Committee on Enforced Disappearances: An Inadmissible Application

ByLa Jornada Editorial Board

This editorial by La Jornada’s editorial board originally appeared in the April 3, 2026 edition of La Jornada. The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of Mexico Solidarity Media or the Mexico Solidarity Project.

Mexican authorities rejected a report by the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED), calling it “biased and lacking in legal rigor.” The federal government claims that the report failed to consider “the observations, analyses, and updates presented, which demonstrate that the arguments do not align with either the committee’s own definition of enforced disappearance or the institutional progress achieved since 2019, and particularly since 2025.”

This reaction comes after the CED decided to request that the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, urgently refer the case of enforced disappearances in Mexico to the General Assembly, considering that it has “well-founded indications” that enforced disappearances have been and continue to be committed in the country as crimes against humanity; that is, with direct or indirect support “of state actors, or by non-state actors acting with the support, authorization or acquiescence of the State.”

However, the committee also clarified that it found no evidence of a federal policy to commit enforced disappearances—whether through deliberate action or omission—within the meaning of the Rome Statute. This distinction is highly relevant, as the Rome Statute provides a very narrow definition of enforced disappearance, stating that it means “the apprehension, detention or abduction of persons by or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to admit the deprivation of liberty or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.”

The Statute is very clear: under international law, only an act perpetrated by the State can be classified as enforced disappearance, regardless of the degree of participation. By admitting that this condition is not met, those who seek to subject Mexico to external oversight raise strong suspicions that there are ulterior motives and interests behind the request that they dare not make public. It also reveals the tendency already exhibited by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States to mobilize and attack progressive administrations for acts of state violence that occurred during the neoliberal period.

The problem with this diplomatic attack is not that it discredits Mexican authorities, nor even that it provides ammunition to disinformation spreaders within Mexico: the deplorable aspect lies in the fact that it undermines the credibility of the United Nations system at a time when the organization most needs to regain prominence in the face of the rise of totalitarianism in the United States and Israel; the resurgence of militarism in Europe in general and Germany in particular; the rise of climate change denial; the dismantling of freedom of expression in the West; the global recession that Washington is orchestrating in the Persian Gulf, among other crises that warrant the urgent attention of the international community.

It is also disheartening that the UN lends itself to maneuvers that facilitate interference and the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine by US President Donald Trump, who uses any pretext to encourage Washington’s military intervention in our country.

It is hoped that Guterres will have the good sense to refuse to participate in this perverse game and, on the contrary, will focus the organization’s efforts on matters such as those mentioned.