CCPR/C/131/D/3259/2018 State is accountable.38 In the present case, insofar as the disappearance is attributable to the State party, the State party has failed to take the necessary steps to preserve Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s life, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 9.6 The Committee also takes note of the author’s claim that the acts constitute treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant in respect of Mr. Rivera Hidalgo, because of the severe suffering, the uncertainty and the effect on his physical and psychological integrity resulting from the enforced disappearance. The Committee also notes that, as can be inferred from the facts, Mr. Rivera Hidalgo may well have been subjected during his deprivation of liberty to physical violence that may constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In the absence of any information from the State party on this point, the Committee considers that the facts as described constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant in respect of Mr. Rivera Hidalgo. The Committee also notes the author’s claim concerning the anguish and suffering caused to her by her son’s disappearance and the search for justice, particularly in connection with her discovery, in 2018, that the authorities had been in possession of a body since 2013 that could be that of Mr. Rivera Hidalgo and that, to date, no expert examinations have been carried out to identify the body beyond doubt. In the absence of any information from the State party on this point, the Committee considers that the facts as described disclose a violation of article 7 of the Covenant in respect of the author.39 9.7 With regard to the alleged violation of article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 35 (2014), in which it noted that disappearance constitutes a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention. 40 In the present case, insofar as the disappearance is attributable to the State party, the Committee considers that Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s deprivation of liberty violated his rights under article 9 of the Covenant. 9.8 The Committee also recalls that the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law constitutes a denial of his or her right to recognition as a person before the law, in particular if all the efforts made by the victim’s relatives to exercise their right to effective remedies have been systematically impeded, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant.41 In the present case, the Committee observes that the State party has not furnished any explanation concerning the fate or whereabouts of Mr. Rivera Hidalgo and that, in particular, it has not carried out an investigation that meets the standards of due diligence. The Committee therefore finds that the enforced disappearance of Mr. Rivera Hidalgo removed him from the protection of the law and deprived him of his right to recognition as a person before the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 9.9 The Committee also notes that the author affirms that the perpetrators of her son’s disappearance broke into her home in the early hours of the morning, stole various valuable items (including two vehicles), destroyed objects and damaged the house and her farm, which amounted to unlawful interference with her privacy. In the absence of observations by the State party, and taking into account all the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that these acts constituted arbitrary and unlawful interference with the author’s privacy and home.42 Accordingly, the Committee finds that the State party has violated the author’s rights under article 17 of the Covenant. 9.10 Lastly, the Committee notes the author’s claim that the facts also constitute a violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with the above-mentioned articles, insofar as she did not have access to an effective remedy. The Committee also notes the State party’s assertion that its legal obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and that it conducted a prompt, impartial and thorough investigation with due diligence from the moment that it became aware of the facts. However, the Committee notes that, in 2017, the National Human Rights Commission of Nuevo León itself found that there had been an unjustified delay in the investigation of the facts by the authorities and that no serious and exhaustive 38 39 40 41 42 GE.21-06148 See Padilla García et al. v. Mexico, para. 9.6, and general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 58. See Padilla García et al. v. Mexico, para. 9.7, and general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 58. Para. 17. See also general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 58. See Padilla García et al. v. Mexico, para. 9.9, and general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 58. See in this regard Lumbala Tshidika v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (CCPR/C/115/D/2214/2012), para. 6.7. 13