US/El Salvador: Deportees Forcibly Disappeared - Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch

Hungary: US/El Salvador: Deportees Forcibly Disappeared - Disclose Their Whereabouts; Take Them Before a Judge

Date: March 16, 2026

ISSE Summary: The recent Human Rights Watch report, “US/El Salvador: Deportees Forcibly Disappeared – Disclose Their Whereabouts; Take Them Before a Judge,” documents a deeply troubling pattern involving Salvadoran nationals deported from the United States and subsequently detained in El Salvador under conditions that may constitute enforced disappearance. According to the report, a number of individuals deported since early 2025 have been held incommunicado, without access to lawyers or family members, and without being brought before a judge. In several cases, their whereabouts remain unknown, placing them outside the protection of the law.

The report situates these cases within a broader deportation framework. Since January 2025, the United States has deported more than 9,000 Salvadorans, many of whom were returned into a system shaped by El Salvador’s ongoing state of emergency, in force since March 2022. While US authorities have alleged gang affiliations for some deportees, Human Rights Watch finds that the vast majority do not have convictions for violent crimes. Moreover, neither US nor Salvadoran authorities have consistently provided evidence to substantiate claims of gang membership, raising concerns about the basis on which individuals are being subjected to severe detention conditions.

Human Rights Watch’s findings are based on interviews with relatives and lawyers of deported individuals, many of whom describe a near-total lack of information from authorities. In multiple cases, family members were unable to determine whether their relatives were alive, where they were being held, or under what legal authority. Attempts to obtain information through official channels were often met with refusals, including statements that authorities “lacked a legal mandate” to provide details or were not obligated to do so under emergency conditions. In some instances, families only learned of detainees’ locations through proceedings before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The report highlights the role of El Salvador’s state of emergency in enabling these practices. The emergency framework has suspended key due process protections, including the right to legal counsel, the right to be informed of charges, and the requirement that detainees be brought before a judge within a fixed timeframe. Human Rights Watch argues that these suspensions, combined with the government’s refusal to disclose detainees’ status or location, create conditions consistent with enforced disappearance under international law.

The case of deportees transferred to high-security facilities, including the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT), underscores the severity of the situation. Allegations of abuse, including physical mistreatment, further heighten concerns about the treatment of individuals detained under these circumstances. At the same time, Salvadoran authorities have indicated in some cases that detainees remain in custody pending decisions by the United States regarding their legal or migratory status, suggesting a complex and opaque interplay between the two governments.

Institutionally, the report points to significant gaps in accountability. Salvadoran courts have largely failed to provide relief, with habeas corpus petitions either rejected or left unanswered. Oversight mechanisms have been limited, and fear of reprisal has reportedly discouraged some lawyers from taking on cases. Meanwhile, US authorities have provided limited transparency regarding deportation decisions and post-removal outcomes.

For ISSE, this report raises fundamental concerns about the intersection of migration policy and emergency governance. It illustrates how individuals can effectively be transferred into a legal environment where ordinary protections are suspended and where accountability mechanisms are weak or nonfunctional. The use of emergency frameworks in this context risks extending exceptional measures beyond their original scope, particularly when they intersect with cross-border policy decisions.

More broadly, the findings highlight the potential for emergency powers to create zones of legal ambiguity in which individuals are deprived of basic procedural safeguards. Whether viewed through the lens of domestic emergency law or international human rights obligations, the report underscores the importance of transparency, judicial oversight, and clearly defined legal standards in any system that relies on extraordinary powers. Without such safeguards, the distinction between lawful detention and enforced disappearance can become increasingly difficult to maintain.

The full report from Human Rights Watch can be found here, and more commentary on it can be found here.