CCPR/C/130/D/3599/2019 Annex III Joint opinion of Committee members Marcia V.J. Kran and Hernán Quezada Cabrera (partially dissenting) 1. We have reviewed the decision of the majority of the Committee and are not able to fully agree with their Views. 2. We do find we can agree with the majority that the communication is inadmissible ratione temporis regarding the claims relating to articles 2 (3), 6, 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant in respect of M.J.V. and A.A.M. for the specific reasons given. 3. However, we are not able to agree that the authors’ claim of a continuing violation of their own rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 4. The authors’ claim of a continuing violation of their own rights rests upon the profound suffering, anguish and stress caused by the enforced disappearance of their family members and the attitude of indifference shown by the State party to their repeated requests for truth and justice. We note that the complaints submitted by the authors before the national courts are directly related to the authors’ lack of awareness of the circumstances of the enforced disappearances of their family members, which is the main cause of their suffering. 5. The authors have unsuccessfully tried to take every possible action to exhaust domestic remedies before approaching the Committee. In this regard, they have unsuccessfully brought legal challenges before the National High Court, the Court of Palma de Mallorca, the High Court of Mallorca, the Constitutional Court and the Court of Manacor. In addition, they have unsuccessfully taken procedural and administrative steps before the Technical Commission on Disappeared Persons and Graves of the government of the Balearic Islands to have their family members’ remains exhumed and returned and to obtain full reparation for the harm suffered. However, the State party is continuing to implement the Amnesty Act, despite the Committee’s repeated recommendations that it be repealed or brought into line with the Covenant.1 6. Although the authors brought their domestic claims through the Mallorca Association for the Recovery of Historical Memory, it is clear that the authors were members of that Association, authorized it to bring the claim on their behalf and were involved throughout. The State party has not disputed the authors’ claim that they requested full reparation for the harms suffered from the domestic authorities and we therefore consider that the claim for reparation for mental suffering was sufficiently raised. Moreover, the State party has not disputed the authors’ claim that Supreme Court judgment No. 101/2012 of 27 February 2012 led to the general dismissal of all appeals lodged by victims throughout the country, as it established case law on the purported reasons for which judges were not authorized to investigate crimes committed during the Civil War and the Franco era. Even if the authors were now to bring an action in their own name, the State party has not disputed that their cases would be dismissed due to established case law. We are therefore of the view that the authors do not have any further effective remedy. In these circumstances, article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol does not constitute a barrier to the admissibility of the present claim and the communication is admissible regarding the claims relating to articles 2 (3) and 7 of the Covenant in respect of the authors. 1 GE.21-06035 CCPR/C/ESP/CO/6, para. 21; and CCPR/C/ESP/CO/5, para. 9. 17