CCPR/C/128/D/3018/2017 proceedings, despite the fact that one of the functions of the Ombudsman, to whom they had recourse, is to follow up and press the Public Prosecutor’s Office to take action. 4.5 In short, the State party maintains that the remedies remain pending, since an investigation is under way to determine the whereabouts of Mr. Mora Márquez, an investigation that was launched from the moment the complaint was filed. The State party notes that only 16 months elapsed between the date of the complaint and the date of submission of the communication to the Committee, which is not enough time to deem that there has been an undue delay that would justify the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The State party also notes that the investigation of an enforced disappearance of a person is a complex process, since those responsible will seek to eliminate all evidence that would make it possible to identify the victim’s whereabouts. The State party therefore maintains that, in this type of case, the authorities’ diligence in investigating and identifying the whereabouts of the disappeared person should be taken into account. In the present case, the State has carried out a speedy and diligent investigation in strict compliance with the law. The State party therefore concludes that the Committee should declare the communication inadmissible. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 20 February 2018, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility of the communication, pointing out that article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol provides that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies does not apply where the proceedings are unreasonably prolonged. 5.2 The authors also indicate that, although they waited 46 days before submitting an application for amparo, States have an obligation to investigate cases of enforced disappearance irrespective of whether or not a complaint has been filed. They cite the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, which has found that whenever there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has been subjected to enforced disappearance, an investigation should be initiated, and that “this obligation exists regardless of the filing of a complaint, since in cases of forced disappearance international law and the general duty to guarantee, impose the obligation to investigate the case ex officio, without delay, and in a serious, impartial, and effective manner […]. Without detriment of the aforementioned, in any case, all State authorities, public officials, or individuals who have received news about acts destined to the forced disappearance of persons, shall denounce them immediately”.8 5.3 The authors recall that the investigations have not led to any results and that the enforced disappearance has continued for three years after it began. They also point out that the judge did not visit the places where Mr. Mora Márquez was presumed to be detained, nor did he request the analysis of skeletal remains until two and a half years after the disappearance. The authors conclude that the State party has failed to grasp the gravity of the situation. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 In its observations of 26 March 2018, the State party asked the Committee to find that it had not violated any of the articles of the Covenant. The State party maintains not only that no evidence has emerged of direct or indirect participation by agents of the State party in the disappearance of Mr. Mora Márquez but also 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. The State party therefore contends that it cannot be held internationally responsible, since 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. 6.2 In addition, the State party maintains that it has given the family of Mr. Mora Márquez effective access to the resources provided for in the legal system for the investigation of the alleged enforced disappearance and that a serious investigation was initiated without delay, using all available legal means, with a view to ascertaining the truth and investigating, 8 GE.20-07124 Radilla-Pacheco v. Mexico, judgment of 23 November 2009, preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, Series C, No. 209, para. 143. 5