Constitutional Law: Article III, Section 15 Summary (De Leon)

Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases on invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.

 

Meaning of writ of habeas corpus.
An order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction,

directed to the person detaining another, 

commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner 

at a designated time and place, 

and to show sufficient cause for holding in custody the individual so detained.

Writ is a court order; 
Habeas corpus means "(that) you have the body."

Purpose and importance of the writ.

(1) Habeas corpus is a highly prerogative writ. 

It has for its purpose to inquire into all manners of involuntary restraint, as distinguished from voluntary and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is found illegal or when the accused's constitutional rights are disregarded.

Its principal purpose then is to set the individual liberty, i.e., to order his release if his detention is found to be illegal. 

(2) Without the guarantee of habeas corpus, imprisonment is possible without explanation or redress, for law enforcement authorities could detain a person for any length of time with

no basis for detention.

True or actual and effective restraint.

It is necessary that there should exist true or actual and effective restraint or

deprivation of liberty. A nominal or moral restraint is not sufficient.

The singular function of a petition for habeas corpus is to protect and secure the basic freedom of physical liberty. Restrictive custody and monitoring of movements or whereabout of police officers under investigation by their superiors is not a form of illegal detention or restraint of liberty. 

But if the actual effect of the external moral compulsion is to place a person at the mercy of another, the victim is entitled to the writ as much as the individual who is illegally deprived of his liberty by duress or physical coercion.

The nature of the restraint of liberty need not be related to any offense as to entitle a

person. to the remedy. The writ of habeas corpus is different from the final decision on the  petition for the issuance of the writ.

The writ is also available in cases involving the rightful custody over a minor.

Another remedy available.

It may issue even if another remedy (e.g., appeal), which is less effective, may be availed of by the person.

Inquiry on mere disappearance or whereabouts of a person.

But the granting of the relief cannot be predicated on the mere disappearance of a person. It must be established by competent and convincing evidence that the missing person in whose behalf the petition is filed is under the custody of the respondent. The writ may not be used as a means of obtaining evidence on the whereabouts of a person.

Liberal construction.

Consistently, with the purpose and importance of the writ, the rules on habeas corpus should be liberally applied. 

Thus, in a case the decision in which has become final, the Supreme Court treated a  motion for reconsideration as a substantial compliance with the rules and ordered the release of the accused appellant it appearing she has already served more than maximum of the imposable

penalty.

Expanded application.

Case law has expanded the writ's application to circumstances where there is deprivation of a person's constitutional rights. The writ is available where a person continues to be unlawfully denied of one or more of his constitutional freedoms, where there is a denial of due process, where the restraints are not merely involuntary but are also unnecessary, and where a deprivation of freedom originally valid has later become arbitrary. 

However, a mere allegation of a violation of one's constitutional right is not sufficient. The courts will extend the scope of the writ only if any of the following circumstances is present:

(a) there is a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the unlawful restraint of a person;

(b) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or 

(c) an excessive penalty is imposed and such sentence is void as to the excess.

Whatever situation the petitioner invokes, the threshold remains high. The violation of constitutional right must be sufficient to void the entire proceedings.

Motion for execution.

 A motion for execution of a habeas corpus decision is not required.

How writ operates.

The remedy of habeas corpus has one objective - to inquire into the cause of the detention of a person.

If found illegal, the court orders his release;

if proven lawful, then the habeas corpus proceedings terminates.

This is how the writ of habeas corpus operates to safeguard the liberty of a person:

(1) The prisoner or any person in his behalf petitions the proper court;

(2) The court shall immediately issue the writ;

(3) The writ is sent to the person having another in his custody;

(4) Such person is ordered to produce the prisoner in court at a specified time together with an explanation of the cause of the detention, called the return. 

(5) After the order is obeyed, the judge scrutinizes the return and then decides whether it shows that the imprisonment is authorized by law. 

(6) If so, the prisoner is remanded - sent back to custody. 

(7) If not, he is set free at once by the judge.

The return of the writ must be taken on its face value. Unless it is in some way traversed or denied, the facts stated therein must be taken as true.

The order to present the detained individual before the court is a preliminary step in the hearing of the petition. Every person who unlawfully disobeys the court's commands or unlawfully resists its execution is in contempt of court and may be summarily punished therefor. Disobedience to the writ may take the form of neglecting or refusing to produce the person whose presence is sought by the writ, of failing to make a return, of making a false or evasive return, or of refusing to obey the final order of judgment entered in the proceedings.

 

Availability of the writ. (I-C-ST; R-J-ES)

The writ is the proper remedy in each and every case of confinement or detention by which any person deprived of his liberty without legal cause or authority may obtain immediate relief. 

The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective, not merely nominal or moral.

(1) It can be invoked by a prisoner who has undergone imprisonment for a period more than the maximum imprisonment which could have been properly imposed on him.

(2) It will lie not only when someone is deprived of liberty, but also when he is wrongfully prevented from exercising the legal or rightful custody, to which he is entitled, over another person.

(3) It is an appropriate remedy to obtain the freedom of an accused who is denied his right to speedy trial. 

It may be availed of where, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right (the court that rendered the judgment is deemed ousted of jurisdiction) resulting in the restraint of a person, or the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or an excessive sentence has been imposed as such sentence is void as to such excess.

Non-availability of the writ. (SLWR-RAA-WL)

(1) The privilege of the writ has been suspended.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (not the writ itself) may be suspended by the President (Art. VII, Sec. 18.) in case only of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it. Consequently; the person under detention by the government may not obtain his liberty by the use of the privilege.

(a) While the person detained must still be produced in court, the official or person detaining him may ask the court not to continue the proceeding any further as the privilege of the writ as to that particular person seeking release has been suspended. Unlike in cases where the privilege of the writ is available and in full force and effect, the judge thus may be prevented in the event of suspension from determining whether or not the detention is authorized by law.

The Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution to inquire, in an appropriate proceedings filed by any citizen, whether or not there was factual basis to justify the suspension by the President of the privilege.

(b) The suspension of the privilege of the writ enables the State "to hold in preventive imprisonment pending investigation and trial of persons who plot against it or commit acts that

endanger its very existence." 

What is suspended is merely the right of the individual to seek release from detention through the writ as a speedy means of obtaining his liberty. It does not, however, destroy a person's right and cause of action for damages for illegal arrest and detention and other violation of his constitutional rights. Neither does it render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention, nor suspend the right to bail.

(2) Where confinement, illegal at beginning, has become legal at the time of filing of the application.

In such case, the rule is that a writ of habeas corpus will not be granted.

Habeas corpus is not the proper mode to question conditions of confinement. 

It is a fundamental rule that a writ of habeas corpus will not be granted when the confinement is or has become legal, although such confinement was illegal at the beginning.

(3) Where warrant of commitment has been issued after filing of information. 

Even if the arrest of a person is illegal, supervening events may bar his release or discharge from custody. The function of the special proceeding of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of one's detention. 

Where the detained person's detention was later made by virtue of a judicial order in relation to a criminal case subsequently filed against him before the court, the remedy of habeas corpus no longer lies. His petition for habeas corpus becomes moot and academic.

The writ should not be allowed after the party sought to be released had been charged before any court or quasi-judicial body. The term "court" includes the General Court-Martial.

Detention under a valid information is one thing, arbitrary detention anterior thereto is another. They are separate concepts. The second is illegal; but the first is not.

By filing a motion for bail, the accused admits that he is under the custody of the court and voluntarily submits his person to its jurisdiction.

(4) Where detained person has been released.

The writ should not issue where it is not necessary to afford the petitioner relief or where it would be ineffective. There are exceptions.

(a) A petition for its issue becomes moot and academic where the detained person has been released, whether permanent or temporary, insofar as it questions the legality of the

arrest and detention of petitioner, or is not actually restrained of his liberty.

It is the involuntary and illegal restraint that habeas corpus as a swift and efficacious remedy is intended to reach.

(b) An accused in a criminal case who is at liberty on bail may no longer avail himself of that remedy for the purpose of nullifying the order of arrest issued against him in the criminal case.

The dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is without prejudice to the filing of another petition should new factual circumstances warrant it.

The general rule is that the release, whether permanent or temporary, of a detained person renders the petition of habeas corpus moot and academic, unless there are restraints attached to his release which precludes freedom of action, in which case the court can still inquire into the nature of his involuntary restraint.

(5) Where the object is to correct alleged errors of fact or law committed by a lower court. 

Habeas corpus cannot take the place of appeal, certiorari or writ of error.

(a) The Supreme Court cannot, in habeas corpus proceedings, review the record in a criminal case after judgment of conviction has been rendered, and the defendants have entered on the execution of the sentence imposed, to ascertain whether the facts found by the trial court were in accordance with the evidence disclosed by the record, or to pass upon the correctness of conclusions of law by the trial court based on the facts thus found.

Under the statute, a commitment in due form based on a final judgment convicting and sentencing a defendant in a criminal case is conclusive evidence of the legality of his detention under such commitment, unless it appears that the court which pronounced the judgment was without jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing the penalty. Mere errors of fact or law, which did not have the effect of depriving the trial court of its jurisdiction over the cause and the person of the defendant, if corrected at all, must be corrected on appeal in the form and manner prescribed by law. 

(b) Habeas corpus, is a high prerogative writ which furnishes an extraordinary remedy and may not thus be invoked under normal circumstances. The determination of legality of an order and warrant of arrest cannot be resolved in a petition for habeas corpus but not where an illegal order and warrant of arrest subsists and the arrestee has no speedy, adequate remedy or appeal in the ordinary course of law.

(c) When a court has jurisdiction of the offense charged and the party who is charged, its judgment, order or decree is not subject to collateral attack by habeas corpus. The writ of

habeas corpus can not be made to perform the function of writ of error, and this holds true even if the judgment, order or decree were erroneous, provided, it is , within the jurisdiction of the court which rendered such judgment or issued such an order or decree.

 

(d) The writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to directly assail a judgment rendered by a competent court or tribunal which, having duly acquired jurisdiction, was not deprived or ousted of this jurisdiction through some anomaly in the conduct of the proceedings. Review of a judgment of conviction is allowed in a petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus only in very specific instances, such as when, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, 

(a) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person;

(b) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or 

(c) an excessive penalty has been imposed, as such sentence is void as to such excess.

(6) Where an alien is detained by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. 

Where the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) has not yet completed its hearing and investigation with respect to an and there is no showing that it is unduly delaying its

decision, the writ is not available.

Along the same vein, when an alien is detained by the BID pursuant to an order of deportation, as where a Summary Deportation Order had already been issued by the BID, the regional trial courts have no power to release the said alien on bail even in habeas corpus proceedings because there is no law authorizing it.

(7) Where police officers facing grave administrative case under restrictive custody. 

Such custody is a disciplinary measure authorized under the PNP law to assure that said police officers are always accounted for. It is at best nominal restraint which is beyond the ambit of habeas corpus. It cannot be considered as a form of curtailment of their freedom guaranteed under the Constitution. Police officers are not similarly situated with ordinary civil

service employees.

(8) Other cases.

(a) The writ may not be used as a means of obtaining evidence on the whereabouts of a person or as a means of finding out who has specifically abducted or cause the disappearance of a certain person. The proper remedy is not a habeas corpus proceedings, but a criminal investigation and proceedings.

(b) A husband cannot be compelled to live with his wife. Coverture cannot be enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas corpus carried out by sheriffs or by any other mesne process.

That is a matter beyond judicial authority.

Jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas corpus is shared by the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts.

Remedy where warrant of commitment has been issued.

If a detained person questions his detention because of improper arrest, or that no preliminary investigation has been conducted, the remedy is not a petition for a writ of habeas corpus but a motion before the trial court to quash the warrant of arrest, and/ or the information on grounds provided by the Rules, or to ask for an investigation/reinvestigation of the case.

Habeas corpus would not lie after the warrant of commitment has been issued by the court on the basis of the information filed against the accused. This is explicitly provided for by Section 14, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court.

In exceptional circumstances, habeas corpus may be granted by the courts even when the person concerned is detained pursuant to a valid arrest or after his voluntary surrender or in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court which had jurisdiction to

issue the same. Thus, the writ may be issued where the deprivation of liberty, while initially valid under the law, had later become invalid, and even through the person praying for its issuance was not completely deprived of his liberty.

Remedy to secure provisional liberty.

The writ is not the appropriate vehicle for asserting one's right to bail. It cannot be availed of where the accused is entitled to bail not as a matter of right but on the discretion of the court and the latter has not abused such discretion in refusing to grant bail.

The correct course is for the accused to file a petition to be admitted to bail with the court where the criminal case is pending and to allow hearings thereon to proceed.

In the absence of exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action, a court will not grant the writ and discharge the prisoner in advance of a determination of his case in court. 

But the writ may still be invoked if the process, judgment or sentence proceeded from a court or tribunal the jurisdiction of which may be assailed.

Release of detained person, a matter of proof by those holding him.

The general rule is that the release of a detained person renders the petition for habeas corpus moot and academic. 

In a case, "the respondents make such a plea in line with their return that they had released the desaparecidos after nine (9) days but their return begs the question. The cited general rule postulates that the release of the detainees is an established fact and not in dispute, and that they do not continue to be missing persons or desaparecidos.

Where, however, there are grounds for grave doubts about the alleged release of the detainees, where the standard and prescribed procedure in effecting the release has not been followed, then the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the alleged release is shifted to the respondents.  Release is an affirmative defense and 'each party must prove his own affirmative allegations,' just as the burden of proof of self-defense in a killing rests on the accused.

Writ of Amparo.

The writ of amparo is an independent and summary remedy 

that provides rapid judicial relief 

to protect the people's right to life, liberty and security 

in cases involving extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearance, or threats thereof.

(1) Aggrieved party entitled to writ.

Before, an aggrieved party can only invoke the writ of habeas corpus to compel the respondent detaining a person to produce the body or to challenge the legality of the person's detention. 

Under the writ of Amparo, victims of actual or threatened violation of their civil liberties, specifically the right to life, liberty, and security, are provided with an equitable extraordinary legal remedy to which the aggrieved party or any qualified person or entity can seek judicial relief for the vindication of their rights against official and private abuses.

(2) Nature of proceeding. (ISR-PR-PM)

The writ is a protective remedy or remedial measure designed to provide rapid judicial relief in a summary proceeding whose principal objective is to address specific violations or threats of violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty, or security.

The proceeding is not criminal in nature. It does not ascertain the criminal culpability of the respondents. It is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence, or even administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence. 

The totality of evidence is a standard for the grant of the writ.

Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test.

The privilege of the writ should be distinguished from the actual order called the writ of amparo. The privilege includes availment of the entire procedure outlined in A.M.

No. 07-9-12-SC, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.

The order of priority with respect to the petitioner mandated by Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo must be followed "to prevent the indiscriminate and groundless filing of petitions for amparo which may even prejudice the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party." The rules on the writs of Habeas Corpus (Sec. 1, Rule 102, Rules of Court) and Amparo (Sec. 1 thereof) are clear that the act or omission complained of - confinement and custody for habeas corpus and violations of, or threat to violate, a erson's life, liberty, and security for amparo cases - should be illegal or unlawful.

(3) Defense of simple denial. 

The new judicial remedy prohibits respondents from using the defense of a simple denial. 

They have to produce documents or evidence to support claims that they did not violate the right to life, liberty and family of the aggrieved party. Neither can a respondent public official or employee invoke the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed to

evade responsibility or liability.

(4) Interim reliefs. (TIPW)

Section 5 of the Amparo Rule enumerates what the petition should contain. 

The petition may be filed with the:

(1) Regional Trial Court, 

(2) Sandiganbayan,

(3) Court of Appeals, 

(4) Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. 

The special writ allows a court to issue interim reliefs even before petition is resolved, such

as a

(1) Temporary protection order,

(3) Inspection order, 

(3) Production order for the presentation of documents, papers, or other evidence, and

(4) Witness protection order. 

It is broader in scope than the writ of habeas corpus.

These provisional reliefs are intended to assist the court before it arrives at a judicious determination of the petition. 

(5) Issuance of writ. 

The Court shall grant the privilege of the writ if the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence.

The writ may be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines (see Secs. 2, 3, 9, 14, 15, 18, Rule on the Writ.) without need to file a motion for execution. The writ should not issue when applied for as substitute for the appeal or certiorari process, or when it will inordinately interfere with these processes.

If one wishes to seek redress and hold the alleged perpetrator criminally accountable, the remedy may lie more in the realm of ordinary criminal persecution rather than on the use of the extraordinary remedy of the writ of Amparo.

Evidence is not to be rejected outright because it is inadmissible under the rules for

as long as it is relevant to the issue at hand.

The petitioner in an amparo case, has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the

indispensable element of government participation. Thus, proof of disappearance alone

is not enough: It is essential, to establish that such disappearance was carried out with the direct or indirect authorization, support, or acquiescence of the government, even if the person sought to be held accountable or responsible in the petition is a private individual or entity. This hallmark of State participation differentiates an enforced disappearance case, from an ordinary case of a missing person.

(6) Coverage of writ.

The coverage of the writ (including writ of habeas corpus) is limited to the protection of rights to life, liberty, and security. 

The writ of Amparo was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the number of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address these extraordinary concerns. 

Thus, it serves both preventive and curative roles to address the said human rights violations. 

It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these offenses, and it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrator by inevitably leading to subsequent investigation and action.

It is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty, or security, as an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those available under the prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. It is not one to issue on amorphous or uncertain grounds but only upon reasonable certainty. 

The writ cannot be invoked for the protection of the right to travel and concerns that are purely property and commercial in nature.

As the Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem of "extralegal killings" (extrajudicial killings) and "enforced disappearances," its coverage, in its present form, is confined to these two (2) instances or to threats thereof. 

The fundamental functions of the writ is to cause the disclosure of details concerning

the same. 

"Extralegal killings" are "killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings."

On the other hand, "enforced disappearances" are "attended by the following characteristics: 

(1) an arrest, detention or abduction of a person 

by a government official or organized groups or 

private individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government;

(2) the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or

(3) refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty 

which places such persons outside the protection of law

(7) Command responsibility in the context of Amparo proceeding.

Command responsibility pertains to "responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict."

The doctrine of command responsibility is a rule of substantive law that establishes liability whereby the superior is made responsible for crimes or wrongs committed by his subordinates. Since the application of command responsibility presupposes an imputation of individual liability, it is more aptly invoked in a full-blown criminal or administrative case rather than in a summary Amparo proceeding. The reason lies in the nature of the writ itself.

The President, as commander-in-chief of the military, can be held responsible or accountable for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

To hold someone liable under the doctrine of command responsibility, the following

elements must obtain: 

(a) the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between the accused as superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his subordinate; 

(b) the superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was about to be or had been committed; and 

(c) the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators thereof. 

The president, being the commander-in-chief of all armed forces, necessarily possesses control over the military that qualifies him as a superior within the purview of the command responsibility doctrine. 

On the issue of knowledge, it must be pointed out that although international tribunals apply a strict standard of knowledge i.e., actual knowledge, such may nonetheless be established through circumstantial evidence. In the Philippines, a more liberal view is adopted and

superiors may be charged with constructive knowledge. 

Knowledge of the commission of irregularities, crimes or offenses is presumed when 

(a) the acts are widespread within the government official's area of jurisdiction; 

(b) the acts have been repeatedly or regularly committed within his area of responsibility; or (c) members of his immediate staff or office personnel are involved. 

As to the issue of failure to prevent or punish it is important to note that as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the President has the power to effectively command, control and discipline the military.

Responsibility or Accountability.

It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance, rather

it determines responsibility or at least accountabilty.

Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft, among them, the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts.

Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined above; or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance. In all these cases, the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is justified by our primary goal of addressing the disappearance, so that the life of the victim is preserved and his liberty and security are restored.

Test in reading petition.

To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while addressing the unique Amparo

situation, the test in reading the petition should be to determine whether it contains the details available to the petitioner under the circumstances, while presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the victim's rights to life, liberty and security through

State or private party action. 

The petition should likewise be read in its totality, rather than in terms of its isolated component parts, to determine if the required elements - namely, of the:

(1) disappearance,

(2) the State or private action, and 

(3) the actual or threatened violations of the rights to life, liberty or security 

- are present.

Three different kinds of' disappearance' cases.

1) Those of people arrested without witnesses or without positive identification of the arresting agents and are never found again;

2) Those of prisoners who are usually arrested without an appropriate warrant and held in complete isolation for weeks or months while their families are unable to discover their

whereabouts and the military authorities deny having them in custody until they eventually reappear in one detention center or another; and

3) those of victims of 'salvaging' who have disappeared until their lifeless bodies are later discovered.

Two-fold duty of law enforcement authorities.

The burden for the public authorities to discharge in these situations, under the

Rule on the Writ of Amparo, is two-fold. 

(1) Ensure that all efforts at disclosure and investigation are undertaken under pain of

indirect contempt from this Court when governmental efforts are less than what the individual situations require;

(3) To address the disappearance, so that the life of the victim is preserved and his or her liberty, and security restored. 

In these senses, our orders and directives relative to the writ are continuing efforts that are not truly terminated until the extrajudicial killing or enforced disappearance is fully addressed by the complete determination of the fate and the whereabouts of the victim, by the production of

the dissappeared person and the restoration of his or her liberty and security, and, in the proper case, by the commencement of criminal action against the guilty parties.

Evidentiary difficulties. (I-E-D)

Past experiences in other jurisdiction show that the evidentiary difficulties are generally three-fold:

(1) There may be a deliberate concealment of the identities of the direct perpetrators. Experts note that abductors are well-organized, armed and usually members of the military or police forces.

(2) Deliberate concealment of pertinent evidence of the disappearance is a distinct possibility; the central piece of evidence in an enforced disappearance-i.e., the corpus delicti or the victim's body - is usually concealed to effectively thwart the start of any investigation or the progress of one that may have begun.

(3)The element of denial; in many cases, the State authorities deliberately deny that the enforced disappearance ever occurred.

Deniability'' is central to the policy of enforced disappearances, as the absence of any proven disappearance makes it easier to escape the application of legal standards ensuring the victim's human rights.