On February 6, the landmark International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance is opened for signature in Paris. Negotiated in record time under France’s stewardship, this treaty closes a glaring gap in international human rights law by making explicit the prohibition on disappearances. The task now is to ensure that the new convention is promptly applied to meet the hopes and the demands for justice of the victims and their families and satisfy their “right to know.”

It is almost thirty years since the mothers of Plaza de Mayo, clamouring to learn the fate of their children, brought their private pain to the streets of Buenos Aires and indelibly etched the plight of the disappeared onto our collective conscience. Not only do circumstances of many disappearances perpetrated in the 70s and successive decades remain obscure, but far from being a tragic relic of past “dirty wars,” this shameful practice persists in all continents.

In 2006 alone, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, a United Nations mechanism, received more than 300 new cases from 12 countries around the world. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, since many cases do not come before the working group. From its inception in 1980 to date, this body has examined more than 51,000 cases, the vast majority of which still need to be definitively clarified by the 79 concerned States.

What the failure of bringing such cases to closure actually means is made starkly clear to me each time I meet the families of the victims. Last month, during my visits to Japan and Nepal, I had an opportunity once again to get first hand accounts of the unmitigated pain that disappearances bring into countless lives. Anxious families in Japan are still waiting to learn what actually happened to their kin who were abducted by agents of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the 70s and 80s. In Nepal, the United Nations has received some 500 reports of disappearances by state authorities and of some 120 people reportedly abducted by the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist during the conflict whose whereabouts have not yet been clarified.

Elsewhere, abductions in the name of the global fight against terrorism, as well as disappearances of human rights defenders, family members and witnesses are also of pressing concern. Equally worrisome is the continued attempt in areas emerging from conflict to use amnesties for perpetrators of crimes of disappearance in exchange for guarantees of peace.

Against each of these backgrounds, and no matter how individual cases may vary as to their nature, location and time, the fate of all abductees must be clarified, perpetrators must be held accountable, the historical record must be set straight, and justice must be rendered. Absent such preconditions, the black hole of uncertainty and despair in which disappearances throw families will not be sealed, while the cloud of suspicion and resentment affecting whole countries will not dissipate.

The new convention will require States parties to create these preconditions and empower victims to demand their enforcement. With its legally binding force, the convention bolsters and expands the 1992 Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances and creates precise obligations for States to fulfill. In language echoing the absolute prohibition against torture, it stipulates that “No one shall be subjected to enforced disappearance.” The convention envisages no derogation from this precept. Thus, neither a state of war, nor threats of war, internal political instability and public emergencies can be invoked by States to carve out exceptions tailored to their particular circumstances. Crucially, it calls on States to define enforced disappearances as offences in their own laws, and stipulates that disappearances are crimes against humanity when their practice is widespread or systematic. This new instrument also establishes the right of the victims to know the truth and to claim reparation for the harm inflicted to them. Alongside suppression norms, the convention includes aspects of prevention and places the fight against impunity for perpetrators at the core of its comprehensive provisions.

What the convention does not provide, obviously, is a set of instant solutions for a problem as enduring and entrenched as enforced disappearances. Eradicating this plague is not only a matter of implementation of the convention’s legal provisions, but also—and fundamentally—a question of political will and committed enforcement. When the euphoria of celebrations for this remarkable success in human rights advancement evaporates, the hard work will begin. Early signature and ratification will mark a strong step in the promotion of human security.