CCPR/C/127/D/2760/2016 6.2 In particular, the State party argues that it cannot be held responsible by act, as there is insufficient evidence to prove that State agents were responsible for the disappearance; nor can it be held responsible by omission, as not only is it not obliged to know everything that happens in its territory, but its duty to prevent the commission of unlawful acts is contingent on it being aware of a situation of risk,32 which it was not. 6.3 Furthermore, the State party argues that its investigations comply with the standards and obligations established by the Covenant, as they have been conducted with all due diligence and in an impartial and thorough manner, and recalls that the obligation to investigate is not an obligation of result, but of means. 6.4 The State party argues that an investigation was conducted without delay as soon as the facts of the case became known on 10 August 2011, as it initiated the investigation that led to the institution of criminal proceedings, with three individuals currently on trial, the very same day. 6.5 The State party also argues that the investigations were conducted in an impartial manner as, given that it played no role in the alleged disappearance, there is no conflict of interest with the authorities conducting the investigations. 6.6 Furthermore, the State party argues that the investigations were thorough, as a large number of steps were taken to facilitate the search operations (statements were taken; visual inspections were conducted; the Ministry of Naval Affairs was asked to provide information on the trajectory of the currents and on whether it had found any bodies; a report on Mr. Moreno Pérez’s debit card activity was requested; letters were sent to police stations with instructions to conduct a search; letters were sent to hospitals and health centres; on-site investigations were conducted; posters bearing the image of the disappeared person and offering a reward were distributed; and a request was made for a psychological and criminological profile of the defendants). 6.7 The State party also submits that an inquiry was conducted to address the allegations of torture made against Officer Juan Luis Vásquez Martínez. A preliminary investigation was opened before the Office of the Prosecutor General of Oaxaca State for probable involvement in making threats, abuse of authority and other relevant crimes. 33 6.8 Lastly, the State party submits that, on 14 June 2015, another preliminary investigation was opened before the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes of Enforced Disappearance of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General for Human Rights, Crime Prevention and Community Service),34 during which various steps were taken; for example, blood samples were collected to construct the genetic profile of the disappeared person and a request was made for information concerning his background and for records of entry into and exit from the country. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In their comments of 3 July 2017, the authors recall that “States parties have a positive obligation to ensure the protection of individuals against violations of Covenant rights, which may be committed not only by its agents, but also by private persons or entities”.35 In addition, they consider that State agents did in fact commit acts that make the State party internationally responsible for the disappearance of Mr. Moreno Pérez, both by act and by omission. 7.2 With regard to the State party’s responsibility by act, the authors maintain that officials from the Prosecution Service and the judicial police of the Office of the Attorney General of Oaxaca State (now the Office of the Prosecutor General of Oaxaca State) took part in the acts by tampering with and fabricating evidence in order to alter the course of the investigation. The authors cite the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, according to which the use of State power for the destruction of direct evidence in an attempt at total 32 33 34 35 8 The State party refers to Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, merits, reparations, and costs, judgment of 31 January 2006, Series C, No. 140, para. 124. Preliminary investigation 138/FESP/2013 and its addendum 21/FESP/2015. Preliminary investigation AP/PGR/SDHPDSC/UEBPD/M30/214/2015. Krasovskaya v. Belarus (CCPR/C/104/D/1820/2008), para. 8.3. GE.19-21673