CCPR/C/131/D/3259/2018 Hidalgo’s fate or whereabouts by failing to investigate the events properly. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that the burden of proof cannot fall exclusively on the author of the communication, since the author and the State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and the State party is often the only one with access to the relevant information.31 9.3 In the present case, the Committee notes the author’s assertion that some of the men who broke into her home were wearing vests marked “Escobedo Police” and that they claimed to have been sent by the Government (para. 2.3 above). At the same time, the Committee notes the substantiated information that there was a police presence in the vicinity of her home following the disappearance (para. 7.1 and footnote 27 above). The Committee also notes the information submitted by the author on the general context of enforced disappearances in the State party (footnote 1 above) and, in particular, in the state of Nuevo León (footnote 2 above). The Committee further notes the alleged links between the security forces of San Nicolás de los Garza and organized criminal groups, particularly the person alleged to be responsible for Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s disappearance (para. 2.11 above). In the light of the foregoing, the Committee is of the view that the circumstantial evidence of the involvement of State agents in the present case is sufficient to reverse the burden of proof and require the State party to refute that evidence and the allegation that the disappearance is attributable to it, by means of an investigation carried out with due diligence. 32 9.4 The Committee notes that the State party has failed to demonstrate that the investigation into Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s disappearance was carried out with due diligence, either before or after this point was raised by the National Human Rights Commission of Nuevo León (paras. 4.2, 5.1 and 7.5 above). The Committee notes that, in the absence of an answer by the State party to the allegations relating to the context, in particular the specific context of the state of Nuevo León and, especially, the alleged links between officers of the San Nicolás de los Garza police and the person said to be responsible for Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s disappearance, the Committee gives due weight to the author’s allegations.33 Lastly, the Committee notes the author’s allegations regarding the contradiction between the State party’s claim that the acts were not committed by State agents and its acknowledgement that one of the lines of investigation does in fact concern their possible participation, and, moreover, that it is the lack of a thorough investigation that has made it impossible to rule out the direct or indirect involvement of State agents, based on the existing circumstantial evidence (para. 7.4 above). In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated her allegations and that the State party has not duly contested the claim that Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s disappearance is attributable to the State. 34 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the acts described constitute enforced disappearance attributable to the State party.35 9.5 The Committee recalls that, while the Covenant does not explicitly use the term “enforced disappearance”, such disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts that represent a continuing violation of various rights recognized in the Covenant,36 such as the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to liberty and security of person, and the right to recognition as a person before the law. 37 The Committee recalls that, in cases of enforced disappearance, deprivation of liberty followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty, or by concealment of the fate of the disappeared person, removes the person from the protection of the law and places his or her life at serious and constant risk, for which the 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 12 For example, Padilla García et al. v. Mexico; Kandel et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/126/D/2560/2015); Bolakhe v. Nepal (CCPR/C/123/D/2658/2015); Millis v. Algeria (CCPR/C/122/D/2398/2014); Devi Sharma et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/122/D/2364/2014). Molina Arias v. Colombia, para. 9.3. Ibid., para. 9.2. Ibid., para. 9.3. See article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Padilla García et al. v. Mexico, para. 9.5. See in this regard the settled jurisprudence of the Committee since the case of Sarma v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/78/D/950/2000), para. 9.3, as well as general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 58. GE.21-06148