CCPR/C/128/D/3018/2017 8.5 As all admissibility requirements have been met, and given that the authors’ complaints under articles 2 (3), 6 (1), 7, 9, 10 and 16 of the Covenant have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee notes that the authors claim that the facts of the present case constitute a politically motivated enforced disappearance and that there has been an increase in reported cases of politically motivated enforced disappearance in the State party. The Committee also notes that the State party maintains that no evidence has emerged of direct or indirect participation by agents of the State in the disappearance of Mr. Mora Márquez and that the disappearance might have been carried out without the consent or authorization of the State party’s authorities by irregular groups operating in Colombia who entered the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in an irregular manner. 9.3 The Committee considers that it is not possible to ignore the particular seriousness of attributing to a State party responsibility for the existence of a pattern of enforced disappearances. 12 While the Committee notes the existing allegations of enforced disappearances carried out in the State party prior to the time of the events in the present case, which led to the establishment, in February 2012, of the Truth and Justice Commission to investigate and punish crimes, disappearances, torture and other politically motivated human rights violations that occurred between 1958 and 1998, and the existing allegations of enforced disappearances carried out in the State party after the time of the events in the present case, 13 it also notes that no information was submitted on a specific context of enforced disappearances at the time or in the place of the events in the present case. Furthermore, in the absence of any evidence to support the presumption of participation, support or acquiescence of State agents in the disappearance of Mr. Mora Márquez, 14 the Committee cannot reach any conclusion regarding the forced or unforced nature of the disappearance. 9.4 In this context, the Committee notes that the authors claim that the facts constitute a violation of articles 2 (3), 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant in respect of Mr. Mora Márquez, given that he was a victim of disappearance and that the investigation has yielded no results because no field inspections were carried out and no efforts were made to identify the pickup truck allegedly involved. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that it cannot be held internationally responsible because it has not been established that the alleged acts were committed by any of its agents or by private parties with the complicity, tolerance or acquiescence of State authorities, and that the investigations, which began as soon as the allegations were made, have been diligent, expeditious and in strict compliance with the law and have been aimed at establishing the truth and at identifying, capturing, prosecuting and punishing all those responsible for ordering and carrying out the acts. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, the application for amparo was accepted and an order was issued to take all necessary action to locate Mr. Mora Márquez and charge those responsible, and that the Public Prosecutor’s Office has conducted more than 45 investigative proceedings. 9.5 The Committee stresses that the content and scope of the right to life includes not only negative and positive substantive obligations but also positive procedural obligations. 15 Indeed, the duty of States parties to protect the right to life requires them not only to avoid the arbitrary deprivation of life but also to investigate and prosecute possible cases of 12 13 14 15 GE.20-07124 Compare with Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela, judgment of 27 November 2012, merits, Series C, No. 256, para. 125. OHCHR, Human rights violations and abuses …. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Godínez-Cruz v. Honduras, judgment of 20 January 1989, merits, Series C, No. 5, para. 154. General comment No. 36 (2018) on the right to life, paras. 7, 19, 21 and 27. Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death. See also Moreno Pérez et al. v. Mexico, para. 12.5. 7