CCPR/C/131/D/3259/2018 the existing context and the perpetrators’ modus operandi, and that they have not ruled out any hypothesis.13 Otherwise, the author argues, the State party should be held responsible for the enforced disappearance under international law. 3.3 The author affirms that Mr. Rivera Hidalgo has also been a victim of a violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9 and 16, in that he did not have access to an effective remedy. The author argues that States parties have positive obligations, such as the obligation to take all necessary measures to search for and locate the disappeared person without delay; to conduct, ex officio, a prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigation; to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible; and to ensure that victims receive prompt, fair and adequate compensation and benefit from reparation measures, including rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.14 In this case, almost seven years after the authorities received the author’s complaint, no significant progress has been made and there is no evidence that the investigation has been carried out with due diligence; rather, the author herself has undertaken every initiative in the face of the authorities’ passivity. 3.4 The author claims to be a victim of violations under article 7 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), because of the profound suffering caused by the uncertainty about her son’s fate and whereabouts.15 The disappearance of the author’s son has caused her to feel deep anguish, great frustration and feelings of guilt, which have required her to seek psychological support and medical treatment for clinical depression, insomnia, stress, anxiety and constant fear.16 3.5 The author also claims that she suffered a violation of her right not to be subjected to arbitrary interference with her privacy and home under article 17 (1) of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3). The author recalls that the persons who perpetrated her son’s disappearance, among whom there were agents of the State party, broke into her home in the early hours of the morning, destroying objects and damaging her house and farm.17 Furthermore, the reprisals, harassment and threats directed at the author made her feel so afraid that she was unable to enjoy her family life and home and had to move elsewhere. 18 The author also claims a violation, under the same article, of her right to know the truth and, in the event of her son’s death, the right to have his remains exhumed, identified, respected and returned.19 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 6 The author cites Serna et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012), para. 9.3, and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Gutiérrez Hernández et al. v. Guatemala, judgment of 24 August 2017, Series C No. 339, paras. 135 and 147–196. The author cites general comment No. 31 (2004), paras. 3, 8, 15, 16 and 18, and various pieces of jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. The author cites Serna et al. v. Colombia, para. 9.8; Basnet v. Nepal (CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012), para. 10.7; Neupane et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/120/D/2170/2012), para. 10.8; and Terafi v. Algeria (CCPR/C/110/D/1899/2009), para. 7.5. The author mentions, for example, that Mr. G.R. sent a letter to her home while he was in detention (which, although the letter was not threatening, showed that he knew her home address); that the two murals painted on the author’s home in order to denounce and draw attention to her son’s disappearance were damaged on two occasions (in 2013 and 2014) without any investigation having taken place; that two screens and a computer belonging to the organization Fuerzas Unidas por Nuestros Desaparecidos en Nuevo León were stolen from the author’s home in 2016; and other instances of revictimization in the face of the authorities’ indifference and inaction. The author cites Aouali et al. v. Algeria (CCPR/C/109/D/1884/2009), para. 7.12; and Mezine v. Algeria (CCPR/C/106/D/1779/2008), para. 8.10. The author cites Peiris v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/103/D/1862/2009), paras. 7.6 and 7.7. The author cites articles 24 (2) and (3) of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which entered into force for the State party on 23 December 2010. The author also cites the general comment on the right to the truth in relation to enforced disappearances of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (A/HRC/16/48); and Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, report on the right to the truth (A/HRC/5/7) and study on the right to the truth (E/CN.4/2006/91), among other regional documents and jurisprudence. GE.21-06148