CCPR/C/131/D/3259/2018 launched an investigation without delay as soon as it learned of the disappearance on 28 February 2011, as the complaint was referred to the State Agency of the Anti-Kidnapping Unit of the Office of the State Attorney General of Nuevo León on 1 March 2011. At the same time, the investigations were conducted impartially, as the observations made by Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s family members were taken into account, resulting in the identification of the likely perpetrators and the issuance of an arrest warrant against Mr. G.R. Moreover, the author’s suggestion that members of the local police may have been involved has not affected the impartiality of the investigation into the facts. Lastly, the State party argues that the investigations have been exhaustive and once again lists many of the steps taken in each investigation. Accordingly, the State party affirms that it has exercised due diligence in all relevant investigations. 6.3 The State party argues that Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s disappearance cannot be attributed to the State, since there is no evidence of any involvement by State agents, nor can it be attributed to the State by virtue of any omission. With regard to the former, the adequacy of the investigation and the attribution of responsibility to the State party are subject to different standards of assessment. In particular, the attribution of responsibility to the State party must be supported by evidence. Even if the Committee considers the investigations to have been inadequate, it cannot infer therefrom that the State party is responsible for the disappearance, as such a claim must be supported by evidence. In this case, the State party affirms that the only evidence suggesting that Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s disappearance was perpetrated by State agents is the statement made by the author and Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s younger brother. However, this statement does not constitute sufficient evidence to attribute responsibility. 24 Although the State party has made every possible effort, it has failed to substantiate the author’s claims. In fact, when the author and her younger son were shown the bulletproof vests worn by the municipal police of Escobedo, Nuevo León, they said that the vests resembled, but were not the same as, those worn by the perpetrators on the day of the events. The Office of the State Attorney General of Nuevo León also asked the security authorities to submit all records relating to shifts, operations, agents and uniforms that were carried out or used on the day of the disappearance. To date, it has not been established that State agents were involved in the events or that they were present in the area on the day of the disappearance. Lastly, although it has not been proven that State agents participated in the events, this line of investigation remains open. Therefore, in weighing up the evidence analysed and the measures taken, the mere statements of the author and her younger son cannot be considered to be substantiated. 6.4 With regard to a possible omission by the State party, the State party argues that the preventive measures that it must take in order to protect treaty rights must be assessed in the light of its knowledge of a reasonably foreseeable situation of risk. 25 Thus, the State party’s responsibility for omission depends on whether it knew, or ought to have known, of the existence of a situation of real or immediate risk under reasonably foreseeable circumstances. The State party argues that it did not know, and had no reason to know, why Mr. Rivera Hidalgo might have been disappeared. The State party therefore requests the Committee to declare that Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s disappearance cannot be attributed to it. 6.5 Lastly, the State party affirms that the violations of the author’s personal integrity caused by the anguish of not knowing her son’s whereabouts cannot be attributed to the State party insofar as the disappearance itself was not committed by its agents and it acted immediately, and with due diligence, when it learned of the facts. The State party adds that it has provided the necessary support to Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s family members through the Executive Commission for Victim Support. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In her comments of 25 July 2019 on the State party’s observations on the merits, the author comments on the information provided by the State party and on new developments up to that date. Firstly, the author affirms that there is evidence that two patrol cars belonging 24 25 GE.21-06148 The State party cites Tripathi v. Nepal (CCPR/C/112/D/2111/2011), para. 7.2. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, judgment of 11 May 2007, Series C No. 163, para. 78. 9