EU and its member states. Spain welcomes the chair of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances and the chair rapporteur of the working group, and we thank them for their reports. Spain recognizes the crucial work of both mechanisms, and we reiterate our support for their respective mandates. We also wish to highlight the contribution of Spanish judge Juan Jose Lopez Ortega during the work of the Committee. This year, when we are commemorating the 20th anniversary of adoption of the Convention, Spain, a State Party to the Convention, reaffirms its commitment to the re-universalization and effective implementation of the Convention. For Spain, This is an issue with deep historical roots, an area where we continue to work with a full commitment in order to achieve the truth, justice, reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence. In this regard, Spain recognizes the role of families searching for their loved ones, and it's important to remember the victims. We also value the work of the working group to ensure that specific cases receive follow-up and for families to have answers as to the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones. The dialogue with States and the Committee are absolutely crucial in making progress in this area, and this needs to use the respective coordination and mandates of both bodies. The unquestionable value of dialogue and cooperation is especially important for those with an active commitment to combating and forced disappearance and a history of working to achieve this, as the case of Spain. At the same time, there is tangible progress for the benefit of victims and their families, and this has been the focus of our efforts. Chair, of the committee, Madam Chair, rapporteur, what measures do you believe are a priority and will guarantee the effective participation of families in the search for missing people? Thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [59:24]:

I thank the representative of Spain. I'll give the floor now to the representative of Uruguay, to be followed by El Salvador and India. Uruguay, you have the floor.


Uruguay [59:36]:

Gracias.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uruguay welcomes the Chair of the Committee and the Chair of the Working Group, and we are grateful for the presentation of their reports. Uruguay wishes to begin by reaffirming its full commitment to its obligations under the Convention, and we reiterate the priority that this government gives to truth, justice and reparations. Uruguay deeply regrets the impact of the structural underfinancing of the human rights pillar of the United Nations and the liquidity crisis and the impact this is having on the treaty bodies and special procedures. We wish to recognize the efforts of the experts in these difficult circumstances. We are grateful also for the contributions as regards deliberations on reform of the treaty bodies. country reviews, and we would be grateful if you could share your vision on this. We take note of the activation of Article 34 of the Convention, and we highlight the positive contribution that the State in question has made to the Committee and the human rights system as a whole. It is important to identify areas where the support to investigation, identification and Taking into account the growing impact of organized crime in Latin America, we believe it would be important to clarify the parameters for state responsibility and that of non-state actors by virtue of Article 2. In this regard, we believe we should investigate inclusive deliberations as regard to general comment on the subject. On 20 December, we will be marking the 20th anniversary of adoption of the convention. And as we join this commemoration, we call on those states that are not party to the convention to consider ratifying it. I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:01:39]:

The representative of Uruguay. I'll give the floor now to the representative of El Salvador.


El Salvador [1:01:48]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. El Salvador is grateful for the presentation of the chair rapporteur. As regards the comments made in relation to our country, we believe that it is important to make some clarifying remarks. Firstly, there are measures that are considered in the Constitution and adopted by the Assembly in order to protect the life and the security of the El Salvadoran population. The state of El Salvador also has consolidated institutions in the area of finding, searching for missing people, which is our CNB, our National Commission, as well as the Office of the Public Prosecutor, that is the institution responsible for investigating these crimes. As regards the cases raised by the working group, We have provided specific information as regards the identified individuals, as regards also their specific situation of deprivation of liberty and their status within the penal system. We would highlight the need for special procedures to be carried out in accordance with independence, impartiality, objectivity, and the information provided by States, in coherence with the code of conduct for mandate holders of special procedures. El Salvador reiterates its readiness to continue cooperating with the Working Group through constructive dialogue. under the framework of their mandate. I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:03:25]:

I thank the representative of El Salvador. I'll give the floor now to the representative of India, to be followed by Nicaragua and China. India, you have the floor.


India [1:03:37]:

Madam Chair, India is a vibrant democracy anchored in the rule of law. Article 21 of our constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Our independent judiciary is fully empowered to issue the writs of habeas corpus, thus providing a strong and readily accessible safeguard against any alleged disappearance. The law enforcement authorities in India are fully bound to act within the framework of law. The National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commissions offer effective avenues for complaint and redressal mechanisms. The Right to Information Act has further strengthened transparency and accountability in governance, further supplemented by the presence of independent media and dynamic civil society. Enforced disappearances are clear violations of human rights and deeply affect the families of victims. We call upon States to eradicate instances of this grave human rights violation through preventive measures, accountability, and the protection of civil society. India has signed the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance. India engages with international human rights mechanisms, but such engagement must be based on dialogue, consultation, cooperation with non-selectivity and transparency as guiding principles. Human rights not to be used as an instrument of political pressure or selective country targeting. We call on delegations to cite the report faithfully, not to inflate a humanitarian communication into a verdict. India remains prepared to clarify specific, properly documented cases through established channels. But India firmly opposes any attempt to convert unverified allegations, incomplete statistics, or a report that contains no India country observation into a negative characterization of the world's largest democracy. I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:05:45]:

I thank the representative of India. I'll give the floor now to the representative of Nicaragua.


Nicaragua [1:05:52]:

Madam Chair, Nicaragua categorically rejects the references to our country. Once again, we are seeing how Certain international mechanisms are twisting human rights into a means of manipulation and interference into sovereign states. These practices, characterized by selectivity and double standards, take us away from the fundamental purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and undermine the credibility of international human rights mechanisms. Human rights are too important to be converted into a spectacle of political charlatanism. International mechanisms should be exercised within their jurisdiction with respect for the sovereign equality of the states and the principle of non-interference in their internal affairs. work requires independence and respect for international law. Our government reaffirms its commitment to human dignity, to the protection of human rights, and to strict adherence to national laws, our constitution, and the right of our people to live in peace and freedom and security and dignity. We will continue to firmly defend our sovereignty, independence, and self-determination as well as the inalienable right of our people to decide their own destiny without threats imposed or by foreign interference. I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:07:19]:

I thank the representative of Nicaragua. I'll give the floor now to the representative of China, to be followed by Myanmar and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. China, you have the floor.


China [1:07:31]:

Madam Chair, enforced disappearance is a grave human rights violation and should be combated and strictly punished by law. The Chinese government consistently supports international efforts to prevent and eliminate enforced disappearances and has taken concrete actions to this end. The constitution and laws of China clearly stipulate that citizens enjoy personal freedom and no organization, entity, or individual may unlawfully restrict the freedom of others. The third plenary session of the 20th CPC Central Committee introduced reforms to strengthen law enforcement and judicial safeguards for human rights, including improving compulsory measures affecting personal rights and punishing unlawful detention, further strengthening rule of law protection for human rights. We will China participated constructively in negotiating the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance and will continue to steadfastly advance the rule of law and contribute to international efforts to prevent and eliminate enforced disappearances. The Chinese government actively cooperates with the working group on enforced or involuntary disappearances and provides targeted responses to communications from the working group. At the same time, China hopes that the working group will act in strict accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and its Human Rights Council mandate and the code of conduct for special procedures, perform its duties objectively and impartially, rely on accurate and credible information, and respect states' judicial sovereignty. I thank you, Chair.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:09:28]:

I thank the representative of China. I give the floor now to the representative of Myanmar.


Myanmar [1:09:35]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, Myanmar commends both the committee and working group on enforced or involuntary disappearance for their steadfast and essential work. In Myanmar, the inhumane military hunter utilize enforced disappearance not as an accidental abuse, but as a carefully orchestrated and institutionalized weapon of terror. For the past five years, the crimes against humanity of enforced disappearance has been systematically weaponized to silence dissent, punish civil society, and break the resolve of pro-democracy movement. The arbitrary detention, torture, and the enforced disappearance of civilians are routinely employed by the military hunter to eradicate oppositions. Detainees are frequently held incommunicado in military interrogation centers. leaving families and legal counsel with absolutely no information regarding their fate or whereabouts. This crisis has drastically worsened following the hunters' forced conscription. As the hunters' abduction targeting men and youth such, they serve a dual sinister purposes. On one hand, the military seeks to use civilians as human shields on the front lines. On the other, aligned militias exploit this campaign of terror for extortions. Furthermore, family members of those abducted are either arbitrarily detained or left completely uninformed. Desperate to avoid being abducted in broad daylight, young people are seeking any means to flee the country, a perilous journey that tragically exposes them to the hunters expanding scam operations and human trafficking networks. Compounding this tragedy, the scale of human rights crisis is expanding exponentially due to the junta's escalating reliance on indiscriminate warfare against civilians. Therefore, the international community must act immediately and decisively by imposing targeted political, military, and financial pressures on the junta. We ask the referral of the situation in Myanmar to the ICC to ensure justice and accountability, the robust and sustained resourcing of the IIIM, and the categorical rejection of the hunters' attempt to manufacture international legitimacy and provisions for an impeded humanitarian assistance directly to the local actors working at the forefront. The suffering of our people from the horrors of inhumane military dictatorship will only end when the perpetrators are held accountable, the military dictatorship is eradicated, and a federal democratic union is established in Myanmar. I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:12:29]:

I thank the representative of Myanmar. I give the floor now to the representative of Democratic People's Republic of Korea.


Democratic People's Republic of Korea [1:12:41]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. The UN human rights bodies should not allow the interference in internal affairs of sovereign states under the pretext of human rights, but by upholding the principles of non-politicization, impartiality, and non-selectivity. The baseless accusations leveled at my country by Japan and the ROK are a clear example of politicizing the human rights in pursuit of defaming the DPRK. Let me make it once again clear. The abduction issue had already been settled in a complete and irreversible manner through our sincere efforts. We have nothing more to resolve with Japan on this issue. Instead, the DPRK strongly urges Japan to take concrete action for complete liquidation of its past crime against humanity, including forcible drafting more than 8.4 million young people for harsh slave labor and kidnapping over 200,000 women for military sex slavery. The regular visits or sending ritual offerings by Japanese politicians, including the incumbent prime minister, to pay tribute to the Yasukuni Shrine where A-class war criminals are buried, is a categorical denial of its past criminal history and proves that its self-portrayed peace-loving nation is nothing but hypocrisy. Japan's crime against humanity has no statute limitation. Madam Chair, the unfolded allegation by ROK on judicial system of my country constitutes a flagrant violation of the latest sovereignty and judicial rights, an intolerable act of interference in internal affairs. The individuals enlisted by the ROK are criminals who lured and abducted innocent DPRK citizens in the border areas and serious offenders who plotted to overthrow our state under the instigation of the ROK authorities. No international law or international human rights convenience stipulates that unlimited freedom should be given to such serious offenses like espionage or subversive activities that disrupt national security and social order. No country in the world tolerates crimes that endanger its national security, and lawful punishment of perpetrators is a legitimate judicial right of a sovereign state. the ROK should keep in mind that people are equal under the law and there is no place or individual above the law. I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:15:32]:

I thank the representative of Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and I'll give the floor to the representative of Sovereign Order of Malta.


SMOM [1:15:41]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. 20 years after the adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, this crime remains a present reality, leaving individuals without protection and families without answers. For families, the suffering continues through uncertainty, not knowing whether a loved one is alive, where they are being held, or what has happened to them. In situations of conflict and displacement, this uncertainty compounds the loss of homes, livelihoods, and support networks. In 2025, approximately 117.8 million people worldwide were displaced, including 68.7 million internally displaced persons. Our international relief agency supported more than 700,000 refugees through its health programs that year. Its psychosocial programs also recognized the emotional consequences of displacement and family separation. The Sovereign Order of Malta believes that the response to enforced disappearance must extend beyond accountability to include the care and protection of families left behind. Madam Chair, we call upon Member States to strengthen mechanisms for the prompt search and identification of disappeared persons, ensuring that families have access to information and effective remedies. We further urge States to protect families, human rights defenders and witnesses from intimidation and reprisals, while strengthening international cooperation and providing adequate resources to United Nations mechanisms. Resource shortages continue to hinder their work and prolong the wait for answers. Madam Chair, nearly nine centuries of humanitarian service have taught the Sovereign Order of Malta that dignity requires more than laws and institutions. It requires standing beside the people in their greatest vulnerability. Every disappearance demands an answer, and every family deserves to be heard. The Sovereign Order of Malta stands with these families in their search for the truth, justice, and healing. I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:17:47]:

I thank the representative of Sovereign Order of Malta, who's the last speaker I had on my list for this dialogue. So I'll now invite the presenters of the combined briefing to respond to the comments and questions from the floor. I first give the floor to the chair of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Mr. Juan Pablo Alban Ale Castro. You have the floor.


CED · Chair [1:18:12]:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Briefly.

I will respond in the same order that the questions were raised. The representative of Poland asked what measures could be adopted to strengthen cooperation and complementarity between the Working Group and the Committee in practice, and I'm sure later I'll have a chance to do so in more detail. We have monthly meetings, we work very closely together, we have focal points, we have a lot of joint projects. And when it comes to the register of urgent actions, very often we carry out simultaneous registries, given that the question may be relevant to members who are States parties, but also to States or actors who are not party to the Convention or non-state actors. As regards the question from the delegation of Brazil, is how to strengthen technical cooperation in order to develop search and investigation protocols with a gender perspective, I believe that the content of the general comment that has been published and that alludes to the differentiated impact of enforced disappearances on women and girls has been altered. We had guiding principles on searching for missing persons, and part of these guiding principles refer to the implementation of differentiated protocols and different approaches and contextual analysis that address the specific characteristics of the victims. Beyond this, I believe that around the world there is very rich comparative practice of the adoption of local instruments that can serve as models for the States in terms of developing more specialized mechanisms for search and investigation. Given that the damage of this phenomenon on women and girls is growing all the time, as covered in General Comment No. 2, women and girls are exposed to aggravated risks that linked to crimes that they may suffer while they are disappeared, that may be sexual or other in nature. I also want to briefly now to refer to the comment, the question raised by the representative of the EU as regards actions undertaken both by the working group and by the Committee to promote the ratification of the Convention to guarantee its effective implementation. Constantly, continuously, we are inviting Member States who haven't yet done so to accede to the Convention. We do so within the framework of fulfilling our tasks. We do so in our annual meeting. Our representatives do so in visits to countries, but also we have outreach activities, as I mentioned in my intervention. We had our first global congress that was carried out in 2025. where many countries took on a commitment to ratify the Convention. Beyond this, if I can now refer to the question raised by Argentina, there's also a group of friends of the Convention, and this is led by four states, Argentina, France, Morocco, and Japan. They periodically carry out efforts that are very valuable to us, that we appreciate immensely for ratification and accession to the convention. So I think that addresses Argentina's question as well. Well, I want to recognize Bangladesh's progress in addressing cases of the disappearance in 2026. And as regards their question, what measures could be implemented internally to give better answers and for such investigation, I want to refer you to the guiding principles adopted in 2019, but also the final observations on countries as regards strengthening efforts. One good measure, for instance, might be creating specialized entities for the investigation of cases of disappearance, specifically in specialized areas for finding missing people that is separate to the investigation effort. And these are separate, but they are complementary. As regards Spain question on priority measures involving families, our own guiding principles on locating missing persons highlight a number of specific measures that states can implement in order to guarantee that families have access to these search processes, but also to continuous information from the state. And then we should add specific actions in terms of protecting the integrity and life of those undertaking the search and investigation. We typically make specific and concrete recommendations taking into account the context of every specific case in order to ensure effective participation and needs to be meaningful. We take note of what was raised by Uruguay. The last meeting, Ecuador had asked whether we might make a general observation as regards non-state actors and how they're covered under the Convention. We have a good start to this. There is the declaration that was adopted in 2023 by the Committee on non-state actors in the context of the Convention. This has some general criteria and of course we could go deeper in that in a discussion with States. And as regards the request for us to explain the position of the Committee and the impact of the crisis on our work, obviously a 40% reduction in our budget does compromise what we're able to do. We're doing everything that we can. The Committee is amongst the youngest in terms of the treaty bodies and the UN human rights mechanisms and of course there is a backlog. It may not be as big as in other bodies but We need to be able to keep working and to do this, we need to ensure that there are no further cuts beyond what we have already endured. I also want to take this opportunity to refer briefly to the intervention by Mexico. I want firstly to recognize the work and action undertaken. I think the first result is that the committee has activated the mechanism provided for in Article 34. and over the course of the last year, 16,000 of the 133,000 officially missing. So we congratulate them on this progress. We hope that these processes of cooperation with Spain, Germany, the UNFPA, the Office of the High Commissioner, the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights, we hope that these relationships will be maintained over time, and they will maintain their relationship also with the Committee. that has a responsibility under Article 9.4 to continue monitoring the situation in Mexico, to continue requesting information and to continue inviting constructive dialogue. And so we will continue to record urgent action in this regard. I thank you, Madam Chair.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:26:15]:

I thank the Chair of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances. I next give the floor to the Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Ms. Grzegina Baranowska, you have the floor.


WGEID · Chair-Rapporteur [1:26:28]:

So thank you very much for all the engagements and the questions. I will shortly give some general remarks, and then I will speak about complementarity with the committee, the armed forces' appearances in a conflict, context of armed conflict, state of exceptions, and good practices. So we transmit individual cases on the basis of allegations received in accordance with our humanitarian mandate and with our methods of work and in good faith. So it is concerning to hear that rather than cooperating, some member states accuse the working group of not being impartial or not taking part in a political agenda against them. If you want to raise criticism, do come to us bilaterally. Come and speak to us. We are always here and in Geneva to speak. We remain open to dialogue with everyone. And this I wanted to highlight that it's good to hear that Nicaragua and the Democratic Republic of We are speaking out because we do not receive any responses from you to our written comments. So we would really love to also become back responses to what we sent to you. Thank you very much for that. Moving on to the complementarity with the committee. So there were several questions about that, and I think it's important to speak about it since we are both here, the committee and the working group. Many of you have mentioned the humanitarian mandate, and I just want to raise that that's one of the elements where complementarity arises. All cases that have happened, all alleged cases of disappearances that happened before a ratification are brought to the working group, whereas all cases from a state that has ratified after ratification to the committee. At the same time, it's only the working group that deals with disappearances committed by non-state actors, so there's also this complementarity As Juan Pablo mentioned, we are actually a very exemplary place of cooperation. We have, as we regularly communicate, also adopted joint short-term joint statement, for example, on short-term disappearances. We are working on more joint statements. There are, however, also procedures that only one of us has. So for example, the working group is the procedure that can issue joint allegation letters or can conduct country visit, whereas the committee can issue decisions in individual complaints or has the competence to adopt Article 34. And as we have emphasized before, I just wanted to repeat the huge importance of engaging in those efforts in the dialogue with the committee in a constructive spirit with the pursuit to get truth and justice for the families, that this is placed at the forefront of addressing that particular procedure. So since there is this complementarity, what could I say to recommend also a ratification of the Convention? So first of all, they are different, there are different mandates, there are different elements where we really complement each other and it's helpful for states to have both. At the same time, the Convention is a wonderful guideline has to strengthen the law in the state with regard to enforced disappearances. So it's really a tool how to make human rights stronger in the country and to prevent in the future disappearances to address those that have already happened. So moving on now to disappearances in armed conflict. There were several questions concerning that. So first of all, I wanted to say that when enforced disappearances occur within armed conflict, this is a violation of not only human rights law, that is the law that we have raised here many times, but also of humanitarian law. So humanitarian law is also very strong in protective matters with regard to civilians and prisoners of war. that are violated when enforced disappearances are occurring in war and in occupation. Solving such disappearances that occurred in those conflicts requires engagement, usually of more than one state. So all states need to make access to their archives possible. All states need to exchange information. We are happy to be the actor that engages in that, participates and supports, but there are also other actors out there who are able and have the capability to do so, as is the ICRC. So it is even more worrying to hear that some of the states that we deal with are not cooperating even with the ICRC in armed conflict situations, are not allowing the ICRC to visit prisoners of war, are not allowing to visit the ICRC for other places of detention. All that we can do as the working group is to raise that issue to the state concerned and to other state concerns as well as to raise that here at the General Assembly as well as at the Human Rights Council. And this one of the countries that has also been mentioned specifically here is that this occurs specifically in the since the full scale invasion of Russia in Ukraine, where this cooperation is not occurring and when enforced disappearances are occurring in violation of both human rights law and humanitarian law. Now I will move to a state of exceptions. This is a practice that we have seen around the world where states for various reasons and in good faith adopt a state of exceptions. And then within those state of exceptions, enforced disappearances are occurring. And it's really important to state that state of exceptions are exactly that, exceptional measures. They cannot be the rule. So according to international standards, they can only last for a certain time, and then regular rules should be in place. This is also in response to the openness of El Salvador to engage with us in the dialogue about that. We are very happy to remain in that dialogue and also to provide technical cooperation, as well as to other states that deal specifically with with disappearances or alleged disappearances that have happened within a state of exceptions. That brings me to the good practices. And we've been asked by several states about different good practices. So we have been asked about good practices in the context of search and memorialization. And for that, I wanted to bring up two tools that are available for all states here at the General Assembly if you would like to engage with the working group. So firstly, we are always happy to engage with states that are willing to engage with us on technical cooperation. And we are currently providing technical cooperation to a number of states, including Chile, specifically on the search plan. So if there are interest in developing a search plan and looking into the search, then there's know-how at the working group that we are happy to share and engage with states to provide that, as we do also with Good practices have also been asked with regard to memorialization. And so we have this year adopted a thematic study on memorialization and enforced disappearances. And in that particular thematic study, we received in a call for inputs responses not only from civil society, but also from a lot of victims of enforced disappearances themselves for their families. And this study is full of examples of how memorialization can be conducted by families and how state can engage in support of those memorialization efforts. So if you are looking for good practices on memorialization, then this tool or thematic studies could also be a useful element. And then we were asked about good practices with regard to search and investigation. And to respond to that question, it brings me back to my starting point to the complementarity between the Committee and the Working Group. The Committee has, several years ago, adopted the Guiding Principles on the Search. This is a wonderful document that also shows how families can be engaged in the search. And that is a document that we also would recommend to States if they're interested in making search more effective. Whereas the working group has several years ago adopted a study specifically on good practices in the context of an investigation. So investigation and search are two extremely relevant elements, but they need to be conducted in parallel. So the aim of the search is to establish the fate and whereabouts, whereas the aim of the investigation is to establish what has happened as well as to find the perpetrators. So to look into both of those documents, one adopted by the Committee and the other adopted by the Working Group, would allow to find some good practices in those areas. Thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:35:59]:

I thank the Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. Once again, I thank both speakers for joining the combined briefing, which served to increase the depth of our discussions, demonstrate the linkages between the respective mandates, and further enhance the quality of the work of the Committee. I now welcome the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, Ms. Anna Bryan-Noukhrir. Participants wishing to make comments and pose questions to the speaker are invited to press their microphone button within the next three minutes, after which the list will be closed. The time limit for each speaker will be announced before the floor is given to the first speaker. Thank you for your cooperation. I now invite the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy to make an introductory statement. Ms. Byrne, you have the floor.


UN · Special Rapporteur [1:36:51]:

Thank you. Madam Chair, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I stand before you today not to offer preliminary reflections or to postpone our analysis for a later debate, but to confront the immediate reality of our global digital ecosystem and its legal tools for international data transfers. The global digital economy is sustained by the free flow of personal data across national borders. Cloud services, interconnected health systems, and digital supply chains rely on this movement. According to McKinsey Global Institute, international data flows contribute with trillions of dollars to the global economy, surpassing even the trade of physical goods. Yet, this unprecedented scale of data processing raises fundamental questions regarding the protection of the right to privacy, enshrined in Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The right to privacy does not evaporate at physical borders. When a citizen's data is processed abroad, the originating state cannot simply abandon its obligation to protect that individual. We face a deep asymmetry. Multinational technological operators transfer the data of millions in fractions of a second, while the legal mechanisms to protect citizens remain fragmented, heterogeneous, and practically inaccessible to the common person. This is not merely a technical regulatory challenge. It is an urgent matter of justice. The most vulnerable populations, migrants, ethnic minorities and those in economic precarity are the ones left most exposed when their data is processed through digital value chains that cross multiple borders without effective safeguards. We are currently relying on a global mosaic of national, regional and multilateral instruments. There is no universal binding treaty that comprehensively regulates this matter, creating profound legal uncertainty. My current report critically examines the tools we are currently using. First, we evaluate adequacy decisions. These are powerful unilateral acts where a competent authority declares that a third country offers an essential equivalent level of data protection. While adequacy decisions incentivize recipient countries to elevate their normative standards, they still are unilateral tools, heavily influenced by commercial and geopolitical considerations. They do not automatically offer directly enforceable subjective rights to data subjects in the destination country. Second, We scrutinize standard contractual clauses. They are the most widely used tool because of their accessibility. However, following landmark jurisprudence, data exporters are not required to conduct complex transfer impact assessments. This mechanism is conceptually solid from a human rights perspective, but it poses massive practical challenges, creating an equal playing field. Third, binding corporate rules. They offer one of the most robust frameworks for multinational corporate groups, creating a binding culture of privacy. Yet, the approval process of an exclusion legally is slow and costly, rendering them practically inaccessible to small entities. Finally, we must look at multilateral mechanisms. We see regional efforts like the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules and the Ibero-American Data Protection Network's Standard Clauses. Crucially, the modernized Convention 108+ of the Council of Europe stands out as the only legally binding international instrument open to global accession. The early adoption of Convention 108+ by nations outside Europe, particularly in Latin America, represents a vital step toward a multilateral legal space with full human rights guarantees. However, these diverse multilateral systems remain poorly articulated with one another, leaving citizens in legal limbo when data moves between different regional frameworks. At this point, Let me reaffirm a simple and potent principle: the independence of Special Rapporteurs. Sanctions and threats against mandate holders, as well as to the integrity of the International Criminal Court, violate international law and risk weakening the human rights system of the United Nations. I call all States to reject and rescind these measures. The central conclusion of this report is unequivocal: the current proliferation of fragmented regulatory frameworks generates severe risks for data subjects and creates obstacles for legitimate global trade. No single instrument is sufficient on its own. The efficacy of these tools depends on the quality of national laws, the independence of supervisory authorities, the political will of states, and the empowerment of citizens. To move forward, we issue the following urgent recommendations. To the member states, we recommend to update your national data protection legislation to align with international human rights standards. We urge them to actively participate in the negotiation of binding multilateral instruments, including accession to Convention 108+, and to explore mutual recognition mechanisms. To the private sector, we recommend to embed privacy by design into all systems involving international data transfers. We call the private sector upon to conduct rigorous and documented transfer impact assessments, paying particular attention to the surveillance laws of recipient nations, and to implement supplementary measures where protections fall short. To unilateral organizations and the United Nations, we recommend to lead the drive toward a legally binding international instrument on personal data transfers that establishes common principles and accessible oversight mechanisms. We must build interoperability bridges between continents, ensuring that data can flow safely without duplicate compliance burdens. Furthermore, We must integrate data protection explicitly into digital trade agreements to prevent the erosion of privacy rights in the name of free commerce. Excellencies, the right to privacy is not a barrier to digital progress. It is its most essential foundation. We have the legal tools before us. It is time to forge them into a coherent global architecture that protects human dignity in the digital age. Thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:45:11]:

I thank the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy. I will now open the floor for any questions or comments to Ms. Brianne McCrear. As per past practice, I would ask the delegations to limit their comments to three minutes. I thank you for your kind of cooperation. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil, to be followed by Germany and Namibia. Brazil, you have the floor.


Brazil [1:45:39]:

Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Special Rapporteur for the recent reports as co-facilitator alongside Germany of the resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age. Brazil appreciates the Special Rapporteur's effort to ensure that our understanding of the right to privacy keeps pace with the technological landscape. As highlighted in the report A/81/178, the protection of personal data in cross-border transfers is not merely a regulatory challenge, but also a matter of justice, with implications for human rights and development. The advancement of artificial intelligence illustrates these challenges. AI systems rely on vast amounts of data collected and processed across borders, often without sufficient transparency or safeguards. Existing legal frameworks do not adequately address the difficulties individuals face in exercising their rights once personal data are incorporated into AI models. These developments raise concerns about inequalities in the digital economy. Personal data collected in developing countries can contribute to the creation of economic value elsewhere without necessarily generating corresponding benefits in terms of technological capabilities, infrastructure, or employment. This raises questions about equitable participation in the digital economy and the realization of the right to development. Accordingly, digital sovereignty should not be understood merely in terms of where data is physically stored. It also concerns the capacity of states to exercise regulatory authority over the processing of personal data, develop its capabilities, and ensure that digital systems operate in accordance with national law and human rights obligations. technological dependency may also translate into regulatory challenges, limiting the ability of national authorities to provide remedies when violations occur against nationals. In this context, Brazil would welcome the Special Rapporteur's views on how international cooperation could help developing countries strengthen their capacities to protect personal data transferred across borders, while ensuring that individuals can effectively exercise their rights. I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:48:24]:

Thank you, Brazil. I give next the floor to the representative of Germany.


Germany [1:48:32]:

Thank you, Chair. And we thank you, Ms. special rapporteur, for your important work on the right to privacy in general and on your recent report on legal tools for the international transfer of personal data in particular. Germany places a high priority on data protection in its national policies, ensuring that they align with the privacy standards set by the EU and with our human rights obligations. This commitment reinforces our efforts to safeguard the individual's right to privacy, including when personal data crosses borders. We are proud to once again co-facilitate with Brazil the resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age. It is our goal to ensure that fundamental principles of data and privacy protection are integral to our engagement with emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. We also place a particular emphasis on the right to privacy in the context of transnational repression. We agree with the report that the right to privacy does not end at national borders. First, no single transfer tool works on its own. Adequacy decisions, standard contractual clauses, and binding corporate rules protect individuals only if independent authorities enforce them and data subjects can exercise their rights. Second, fragmentation weighs particularly heavily on small businesses and developing countries. We support interoperability based on high protection standards. And third, government access to data, including data held by private companies, must be lawful, necessary, proportionate and subject to independent oversight. Special Rapporteur. Which additional safeguards do you consider most urgent for AI training data and neuro data in cross-border contexts? And which practical tools, such as guidelines or model contractual clauses, would you prioritize for small and medium sized enterprises and for developing countries? Germany continues to support your mandate strongly. Thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:50:40]:

Thank you, Germany. I give the floor now to the representative of Namibia.


Namibia [1:50:47]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Namibia welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur. Namibia reaffirms that the right to privacy is essential to human dignity and the enjoyment of other freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. We take note with concern the severity and gravity of the scale and speed at which international data is being transferred as indicated by the report. While we appreciate the focus of the report being on protection of the right to privacy for persons, international data transfers affect state sovereignty as it impacts state security. As previously reported, security is fundamental to data protection. there can be no data protection without security. The Namibian constitution protects persons from interference with their privacy and unjustified searches, save where it is necessary, justified and lawful. Namibia is currently drafting laws on cyber crime and data protection. Upon enactment, the laws on cyber crime and data protection will strengthen existing safeguards on the right to privacy. Madam Chair, A national task force on child online protection was established to coordinate education and awareness raising activities on safe use of the internet and to set up industry standards on child safety online. To further protect their right to privacy, a cyber crime strategy and awareness raising plan was also developed, aiming to sensitize citizens on the dangers of cyber crime and the importance of cyber security. Namibia welcomes the recommendations enumerated in the report. Special Rapporteur, could you kindly elaborate how a state reporting mechanism for the periodic review of laws on government access to data would operate to ensure that they are aligned with the principles of necessity and proportionality? I thank you, Madam Chair.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:52:52]:

Thank you, Namibia. I'll give the floor next to the representative of India, to be followed by Cuba and the United Kingdom. India, you have the floor.


India [1:53:00]:

Madam Chair, in today's digital age, protection of personal data is a matter of trust, autonomy, and dignity. It is knowing that information about one's identity, health, finance, etc. are handled lawfully. For the purpose, it was stated with the recourse built in for when things go wrong. We thank the Special Rapporteur for underlining that this protection cannot end at the borders. India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 recognizes this right. It clearly identifies role and assigned duties to data fiduciaries, data processors, and data principles. Government of India has also notified DPDP rules 2025 that are being implemented in its phases. Consent-driven data processing from the foundation of the act and its permits such processing for lawful and stated purpose as specified in the act. Fiduciaries are expected to provide privacy notice in the clear and plain language. The Act stabilizer data protection board that inquiry into personal data breaches here, complaints from citizens and distribute regarding data. Fiduciaries, the framework provides for reasonable security, safeguards and contractual requirement for engaging data processor with audit and impact assessment obligation for data fiduciaries. On cross-border data transfer, the Act provides a framework enabling data transfer while also preserving protection of restriction under the applicable Indian laws. My delegation has taken note with interest the legal tools mentioned in the report as well as the challenges identified the cross-border transfer of data. India remain committed to work with partners towards a framework that protect the privacy of citizens Where accountability, transparency and safe guards help build an environment of trust between citizens, government and technology enterprises. Thank you so much.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:55:01]:

Thank you, India. I'll give the floor next to the representative of Cuba.


Cuba [1:55:09]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The right to privacy is an essential component of human dignity and a fundamental pillar for the full exercise of all rights. In the digital era, this right is facing growing threats derived from the indiscriminate use of the technology of mass surveillance and the mercantilization of personal data. It is essential that we adopt measures that contribute to closing the gaps and eliminating the structural inequalities that digitalization can bring with it needs to be regulated with a human rights approach. In 2022, we adopted law 149 on the protection of personal data. This recognizes the right of every individual to access, modify, or cancel their data, and it establishes safeguards against non-authorized use. The effective protection of This right requires, in addition to legal frameworks, institutional supervision, digital education, and international cooperation. Cuba rejects the use of digital technologies in order to subvert, spy on, or interfere in sovereign political processes. Data manipulation for the ends of destabilization represents a grave violation of the right to privacy and to international law. Defence of privacy in the digital world is inseparable from the fight for equity, inclusion and social justice. Cuba will continue to advocate for an ethical, democratic and human-centred digital order. I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:56:51]:

Thank you, Cuba. I give the floor next now to the representative of the United Kingdom.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:56:57]:

Thank you, Special Rapporteur. The UK welcomes your report and thanks you for your continued commitment to protect and promote the right to privacy. We recognise that the digital revolution has come with challenges to our privacy, as emerging technologies and artificial intelligence become embedded in our day-to-day lives. While we support the innovative and beneficial impacts of these evolving technologies, it is more important than ever that citizens should be able to trust that their data is safe while using them. The UK remains firmly committed to upholding the right to privacy as set out in article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both online and offline. In 2024, we made amendments to our Investigatory Powers Act to strengthen our already world-leading safeguards to protect our citizens' privacy. We recognize the vital role which technology plays in our global development. What can international donors do to ensure that this rapid development does not come at the cost to our people's privacy? Thank.


3rd Committee · Chair [1:58:10]:

You. Thank you, UK. I'll give the floor next to the representative of the European Union, followed by the Russian Federation and Liechtenstein. The EU, you have the floor.


EU · EU [1:58:21]:

Thank you, Chair. I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. We thank the Special Rapporteur for her important work, the present report and its recommendations. The EU welcomes the report's timely focus on legal tools for the international transfer of personal data. In a digital economy built on cross-border data flows, the right to privacy does not end at national borders. We support the report's emphasis that states must protect individuals' data, also when it is processed abroad. We share the Special Rapporteur's assessment that no single tool is sufficient on its own. Effectiveness depends on strong national frameworks, independent supervisory authorities and accessible amends for data subjects, principles closely reflected in the EU's own legal framework, in particular the General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR. We note the reference to Council of Europe Convention 108+ and welcome the attention given to emerging challenges, in particular artificial intelligence, neurodata and government access to data held by businesses. Ms. Special Rapporteur, How can effective remedies be ensured for individuals whose data are transferred to jurisdictions that allow broad government access, and what role can cooperation between data protection authorities play? You identify a regulatory gap regarding AI training data. Which safeguards would you prioritize for cross-border transfers of such data, notably to preserve rights of access, rectification, and erasure? I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [2:00:04]:

Thank you, EU. I'll give the floor now next to the representative of the Russian Federation.


Russian Federation [2:00:14]:

We were very interested to read the report on the legal instruments for international transfer of personal data. The differences between legal systems indeed create difficulties, including for state authorities involved in the process of protecting personal data of their subjects. Ensuring their global protection and also create secure conditions for the cross-border flow of these data can be done through international cooperation. It was something that Russia is open to. In December 2024, the UNGA adopted by consensus the Convention on Strengthening International Cooperation in the Fight Against Crimes Committed Using ICT Systems. and exchange of electronic evidence pertaining to serious crimes. This document was developed on Russia's initiative and questions about personal data protection is covered in a separate article, Article 36. At the same time, the right to creating and updating the national normative legal basis in this sphere is exclusively the prerogative of sovereign states. Imposing a single template on countries is unacceptable and is in itself an impingement on their domestic sovereignty. In Russia, personal data processing is done while complying with fundamental human rights and freedoms, including the right to privacy and personal and family confidentiality, which is something guaranteed by our constitution. Collecting, storing, and distributing information without the consent of the individual is unacceptable. The normative regulation in this sphere is being updated, including through increasing responsibility for stealing this kind of data. Thank you very much for your attention.


3rd Committee · Chair [2:01:59]:

Thank you, Russian Federation. I'll give the floor now to the representative of Liechtenstein.


Liechtenstein [2:02:10]:

We thank the Special Rapporteur for a recent report on the right to privacy. Your report discusses AI regulation, which has come up repeatedly during the session.

From your perspective, where is the greater regulatory gap today in limiting the types of data that AI

systems can access and train on, or in regulating the content, decisions, and outputs that AI systems can produce?

I thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [2:02:38]:

Thank you, Liechtenstein. Next, I'll give the floor to the representative of Iceland, to be followed by Islamic Republic of Iran and Algeria. Iceland, you have the floor.


Iceland [2:02:48]:

Thank you, Chair. I would like to thank the Special Rapporteur for her report, which highlights how international systems for the collection and transfer of data across borders can result in insufficient protection of the right to privacy. Our rapidly developing digital environment presents profound challenges to the right to privacy and personal data. We share the Special Rapporteur's view that the cross-border data collection must not create impunity or leave individuals without effective protection and remedies. Emerging technologies, including AI, while offering significant opportunities, can reinforce existing biases and stereotypes and lead to violations of privacy and other human rights. These risks underscore the need for robust legal safeguards, international cooperation, and effective oversight. Here, Iceland would like to highlight the value of the Council of Europe's modernized Convention 108+, which provides a comprehensive framework for data protection and is open to accession by all States. Madame Special Rapporteur, what further steps would you recommend to strengthen international cooperation and encourage States to adopt effective data protection frameworks? Thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [2:03:57]:

Thank you, Iceland. I'll give the floor now to the Islamic Republic of Iran.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [2:04:07]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Islamic Republic of Iran takes note of the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy on legal tools for the international transfer of personal data. The rapid development of digital technologies and the growing cross-border flow of personal data have created significant challenges for the protection of privacy and other fundamental human rights. As the report rightly highlights, The existence of legal instruments alone is insufficient without effective safeguards, appropriate oversight, accountability, and access to remedies. The Islamic Republic of Iran emphasizes that the protection of personal data must be grounded in international human rights law and guided by the principles of sovereignty, non-interference, equality, and non-discrimination. Cross-border data flows must not become a pretext for unchecked surveillance arbitrary access to personal information, or the exercise of extraterritorial control over individuals and societies. Madam Chair, these concerns become particularly acute in situations of armed conflict. The unlawful and brutal acts of aggression by the United States and the Israeli regime against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including in the cyber domain, underscore the need to address the implications of such actions for privacy, the security of personal data, and the protection of civilian infrastructure. Cyber attacks and unauthorized access to information systems can ratchet up the risk of the collection, disclosure, or exploitation of personal data. It is therefore necessary to consider the implications of such actions for the fundamental rights of individuals in light of applicable international law and the obligations relating to the protection of civilians. The Islamic Republic of Iran supports and strengthened international cooperation to address regulatory gaps, promote the exchange of good practices, and ensure the effective protection of personal data across jurisdictions. Any future international framework should be developed through an inclusive, transparent, and intergovernmental process, taking into account the legitimate concerns and different legal systems of all states, in particular the developing countries. In conclusion, the protection of privacy in the digital age requires more than technical standards and contractual agreements. requires genuine international cooperation, accountability from lawful practices, and a firm commitment to ensuring that digital technologies serve humanity rather than expose individuals and societies to greater risk. Thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [2:06:50]:

Thank you, Islamic Republic of Iran. I'll give the floor next to the representative of Algeria.


Algeria [2:06:58]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation thanks the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy for her presentation. The rapid development of digital technologies and the growing cross-border movement of personal data underscore the importance of adequate legal safeguards to ensure the effective protection of the right to privacy. Algeria has progressively strengthened its national framework in this area. Law 18-07 of 2018 established the foundation for personal data protection and provided for the establishment of the National Authority for the Protection of Personal Data. in response to evolving technological challenges. Law 25-11 of 2025 further strengthens this framework by broadening the scope of protection, establishing rules for international data transfers, and reinforcing the powers of the national authorities. These efforts reflect Algeria's commitment to ensuring that the protection of personal data keeps pace with technological developments while safeguarding fundamental freedoms and taking public security requirements into account. We believe that protecting the right to privacy is a shared responsibility that extends beyond national borders. International cooperation, together with capacity building and technical assistance, remains essential to support developing countries in strengthening their regulatory and institutional frameworks. Madam Special Rapporteur. What role can international cooperation and technical assistance play in supporting states in development of effective legal frameworks for the protection of personal data in an increasingly interconnected digital environment? Thank you.


3rd Committee · Chair [2:08:42]:

Thank you, Algeria. Next, I'll give the floor to the representative of China.


China [2:08:51]:

Chair. The Chinese delegation takes note of the report by the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy and its focus on international transfers of personal data. The right to privacy is a fundamental human right. China attaches great importance to and protects data privacy and security in accordance with law and has implemented a lot of measures to safeguard citizens' information security. China's Criminal Law, Civil Code, Cybersecurity Law, and Personal Information Protection Law, and others, have explicit provisions in this regard, and the Civil Code recognizes personal information as an important civil right protected by law, and has a separate chapter on the protection of the right to privacy and personal information. The Personal Information Protection Law focuses on addressing issues such as excessive collection, unlawful acquisition, and illegal trade of personal data. The Chinese government is strengthening regulation against illegal and non-compliant collection and use of personal information by mobile apps, effectively safeguarding citizens' legitimate rights and interests in cyberspace and protecting their personal privacy and security. China will remain committed to working with the international community to establish international rules for digital governance that reflect the wishes of all parties and respect their interests. Thank you, Chair.


3rd Committee · Chair [2:10:17]:

Thank you, China. I now give the floor to the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, Ms. Anna Bryan, to respond to the questions and comments. You have the floor.


UN · Special Rapporteur [2:10:29]:

Thank you. I see that our concerns are quite aligned, and I'd like to insist in the necessity of working in the laws of each of the countries here represented and also those not represented. I think that the point is to have considered all the different problematics that may appear in the course of this, facing digital news, I say. I think to look for standardization and for a good way of getting to terms in what standards are the appropriate to put in the respective laws or the respective covenants in general is the essential. I propose Convention 108 plus because I see lots of elements that are being repeated as problems in our points, in our conferences, in our concerns, and they are solved in a way that is a good way. It's a way of that can be a way to get to consensus. So my proposal goes on that way. Of course, the principles, proportionality, necessity are essential. Of course, not only those, but the other principles are also important. But, well, IMAST is standardization, IMAST is in legislation, IMAST is in harmonization, and I think there's no other way. We have some tools, we need to use them, and if we get to new tools, that'll be great too. So no invention, it's on the table. I thank all of you for your interventions. I thank for the -- I'm gratitude towards you because what you say keeps on bringing, let's say, concerns to this Special Rapporteur and thinking about ways of having solutions to them. And this interaction is very good, very good for us. So, thank you all.


3rd Committee · Chair [2:13:22]:

Thank you very much, Madame Special Rapporteur. Before we adjourn, I would like to remind delegations that the deadline for the submission of draft proposals under this item is Tuesday, 3 November, at 1:00 p.m. The Committee will continue its consideration of agenda item 70, Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and its sub-items A to D tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. sharp to hear statements by the Special Procedures mandate holders and other experts, and engage with them in an interactive dialogue. Information on the work of the committee, including the schedule of meetings, is available on iGov. The meeting is adjourned.