CCPR/C/128/D/3018/2017 summoning a number of people close to the disappeared person to give evidence, the authors also conclude that the Public Prosecutor’s Office did not take other important steps, such as calling other witnesses to give evidence, requesting that other telephones be traced, carrying out field visits or identifying the suspicious pickup. They therefore consider that, having failed to yield any results, the investigation has not been effective. 3.2 The authors contend that Mr. Mora Márquez was a victim of enforced disappearance. They note that the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance states that any act of disappearance constitutes a violation of the rules of international law guaranteeing the right to liberty and security of the person; the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the right to recognition as a person before the law; and the right to life. The authors also recall that the Committee has repeatedly stressed the multifarious nature of enforced disappearance and has pointed out that it constitutes a violation of numerous rights enshrined in the Covenant.5 The authors conclude that the State party has violated articles 2 (3), 6 (1), 7, 9, 10 and 16 of the Covenant in respect of Mr. Mora Márquez. 3.3 The authors also claim that their own rights under articles 2 (3), and 7 of the Covenant have been violated because of the cruel and inhuman treatment they have suffered as a result of the continuing uncertainty about the fate and whereabouts of their loved one. In this regard, the authors recall that the Committee has clearly recognized that enforced disappearance constitutes a form of cruel and inhuman treatment for the relatives of the disappeared person. 6 3.4 The authors request that all appropriate measures be taken and that all possible efforts be made to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Mr. Mora Márquez; that he be produced alive or, if that is not possible, that his remains be handed over to them; that those responsible be punished; and that measures be taken to prevent any recurrence of similar events. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 27 October 2017, the State party requested the Committee to declare the communication inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, in accordance with article 5 (2) (b), of the Optional Protocol. In that regard, the State party refers to the Committee’s decisions affirming that note should be taken of States parties’ arguments regarding respect for the conditions of admissibility relating to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.7 4.2 In particular, the State party points out that, on 12 March 2015, the Public Prosecutor’s Office issued an order to open a criminal investigation and that, since then, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has conducted more than 45 investigative procedures aimed at locating the alleged disappeared person. The State party indicates that the most recent such action was taken on 4 August 2017, when a search was conducted with a view to finding a match between the genetic profile of the disappeared person and some skeletal remains. 4.3 The State party also notes that the application for amparo was filed 46 days after the alleged disappearance and that it prompted the court to request immediately that the bodies named in the application should report on whether they had arrested Mr. Mora Márquez and, after it had received a negative response, to allow the case to proceed and to order the Public Prosecutor’s Office to take all necessary steps to locate the victim and charge those responsible. 4.4 The State party also notes that the authors expressly admitted that proceedings were under way, that they did not allege that there had been any unreasonable time lapse and that they did not indicate that they had taken steps to initiate a review of the investigative 5 6 7 4 The authors refer to Serna et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012), para. 9.4; Saker v. Algeria (CCPR/C/86/D/992/2001), para. 9.2; Boucherf and Buocherf v. Algeria (CCPR/C/86/D/1196/2003), para. 9.2; and Sarma et al. v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/78/D/950/2000), para. 9.3. The authors refer, inter alia, to Saker v. Algeria; Boucherf and Boucherf v. Algeria; and Sarma et al. v. Sri Lanka. The State party refers to P.L. v. Germany (CCPR/C/79/D/1003/2001) and Riedl-Riedenstein et al. v. Germany (CCPR/C/82/D/1188/2003). GE.20-07124