CCPR/C/131/D/3259/2018 3.6 By way of reparation, the author requests: (a) that the Committee declare that the State party has violated articles 6, 7, 9 and 16, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, in respect of Mr. Rivera Hidalgo; and articles 7 and 17 (1), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, in respect of the author; (b) that the State party be urged to provide an effective remedy involving the conduct of an independent, thorough and effective investigation in order to identify those responsible for the offences concerned and to prosecute and punish them with appropriate and commensurate penalties; (c) that a rigorous and systematic search be carried out, with adequate human and economic resources and, in the event that Mr. Rivera Hidalgo is deceased, that his remains be located, exhumed, identified, respected and returned to his family, all within a framework of coordinated action with family members; (d) that full reparation be made for the harm caused, including the provision of medical and psychosocial care for the author and her younger son; that a public apology and an official declaration of State responsibility be issued for the enforced disappearance of Mr. Rivera Hidalgo; and that prompt, fair and adequate compensation be provided; (e) that, as guarantees of non-repetition, the General Act on Enforced Disappearance of Persons, Disappearance Perpetrated by Individuals and the National Missing Persons System be implemented without delay; and that a unified search protocol and an international mechanism to combat impunity be implemented to ensure the investigation and prosecution of offences under international law and serious human rights violations; (f) that the State party provide, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views; and (g) that the State party publish the Committee’s Views in the Official Gazette or in a high-circulation newspaper, giving them the widest possible publicity. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 30 January 2019, the State party submitted observations on the admissibility of the communication, arguing that it should be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 20 4.2 The State party refers to the steps taken by both the Office of the State Attorney General of Nuevo León and the Attorney General’s Office to establish the whereabouts of Mr. Rivera Hidalgo and locate those responsible for his disappearance, listing the various measures taken as part of each investigation. It states that both proceedings have continued uninterrupted since the author filed her complaint, resulting in the issuance, at the federal level, of an arrest warrant against Mr. G.R., who is being prosecuted in connection with criminal case No. 152/2011-IV. The State party argues that the proceedings are still under way at the time of writing and that they are the most appropriate means of continuing the investigation into Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s disappearance. With regard to the proceedings before the National Human Rights Commission of Nuevo León, the State party states that, although the Commission found that the investigation pursued by the Office of the State Attorney General of Nuevo León had been subject to delays and issued a recommendation in this regard, the Office is continuing to comply with this recommendation. Therefore, insofar as the State party is addressing the regrettable facts on which the author’s communication is based, domestic remedies have not been exhausted and the communication must be declared inadmissible. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 In her observations of 8 May 2019, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and provided an update on the facts. The author begins by stating that, contrary to the State party’s claims, the proceedings have been unjustifiably delayed and, therefore, no effective domestic remedies have been available, making the communication admissible. She submits that the fact that more than eight years have passed since the complaints were filed, with a lack of significant progress that cannot be attributed 20 GE.21-06148 The State party cites International Court of Justice, Interhandel Case (Switzerland v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 21 March 1959, I.C.J. Reports 1959; and InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, Manuel Tejada Ruelas v. Mexico, report on inadmissibility, No. 44/10, 17 March 2010, para. 35. 7