CCPR/C/131/D/3259/2018 a breakthrough or significant change in the investigation. This is demonstrated by the fact that, on 2 January 2018, the competent judge summoned the author to explain her claim after requesting that she inform the court of the address or addresses at which her son might be located with a view to having him come to assent to the amparo application that had been filed. In view of this situation, and in the absence of any other available remedy, the author decided to submit a communication to the Committee. 2.15 The author maintains that the communication meets the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol in that she has pursued all the domestic remedies available to her without any of them having proven to be effective and that there is no remaining remedy that might offer a realistic prospect of success. Citing the Committee’s jurisprudence, the author affirms that only those remedies that are available and effective must be exhausted, that domestic remedies need not be exhausted if they objectively have no prospect of success, and that it is for the State party to demonstrate the existence of effective and available remedies. 10 The author refers to the various complaints filed and her active participation in all the investigations and explains that, almost seven years after the facts became known to the authorities, no effective investigation has been carried out, none of the remedies pursued by the author has any objective prospect of success and the processing of these remedies has been unreasonably prolonged. With regard to the application for amparo, the author argues that, as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has ruled, the requirements established in the Amparo Act for the remedy to be applied render it ineffective. 11 Proof of this is the response given by the judge overseeing the application. The complaint 3.1 The author states that Mr. Rivera Hidalgo has been a victim of enforced disappearance attributable to the State party and therefore of violations of articles 6, 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant. She asserts that the three constituent elements of this offence are met: (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 Hidalgo’s fate or whereabouts by failing to investigate the events properly. 3.2 The author argues that the communication should be read in the particular context of Mexico, where disappearances are widespread and perpetrators enjoy total impunity, and that the failure to conduct investigations may amount to acquiescence and constitute enforced disappearance, even in the case of abductions perpetrated by non-State actors.12 She also affirms that consideration must be given to the specific context of this disappearance, as State agents acting together with organized criminal groups perpetrated many offences, including acts of enforced disappearance, in the state of Nuevo León in 2011. The author also argues that, as the State party has failed to comply with its positive obligation to prevent and investigate such acts effectively, making it impossible to establish with certainty whether State agents were directly or indirectly involved in the criminal conduct concerned (particularly given the above-mentioned context), responsibility for Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s enforced disappearance must be attributed to the State party. The author argues that it is for the State party to prove: (a) that State agents did not tolerate, acquiesce in, or directly participate in the actions of the group of men who subjected her son to enforced disappearance; (b) that in 2011, in the state of Nuevo León, and specifically in San Nicolás de los Garza, no links existed between organized criminal groups and State forces (including in connection with kidnappings and enforced disappearances); and (c) that the authorities have investigated the author’s repeated allegations with due diligence, taking into account 10 11 12 GE.21-06148 Young v. Australia (CCPR/C/78/D/941/2000), para. 9.4; Barzhig v. France (CCPR/C/41/D/327/1988), para. 5.2; and Sankara et al. v. Burkina Faso (CCPR/C/86/D/1159/2003), para. 6.4. Guzmán Cruz v. Mexico, report on admissibility, No. 50/13 of 12 July 2013, para. 38. The author adds that, although the Act was amended in 2013, the requirements that it still sets out remain impossible to fulfil in cases of enforced disappearance, such as her son’s, and therefore need not be exhausted. The author cites the report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on enforced disappearances in the context of migration (A/HRC/36/39/Add.2), para. 42. 5