A/HRC/7/2 page 11 “3. The Working Group has stated, in its general comment on article 4 of the Declaration that, although States are not bound to follow strictly the definition contained in the Declaration in their criminal codes, they shall ensure that the act of enforced disappearance is defined in a way that clearly distinguishes it from related offences such as abduction and kidnapping. “4. Based on the foregoing, the Working Group does not admit cases regarding acts which are similar to enforced disappearances when they are attributed to persons or groups not acting on behalf of, or with the support, direct or indirect, consent or acquiescence of the Government, such as terrorist or insurgent movements fighting the Government on its own territory, since it considers that it has to strictly adhere to the definition contained in the Declaration. “5. In accordance with article 1, paragraph 2, of the Declaration, any act of enforced disappearance has the consequence of placing the persons subjected thereto outside the protection of the law. Therefore, the Working Group admits cases of enforced disappearance without requiring that the information whereby a case is reported by a source should demonstrate, or even presume, the intention of the perpetrator to place the victim outside the protection of the law. “6. In those cases in which the Working Group received reports of enforced disappearances in which the victim had already been found dead, the Working Group, under its methods of work, would not admit the case for transmission to the respective Government, since it would be a case clarified ab initio. Indeed, under its methods of work, clarification occurs when the whereabouts of the disappeared persons are clearly established irrespective of whether the person is alive or dead. However, this does not mean that such cases would not fall within the definition of enforced disappearance included in the Declaration, if the deprivation of liberty took place (a) against the will of the person concerned; (b) with involvement of government officials, at least indirectly, by acquiescence; and (c) State officials thereafter refused to acknowledge the act or to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned. That is to say, in accordance with the mandate of the Working Group related to monitoring the implementation of the Declaration, such reports may be transmitted to the Governments in question under the method of ‘general allegations’, but not as an ‘urgent appeal’, nor under the ‘normal procedure’, as such terms are used in the Working Group’s methods of work. Under the general allegations method, the Working Group would invite the Governments concerned to comment on the measures that should be taken under the Declaration to investigate such cases, to bring the perpetrators to justice, to satisfy the right to adequate compensation, as well as regarding measures to stop and prevent enforced disappearances. “7. Under the definition of enforced disappearance contained in the Declaration, the criminal offence in question starts with an arrest, detention or abduction against the will of the victim, which means that the enforced disappearance may be initiated by an illegal detention or by an initially legal arrest or detention. That is to say, the protection of a victim from enforced disappearance must be effective upon the act of deprivation of liberty, whatever form such deprivation of liberty takes, and not be limited to cases of illegitimate deprivations of liberty.