CCPR/C/127/D/2760/2016 They also recall that States parties have an obligation to ensure the protection of individuals against violations committed by private persons.27 They submit that, from the moment that the authorities learned of the disappearance of Mr. Moreno Pérez, they failed to launch an immediate search, and tampered with and fabricated evidence to alter the course of the investigation, thereby creating conditions that put his life at serious risk. It is therefore reasonable to presume that Mr. Moreno Pérez’s right to life was violated. 3.3 The authors also allege a violation, in respect of Mr. Moreno Pérez, of article 7 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), by recalling the Committee’s established jurisprudence according to which the disappearance of persons constitutes in itself a form of torture for the disappeared person. They submit that it is reasonable to presume that, during his deprivation of liberty, Mr. Moreno Pérez was left with a feeling of distress and defencelessness that caused him intense suffering. The authors also allege a violation, in respect of themselves, of article 7 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), as the authorities tried to make them accept the version of events surrounding the homicide so that they could call off the search, and that the authorities’ haste in closing the case causes them great pain. The father of the disappeared person told the media that he was against “closing” the case. The continuing uncertainty caused by the disappearance of Mr. Moreno Pérez causes them anxiety, stress and “is a blight on their life”. 3.4 The authors also allege a violation, in respect of Mr. Moreno Pérez, of article 9 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), since it has not been possible to clarify the whereabouts or fate of the disappeared person, or the manner in which he was deprived of his liberty, and since the authorities initially neglected to search for him and subsequently obstructed that endeavour, which gives them reason to believe that Mr. Moreno Pérez was deprived of his liberty against his will. 3.5 The authors also allege a violation, in respect of Mr. Moreno Pérez, of article 16 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), since he was placed outside the protection of the law as a result of his abduction and deprivation of liberty and the fact that subsequent attempts to search for him were systematically obstructed. 3.6 In short, the authors allege a violation of all the articles mentioned above (6 (1), 7, 9 and 16), read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, based on the actions of the authorities whose aim was to conceal the disappearance by tampering with and fabricating evidence, using confessions obtained through torture and manipulating witnesses to prove an alleged homicide as the result of a robbery and to close the case by accusing innocent people. The authors recall that statements and confessions are evidence that may be used during a criminal investigation, provided that consistent conclusions about the facts of the case may be drawn from them. However, when they are obtained under duress or through torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment, they cannot be used as evidence. 28 The authors also recall that the actions of the authorities have been punished administratively but not criminally. In addition, the authors recall that Mr. Moreno Pérez’s body was never found, that a death certificate was issued in the absence of a body and that a virtual appraisal of non-existent stolen objects was carried out. The authors therefore conclude that the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared person have not yet been clarified. 3.7 The authors submit that, by way of redress, the State party should: (a) conduct an impartial, thorough and rigorous investigation into the facts of the case, bearing in mind the context of enforced disappearances; (b) continue to search for Mr. Moreno Pérez; (c) provide them with detailed information on the outcome of the investigations; (d) release Mr. Moreno Pérez if he is still deprived of his liberty; (e) in the event that he is in fact deceased, search for and hand over his remains; (f) prosecute and punish all those responsible; (g) provide comprehensive redress for the damage caused; and (h) take steps to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future and, in particular, review the legislation that allowed the violations to occur in the first place, such as the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Free and Sovereign State of Oaxaca, which allowed the cause of death to be established by means of an autopsy conducted in the absence of a body and which, consequently, allowed the State party to shirk its obligation to investigate, thereby hindering access to justice. 27 28 6 Pestaño v. the Philippines (CCPR/C/98/D/1619/2007), para. 7.2. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, judgment of 26 November 2010, series C, No. 220, para. 165. GE.19-21673