Introduction
Enforced disappearance represents one of the most severe, complex, and multi-dimensional violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. As a phenomenon, it can be described as a highly systematic technology of state terror designed to paralyse civil society and instill a climate of fear among citizens. By intentionally removing an individual from the protection of law, the state or any actor operating with state support strips the victim of all fundamental rights, placing them in an exceptionally vulnerable situation, where they can experience torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and in some cases, even extrajudicial execution. Enforced disappearance is often very closely connected to authoritarian regimes, political repression, and the suppression of dissent. When the government allows its security forces to operate above the law, it often secretly imprisons people, forces confessions, and silences political enemies without any consequences. This practice destroys the concept of justice within international legal norms.
According to a report by Amnesty International, the foundational legal frameworks and international agreements underpinning human rights protections are facing unprecedented pressure. It has become increasingly common for governments to violate human rights laws without consequences (Amnesty International, 2026). We are witnessing serious international crimes happening all over the globe, across different regions and during conflicts. Governments are using violence and excessive force to suppress peaceful protests and, to consolidate power, resort to abusive police tactics and enforced disappearance. Reportedly, on different levels, the governments of Afghanistan, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Kenya, the United Kingdom (UK), the USA, and Venezuela, among other countries, have violently repressed protests, criminalised dissent, or used enforced disappearance, executions, and abusive policing tactics in 2025 (Amnesty International, 2026). It is incredibly important to investigate the issue of enforced disappearances, because it has a profound and far-reaching impact. When governments use any unlawful methods, entire regions of the world become less safe, it damages the global justice system, and proves that our existing mechanisms for compelling states to comply with human rights obligations are becoming increasingly inadequate.
This article aims to thoroughly examine the crime of enforced disappearance. It starts by exploring the international legal frameworks established to regulate, prohibit, and criminalise the crime. It also aims to carefully trace the historical developments of these international legal instruments. It then turns to a specific case study – that of Sayed Mohamed Almosawi, who died in custody in Bahrain.
International Legal Framework of Enforced Disappearance
The international community’s effort to codify, regulate, and eradicate enforced disappearance has evolved significantly over recent decades. The evolution represents a transition from non-binding soft law declarations, to robust and binding international treaties and customary international humanitarian law (IHL). As these international laws have grown and developed, they reflect a growing international recognition of the gravity and complexity of this crime. Enforced disappearance is a layered attack that violates many different basic human rights. For example, when the government arbitrarily detains an individual in secret, it completely strips away their right to recognition before the law, their right to liberty and security of person, their absolute right to never be tortured, and their very basic right to life.
The foundational international instrument specifically designed to address this complex phenomenon is the Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 47/133 on December 18, 1992. The 1992 Declaration explicitly states that any act of enforced disappearance places the victims outside the protection of the law, inflicts severe suffering on them and their families, and constitutes a grave violation of the norms of international law (Article 1, Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance). The 1992 Declaration established the fundamental global principles regarding criminal accountability, the right to an effective remedy, and the absolute prohibition of impunity. Article 4 of the Declaration mandates that all acts of enforced disappearance shall be established as specific offences under domestic “criminal law, punishable by appropriate penalties which shall take into account their extreme seriousness”. Article 4(2) provides that mitigating circumstances may be established in national legislation for persons who, having participated in enforced disappearances, are instrumental in returning victims alive or in providing voluntary information which would contribute to clarifying cases of enforced disappearance. Furthermore, Article 6 of the Declaration explicitly dismantles the traditional military and bureaucratic defence of superior orders. It states that no order or instruction of any public authority, whether civilian, military, or otherwise, may ever be invoked to justify an enforced disappearance. It grants subordinates the explicit legal right (or legal obligation) to refuse such instructions and requires states to ensure that the training of law enforcement officials must emphasizes this absolute prohibition. Additionally, Article 13 states that states must ensure that any person reporting a disappearance, has the unhindered right to prompt, a thorough, and impartial investigation conducted by a competent and independent state authority, who must be equipped with the necessary powers and resources to compel the attendance of witnesses and conduct immediate on-site visits to suspected detention facilities.
All the principles established by the 1992 Declaration were subsequently codified into binding, enforceable international treaty, with the adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED) of December 2006, which formally entered into force in December 2010. The ICPPED represents the most comprehensive, specialised legal framework designed to prevent enforced disappearance, punish perpetrators across borders, and protect the rights of victims.
The ICPPED codifies the established definition of the crime in Article 2, identifying three cumulative elements involving deprivation of liberty, state complicity, and the refusal of acknowledgment (ICPPED). Beyond its scope, the Convention establishes the principle of absolute non-derogability, and declares that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war, a threat of war, internal political instability, a public emergency, or counter-terrorism measures, may be invoked as a legal justification for enforced disappearance (ICPPED, Article 1). One of the main goals of the international treaty is to establish a universal jurisdiction framework ensuring that perpetrators of enforced disappearance cannot evade prosecution regardless of where they are found. Under Article 11 of the Convention, if a suspected perpetrator is discovered within its borders and if the host country decides not to extradite nor surrender the perpetrator to an international tribunal, it is obliged to submit the case to its domestic authorities for prosecution. When the local courts and authorities take over the case, they are not allowed to overlook or disregard its pertinence. The law explicitly requires the local justice system to handle the investigation and trial with the same degree of severity as they would apply to any other serious crime committed within the country. Moreover, to facilitate effective extradition and prevent diplomatic shielding, Article 13 of ICPPED removes the crime of any political protection, and mandates that enforced disappearance shall not be regarded as a political offence or connected to it, or as an offence inspired by political motives, for the purposes of extradition between State Parties. The Convention specifically codifies the principle of non-refoulement, prohibiting the expulsion, return, surrender, or extradition of a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing they would be in danger of being subjected to enforced disappearance (ICPPED, Article 16).
The Rome Statute, which was adopted in 1998, and entered into force in 2002, specifically classifies enforced disappearance as a crime against humanity under Article 7(1)(i).For a disappearance to officially recognised under the Rome Statute as a crime against humanity, it must satisfy a very strict and specific standard. The crime must be part of a “widespread or systematic attack” that targets civilians, and the perpetrators must know they are part of this broader attack (Rome Statute, Article 7(1)). In this context, the word “widespread” refers to the largescale nature of the abuse and the significant number of victims, and the word “systematic” implies that the violence is highly organised and deliberate. The rules under the Rome Statute also require careful consideration of the perpetrator’s state of mind and intent. To be convicted, the perpetrator must have deliberately planned to remove the victims from the protection of the law for a “prolonged period of time.” However, the Working Group on Enforced Disappearance (WGEID) has noted continuing controversy surrounding this specific requirement (OHCHR, n.d.). They argue that purposefully removing someone from the protections of the law is a severe violation, regardless of how long the person remains disappeared or in detention. Categorising this crime under the Rome Statute carries significant legal and strategic consequences. It means that when disappearances are part of a systematic government campaign, they are treated as among the most serious violations of international law. Consequently, these crimes are subject to universal jurisdiction, which means that any state has the authority to prosecute the offenders, and no statute of limitations may be applied to prohibit bringing them to trial.
Finally, IHL also strictly forbids enforced disappearances in both international and non-international armed conflicts, therefore resulting in binding obligations for all state and non-state actors (ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 98).
Despite the breadth and depth of legal instruments to prevent and protect people from enforced disappearance, the crime continues to occur. The case of Sayed Mohamed Almosawi is a stark example that despite numerous conventions and treaties protecting basic human rights, people, and especially those living in authoritarian regimes, remain gravely vulnerable.
The Case of Sayed Mohamed Almosawi
The tragic death of Sayed Mohamed Almosawi provides a compelling illustration of how enforced disappearance operates as a mechanism of state terror. Sayed Mohamed Almosawi, a 32-year-old Bahraini small business owner and former political prisoner, was subject to enforced disappearance on March 19, 2026. According to CIVICUS (2026), Almosawi was detained at a checkpoint alongside other individuals travelling in the same vehicle. Shortly before his disappearance, he attended an event at Imam Mojtaba Mosque in a village in Sanabis, near Bahrain’s capital Manama, with his cousin Sayed Ahmed Almosawi and a friend, Mustafa Youssef (Human Rights Watch, 2026). Following his apprehension, the Bahraini authorities engaged in a textbook execution of enforced disappearance, depriving him of his liberty and subsequently refusing to acknowledge his detention or disclose his fate or whereabouts. Despite digital evidence briefly placing his phone near the Southern Hamad Town Police Station, both local police and the Interior Ministry repeatedly denied to his family that he was being held in state custody (Human Rights Watch, 2026).
The consequences of removing an individual from the protection of the law became evident over a week later. Having searched desperately for nine days, Almosawi’s family was abruptly contacted and asked to visit the hospital without an official explanation. They learned about Almosawi’s death upon arrival at the hospital (Human Rights Watch, 2026). The authorities initially claimed that Almosawi had been detained by the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) on espionage charges and had succumbed to a heart attack. However, his body bore severe marks of physical violence, including deep wounds and extensive black discoloration (Human Rights Watch, 2026). An independent medical expert from Physicians for Human Rights, who reviewed the visual evidence, concluded that the injuries were consistent with “repeated blunt force trauma applied over time,” inflicted in a “controlled environment, potentially involving restraint” (Human Rights Watch, 2026). The medical expert further noted that the photographic evidence was “highly consistent with alleged torture.”
The state’s handling of the killing clearly demonstrates how authoritarian regimes construct sophisticated architectures of impunity. Initially, the Ministry of Interior attempted to discredit the evidence, issuing a public statement on March 27 claiming that the photographs of Almosawi’s body were “inaccurate and misleading” (BIRD, 2026). However, following intense pressure and the compelling visual evidence of torture, Bahrain’s Special Investigation Unit (SIU), a domestic oversight body, initiated proceedings. In a rare admission on April 16, 2026, the SIU acknowledged that Almosawi died from a “beating leading to death” and referred a single, unnamed security official for criminal prosecution (BIRD, 2026). While the SIU’s action nominally addresses the crime, human rights advocates point out that charging a single individual serves to protect the broader command structure and mask the systemic nature of the violations (BIRD, 2026). This aligns with the findings from the UN Committee against Torture, which noted in November 2025 that torture remains “routinely used” by Bahraini security forces to extract confessions and punish dissidents. The Committee further warned that a lack of independent investigations has fostered a systemic climate of impunity. The Committee found “consistent reports” of torture and ill-treatment inflicted by authorities to extract confessions, punish detainees, or intimidate political opponents (BIRD, 2026).
Ultimately, Almosawi’s case stands as a devastating testament to the fact that while international frameworks like the ICPPED and the Rome Statute are enshrined in international law, the physical safety of citizens fundamentally depends upon the effective dismantling of state-sponsored impunity.
Conclusion
Enforced disappearance is not a spontaneous or accidental human rights violation. The international legal framework, codified in the 1992 UN Declaration, the Rome Statute, and the ICPPED, recognises that deliberately removing an individual from legal protection is the primary pathway to torture, extrajudicial killing, and the broader terrorisation of civil society.
The tragic case of Sayed Mohamed Almosawi serves as a damning indictment of the current human rights environment in the Kingdom of Bahrain. His case, progressing from arbitrary detention through unacknowledged enforced disappearance to violent death by severe blunt force trauma while in police custody, illustrates the lethal efficacy of state-sponsored disappearances. Furthermore, the state’s institutional response via the Special Investigation Unit, which effectively narrowed the scope of culpability to a single low-ranking official charged only with assault, highlights the lack of genuine accountability mechanisms. The continued detention of his co-detainees, Sayed Ahmed Almosawi and Mustafa Youssef, provides ongoing evidence that the systemic conditions facilitating these international crimes remain firmly entrenched in Bahrain today. To address this systemic crisis and provide justice for victims, concrete, strategic, and immediate actions must be undertaken both domestically by the Bahraini government and externally by the international community.
Bibliography
Amnesty International (n.d.). Annual report: Global analysis. https://www.amnesty.org/en/annual-report-global-analysis/ accessed May 1, 2026.
Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD) (April 16, 2026). Bahrain Watchdog charges security official over torture leading to the death of Sayed Mohamed Almosawi. https://birdbh.org/2026/04/bahrain-watchdog-charges-security-official-over-torture-leading-to-the-death-of-sayed-mohamed-almosawi/ accessed May 1, 2026.
CIVICUS (April 13, 2026). Bahrain: Call to release political prisoners and end prison abuses. https://www.civicus.org/index.php/fr/medias-ressources/112-news/8247-bahrain-call-to-release-political-prisoners-and-end-prison-abuses accessed May 1, 2026.
Human Rights Watch (April 12, 2026). Bahrain: Sayed Mohamed Almosawi dies in custody. https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/04/12/bahrain-sayed-mohamed-almosawi-dies-in-custody accessed May 1, 2026.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Rule 98. Enforced disappearance. Customary IHL Database. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule98 accessed May 1, 2026.
UN General Assembly. (December 18, 1992). Declaration on the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance.https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-protection-all-persons-enforced-disappearance accessed May 1, 2026.
UN General Assembly. (July 17, 1998). Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/rome-statute-international-criminal-court accessed May 1, 2026.
UN General Assembly. (December 20, 2006). International convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-protection-all-persons-enforced accessed May 1, 2026.
United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. (2019). Comments and observations on the draft articles on crimes against humanity. Accessed May 1, 2026.
