CCPR/C/131/D/3259/2018 either to the author or to the complexity of the case, itself constitutes an unjustified delay. 21 The author affirms that the State party has not put forward any justification for the delay in the investigation and has not provided any concrete information on how the Office of the State Attorney General of Nuevo León is complying with the recommendation made by the National Human Rights Commission of Nuevo León, which found that there had been an unjustified delay in the investigation of the facts by the authorities and that no serious and exhaustive investigation had been conducted. The author stresses that no significant progress has been made since the Commission issued its recommendation. Lastly, although the State party claims that the existing proceedings are the most appropriate means of continuing the investigation, it provides no indication as to why it believes this when the proceedings in question have produced no results. The author also points out that the State party refers to steps taken between 2011 and 2013 but provides no information on any actions taken since then. As a result, the current remedies cannot be considered effective and offer no prospect of success. 5.2 The author adds that, on 9 May 2018, lawyers working for the Executive Commission for Victim Support told her that her case file contained an email dated 27 December 2013 that was addressed to the authority that preceded the Executive Commission. According to this email, an image had been found in the photographic archives of the Forensic Medicine Services that showed a body found in the state of Coahuila that could be that of Mr. Rivera Hidalgo. On 15 May 2018, the author’s representatives went to the prosecutor’s office of the state of Coahuila, where they learned that fingerprints taken from the body had shown that it was that of another person. The author made several requests to have the identity of the body confirmed. However, it was not until 22 April 2019 that she was informed of a photographic expert’s appraisal, dated July 2018 (i.e. almost nine months earlier), that identified a morphological correspondence between the body shown in the photograph and that of Mr. Rivera Hidalgo. Owing to the high margin of error in this type of appraisal, the fate of Mr. Rivera Hidalgo remains uncertain and the authorities are not taking the necessary steps to corroborate or refute the results of the appraisal. As a result of this situation, the author has been constantly revictimized and has had to suffer the frustration of learning that, although the body in question had been found in 2013, she was not informed of this fact until almost five years later. The author claims that these events exacerbate the violations referred to throughout the communication. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 6.1 On 24 April 2019, the State party submitted additional observations on the admissibility of the communication and observations on its merits. The State party reiterates that a number of investigations are under way and that the investigation by the Office of the State Attorney General of Nuevo León is examining three lines of inquiry: (a) Mr. Rivera Hidalgo was abducted by persons belonging to organized criminal groups; (b) Mr. Rivera Hidalgo was abducted by persons who might possibly belong to a public security agency; (c) Mr. Rivera Hidalgo, Mr. S.J. and Mr. C.H. were in trouble with members of criminal groups. The State party reiterates that domestic remedies have not been exhausted and that the communication should therefore be declared inadmissible. 6.2 With regard to the merits of the communication, the State party argues that the obligation to conduct an investigation and bring those responsible to justice is not an obligation of result, but of means, and that it must be interpreted in a way that does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities. 22 In order to comply with this obligation, the State party must conduct a prompt, impartial and thorough investigation to establish the fate or whereabouts of the alleged victim. 23 The State party argues that it 21 22 23 8 The author cites the then recent Inter-American Court of Human Rights case Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, judgment of 28 November 2018, Series C No. 370, in which the Court found that the fact that almost nine years had passed without any prosecutions or convictions in the case constituted, in itself, a violation of the authors’ rights. The State party cites Prutina et al. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/107/D/1917/2009, 1918/2009, 1925/2009, 1953/2010), para. 9.5. The State party cites, inter alia, Kožljak et al. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/112/D/1970/2010), para. 9.2. GE.21-06148