CCPR/C/128/D/3018/2017 prosecuting, apprehending, bringing to trial and punishing those responsible for ordering and carrying out the acts. 6.3 Finally, the State party argues that it cannot be held internationally responsible for the authors’ suffering as a result of the continuing uncertainty about the fate and whereabouts of their father, since it is not possible to attribute international responsibility to the State for the disappearance because it is not related to the actions of State agents, and since the State has not failed in its duty to investigate the alleged enforced disappearance with due diligence. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In their comments of 3 August 2018, the authors assert that there has been an increase in reported cases of politically motivated enforced disappearances in the State party. They emphasize that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) noted several cases of enforced disappearances in a 2017 report. 9 7.2 The authors also recall that they are not responsible for establishing whether or not it was State agents who carried out the enforced disappearance, since it is the State party that has the competence and the obligation to conduct investigations, identify those responsible, determine who, if anyone, ordered and carried out the acts in question, and bring those responsible to trial and impose the applicable penalties. The authors argue that the State party has an obligation to ensure justice and to prevent the disappearance from going unpunished and that it also has an obligation to establish, within a reasonable time, the responsibility of the perpetrators. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol for failure to exhaust domestic remedies because the investigations are still under way and because only 16 months elapsed between the date of the initial complaint and the date of submission of the communication to the Committee, which is insufficient time to consider that there has been an unreasonable delay that would justify the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The Committee also notes the authors’ argument that the proceedings in their father’s case have been unreasonably prolonged and that his enforced disappearance continues. 8.4 The Committee recalls that the purpose of the requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted is to give the State party the opportunity to fulfil its duty to protect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the Covenant. 10 However, for the purposes of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, domestic remedies must not be unreasonably prolonged. The Committee notes that more than five years have elapsed since the first complaint was lodged regarding the disappearance of Mr. Mora Márquez. It also notes that the State party has provided only very general information to justify the delay. In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the investigations have been unduly prolonged and that, accordingly, it is not prevented, under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, from considering the present complaint.11 9 10 11 6 Human rights violations and abuses in the context of protests in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela from 1 April to 31 July 2017, Geneva, OHCHR, 2017; available at: www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/VE/HCReportVenezuela_1April-31July2017_EN.pdf. Settled jurisprudence of the Committee since T.K. v. France (CCPR/C/37/D/220/1987), para. 8.3. Moreno Pérez et al. v. Mexico (CCPR/C/127/D/2760/2016), para. 11.4; Téllez Padilla et al. v. Mexico (CCPR/C/126/D/2750/2016), para. 8.4. GE.20-07124