CCPR/C/127/D/2760/2016 which the investigation was marred by serious irregularities, is actually proof that it was not thorough. Lastly, the authors submit that the most recent preliminary investigation opened before the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic in 2015 (para. 6.8 above) has not proved to be exhaustive or thorough in nature, owing to a total failure to act. 7.7 The authors refer to the conclusion drawn by the Ombudsman’s Office, according to which “there was an omission in the duty to investigate, since the collection of precise information is the first step that the authority should have taken and so, in view of its failure to do so, [the father of the disappeared person] conducted his own investigation to the point where he succeeded in locating the person who had housed his son before his disappearance and his son’s backpack and other belongings”, which he handed over to the Prosecution Service.42 In the view of the Ombudsman’s Office, “the institutional climate in which the investigation was conducted has made it impossible for this remedy to fulfil its objective”, which, to this day, has kept the family of the disappeared person in the dark about what really happened to him, leading the institution to conclude that the right to due process, specifically the right to a thorough and exhaustive investigation, was violated. 43 Additional submission from the State party 8.1 On 19 December 2018 and 13 March 2019, the State party informed the Committee of actions taken to comply with the recommendation issued by the Ombudsman’s Office. With regard to the conduct of the investigations, firstly, the State party mentions that, in a letter dated 24 November 2016, the Prosecutor General of Oaxaca State instructed the Specialized Prosecutor for High-Impact Crimes, who is attached to the Office of the Prosecutor General, to conduct a serious, effective, professional and scientific investigation that is respectful of human rights in order to exhaust all lines of enquiry that might lead to Mr. Moreno Pérez being found alive. Secondly, the State party mentions that constant requests for cooperation have been made in order to cross-check the genetic data of Mr. Moreno Pérez with those of any bodies that are found. Thirdly, the State party mentions that, on 25 October 2018, an investigation was also opened by the newly created Specialized Unit on Enforced Disappearances of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Oaxaca State in an effort to increase the effectiveness of the investigative process.44 Lastly, the State party listed a series of steps taken by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, which include several unanswered requests for the investigation to be taken over by new staff made in 2018. 8.2 As to the preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the Prosecutor General for Oaxaca State in respect of officer Juan Luis Vásquez Martínez (para. 6.7 above), the State party indicates that, on 5 November 2018, the Eighth District Court of the State of Oaxaca decided to grant an application for amparo lodged on 6 November 2017 and that it is now for the federal authority to determine the appropriate action to be taken. 45 8.3 With regard to the public act acknowledging responsibility and the public apology recommended by the Ombudsman’s Office, the State party indicates that these steps were taken on 29 November 2016 by the Prosecutor General of Oaxaca State, in the presence of Mr. Moreno Zamora, various media representatives and the Inspector General of the Ombudsman’s Office, among others. 8.4 With regard to the compensation recommended by the Ombudsman’s Office, the State party indicates that, on 29 November 2016, a meeting was held with Mr. Moreno Zamora at which he accepted the sum of 1.5 million pesos, which has since been disbursed. 8.5 With regard to the guarantees of non-repetition, the State party mentions that, in a letter dated 24 November 2016, it ordered the introduction of human rights training for officials in the Prosecution Service, to be dispensed with the assistance of the National Human Rights Commission and the Ombudsman’s Office. 42 43 44 45 10 Ibid. p. 42. Ibid. pp. 51 and 52. Investigation case file 139/UEDF/2018. The communication does not provide further details about the judgment in respect of which the application for amparo was lodged. GE.19-21673