CCPR/C/127/D/2760/2016 the rights enshrined in the Covenant.51 However, for the purposes of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, domestic remedies must not be unreasonably prolonged. In view of the fact that eight years have elapsed since the disappearance of Mr. Moreno Pérez and the submission of the initial complaints by the authors of the present communication without any significant progress being made in those investigations and without adequate justification for the delay being provided by the State party, the Committee considers that those investigations have been unduly prolonged and that, consequently, article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol does not preclude it from considering the present complaint. 52 11.5 As all admissibility requirements have been met, and given that the authors’ complaints under articles 2 (3), 6 (1), 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 12.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 12.2 The Committee takes note of the authors’ assertion that the facts of the present case occurred against a backdrop of serious human rights violations attributable to the security policy introduced by the State party in 2006, resulting in numerous enforced disappearances that were not properly investigated, and that this was also the prevailing context in the State of Oaxaca, the part of the country with the eighth highest number of complaints of human rights violations. The Committee takes note of the authors’ assertion that the facts of the present case constitute an enforced disappearance since all the elements in the definition of that phenomenon are covered: (a) the disappearance and subsequent deprivation of liberty of Mr. Moreno Pérez without the State having clarified his whereabouts; (b) the involvement, support or acquiescence of State agents by reason of their direct involvement in the tampering with and fabrication of evidence and in the construction of false testimonies; and (c) the concealment of the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared person also by tampering with and fabricating evidence in order to alter the course of the investigation. In particular, the Committee notes that the authors maintain that the use of State power for the destruction of direct evidence gives them reason to believe that the disappearance may be attributable to the State. The Committee takes note of the State party’s contention that there is insufficient evidence to prove that State agents were responsible for the disappearance. 12.3 The Committee notes that the State party did not provide any explanation for the authorities in charge of the investigation having substituted Mr. Moreno Pérez’s mobile phone for another, thus allowing a piece of evidence vital to the investigation to be destroyed. However, the Committee notes that, in the absence of any information pointing to a specific context of enforced disappearances in the place where the disappearance occurred, and in the absence of circumstantial evidence 53 to substantiate the presumption of involvement, support or acquiescence of State agents in the disappearance, the Committee cannot conclude that the disappearance of Mr. Moreno Pérez is an enforced disappearance directly attributable to the State party. 12.4 In the present case, the Committee takes note of the authors’ claims that the facts constitute a violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), since States parties have an obligation to ensure the protection of individuals against violations, which may be committed not only by its agents, but also by private persons or entities, and the authorities failed to search for Mr. Moreno Pérez immediately, tampered with and fabricated evidence, and manipulated witnesses to alter the course of the investigation, thereby creating conditions that put his life at serious risk. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s assertion that it cannot be held responsible either by act or by omission because it is not obliged to know everything that happens in its territory, it 51 52 53 GE.19-21673 T.K. v. France, para. 8.3. Téllez Padilla v. Mexico (CCPR/C/126/D/2750/2016), para. 8.4. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Godínez Cruz v. Honduras, merits, judgment of 20 January 1989, series C, No. 5, para. 154. 13