Relatives of disappeared persons are recognized as victims of a violation in their own right, because of the anguish and stress caused by the enforced disappearance of their loved ones, the continuing uncertainty on their fate and whereabouts and the attitude of indifference shown by authorities in the face of their pain. Albeit the principle is relatively straight-forward, an analysis of international jurisprudence shows that significant discrepancies exist on rather major issues, beginning with who could validly claim the victim status. The answers given by international human rights mechanisms depend largely on the position taken on another crucial issue, i.e. the rationale to recognize specific persons or groups of persons as victims in the first place. The burden of proof applied weighs significantly on the subjects at stake. Lastly, for those who overcome all the procedural hurdles and are recognized as victims, what is the name given to the violation(s) endured? Moving from an analysis of the jurisprudence of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, as well as of the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, the chapter aims at illustrating the main existing discrepancies and their ramifications, including on the measures of reparation awarded.
The study analyzes the "International Law and the constitution of Mozambique: Consensus and dissent in the light of the Global Legal pluralism". This reflective analysis will converge in the problem of the internationalization of law in contemporary society, i.e., the interaction between International Law and the Constitutional Law in the light of the global legal pluralism. After reflecting on past political, economic and social changes, it is concluded that, on the one hand, constitutionalism is neither limited nor satisfied only with the structure of the state legal space (national) and its legal order. On the other hand, International Law is no longer limited to issues related to global international policy. The phenomenon of emerging globalization has created a challenge to the international law as to the idea of a pluralist synchronization and polycentric notion of Law that could respect the legal diversity or legal specificity, within the global Legal Pluralism. The older idea of International Law entered into crisis for not having achieved the unity and cohesion within the global legal system. This crisis driven by the polycentric force of globalization dictated the diversification and the expansion of international law. This diversification has imposed the constitution and strengthening of various autonomous international legal regimes, the multiplication of organs of international conflicts resolution and the emergence of a new normative configuration. With the emergence of new instances of international and global legal production, the debate on the internationalization of Law imposes itself as an urgent need, in the framework of the globalization process and the global legal pluralism. The great debate today, on this theme, departed from general International Law and is set in the context of the new global international legal order. The debate on the internationalization of law took two aspects: one on the protagonism of new instances of autonomous global and international legal production and its influence in the construction of the global international legal order. Another aspect is that of regional economic and political blocks and of organizations and institutions of humanitarian aid and development, under the same prism. This debate brings back the old or new problem of interaction between International Law and the Constitutional Law in the new global international legal order, i.e., the problem of internationalization of national law. In fact, some international rules emanating from autonomous international legal production organs, within the framework of hegemonic globalization, are imposed directly to citizens and States, sometimes without knowledge of such rules, or of its existence. The action of these organs or agents can be considered as a latching and destructive phenomenon within the national legal orders? These rules are imposed on citizens and States not only as strategies or means of operationalization of flows, for the success of the process of globalization and economic development, but also, sometimes, for unclear purposes and within wide range economic interests. With the introduction of the new international legal regimes, the relationship with National Law has decentralized, thus creating a polycentrism, where each regime seeks to draw to itself the protagonism. This phenomenon has created conflicts within National Law and between the various legal systems. It is noted that each legal regime has its specific rules of internationalization of law. The National Law, in the face of this diversity, must meet several distinct rules and sometimes contradictory. There are times when the same matter is subject to various internationalizations by different legal regimes and through distinct rules to that effect. The proliferation of various regimes and agents in the internationalization of Law has weakened the policies and measures of protection and rule production in peripheral States because of the overlap and complexity of the phenomenon. In this new global legal order, unfortunately, we are witnessing the phenomenon of international legislative hegemony led by the major powers with regard to the demands of globalisation. This unusual phenomenon, lived in the global society, is translated into anti-constitutional and anti-democratic practices in the creation and internationalization of law in peripheral countries. The study starts from the analysis of the relationship between international law and the constitution of Mozambique and returns to the debate on the problem of the relationship between International and National Law, in the framework of the new global international legal order.