CCPR/C/112/D/2026/2011 of enforced disappearance, investigation of the violation and bringing the perpetrators to justice are also necessary elements.e The inclusion of corresponding language in paragraph 9 of the present Views may be understood in light of the Committee’s established position that these measures are always necessary to an effective remedy for enforced disappearance. 6. Providing all the usual indispensable elements, however, may not suffice to give an effective remedy in a particular case. A gap may remain, and there may be a variety of different remedial options that could be chosen to fill that gap. Indeed, there is a broad range of conceivable remedial actions that a state might take, in varying combinations, for the benefit of an individual victim. Choosing among these sets of options is a matter of remedial discretion that article 2, paragraph 3, leaves to the state, so long as the set of measures, taken together, meets the standard of an effective remedy. 7. Choosing judiciously among these sets of options may require additional information about local conditions, beyond the information relevant to the finding of violation. Moreover, the choices may affect the interests of third parties who have no opportunity to participate in the Committee’s proceedings, because of the practice of confidentiality under the Optional Protocol. 8. The Committee has recognized in general comment No. 31 that in appropriate situations, reparation can involve measures of satisfaction, such as public apologies and memorials. f There may indeed be important value to victims in receiving an official apology at a public ceremony, or having a monument built to them, or having a street named after them. But in my opinion each of these measures falls in the category of remedial options, for consideration by the state in carrying out its obligation to compose an effective remedy. No specific choice of this kind amounts to an indispensable element that the Covenant requires the state to provide. The Committee would not be justified in saying that such an element was obligatory, and the Committee is not authorized to exercise remedial discretion and impose its choices on the state. g 9. In paragraph 9 of the Views in the present case, the Committee refers merely to appropriate measures of satisfaction, without attempting to determine the choice among them. This appears to reflect a new usage in the Committee’s remedial paragraphs, and it might have been beneficial for the Committee to explain the reasons for including it. h For me, given the lapse of time and the conduct of the State party, some additional measure of satisfaction beyond the other elements listed in paragraph 9 is required for an effective remedy to the victims. The Committee neither “orders” a particular measure of satisfaction, nor expresses a soft preference among the available options. I agree with this articulation of the remedial paragraph as well with the rest of the Views. e f g h GE.14-24387 General comment No. 31, para. 18. General comment No. 31, para. 16. To be clear, I am not referring to the legal effect of the Committee’s conclusions that certain actions are required by the Covenant, see generally general comment No. 33, but rather to the significance of choices that are not required by the Covenant. The Committee’s Views usually do not identify the reasoning underlying the remedial paragraph, but for a recent case where reasoning was included, see communication No. 2097/2011, Timmer v. Netherlands, Views adopted 24 July 2014, para. 9. 13