CCPR/C/131/D/3259/2018 Rivera Hidalgo’s enforced disappearance, his fate and whereabouts are unknown and the perpetrators remain unpunished. The author notes that the State party does not explain what measures correspond to each line of investigation or what objectives are being pursued by each one. The author also argues that, while investigation for the purpose of identifying the perpetrators is an obligation of means, establishing the disappeared person’s fate and whereabouts in a case of enforced disappearance is an obligation of result. 28 The State party has violated both obligations. For the same reason, the State party cannot claim that it is not responsible, under article 7 of the Covenant, for the harm caused to the author’s integrity, as this harm is a direct consequence of the attitude of indifference shown by the State authorities and the failure to conduct an effective investigation, and is entirely independent of whether the State is found to be responsible for her son’s enforced disappearance. 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 to the Covenant. 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 takes note of the State party’s argument that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, since investigations are still under way, particularly those conducted by the Office of the State Attorney General of Nuevo León and the Attorney General’s Office. However, the Committee also takes note of the author’s claims that domestic remedies have not been effective because their processing has been unreasonably prolonged, so that the fate and whereabouts of Mr. Rivera Hidalgo remain unknown. 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.29 However, for the purposes of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, domestic remedies must not be unreasonably prolonged. In view of the fact that 10 years have elapsed since the disappearance of Mr. Rivera Hidalgo and the submission of the initial complaints by the author without any significant progress being made in those investigations and without adequate justification for the delay being provided by the State party, the Committee considers that these investigations have been unduly prolonged and that, consequently, article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol does not preclude it from considering the present complaint.30 8.5 As all admissibility requirements have been met, and given that the author’s complaints under articles 2 (3), 6 (1), 7, 9, 16 and 17 of the Covenant have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration on 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, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that the facts of the present case constitute an enforced disappearance, since: (a) Mr. Rivera Hidalgo was deprived of his liberty when he was taken from his home; (b) the act was perpetrated by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State; and (c) the State party denies participating in the events or is concealing Mr. Rivera 28 29 30 GE.21-06148 The author cites the individual opinion of Fabián Salvioli (partly dissenting) in Prutina et al. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, para. 3. T.K. v. France (CCPR/C/37/D/220/1987), para. 8.3. See, inter alia, Padilla García et al. v. Mexico (CCPR/C/126/D/2750/2016), para. 8.4. 11