CCPR/C/130/D/3599/2019 case should be heard, taking into account the differences in the two parties’ interpretations of national law and the Covenant. Additional information submitted by the authors 6.1 On 6 March 2020, the authors reported that the proceedings initiated in Argentina are still being obstructed as the Spanish authorities had just prevented the judge presiding over the Buenos Aires court from travelling to take a statement from a party under investigation (a former minister under Franco) as she had been scheduled to do that month at the Argentine Embassy in Spain. 6.2 The authors also affirm that the Spanish courts are continuing to dismiss complaints submitted by victims of offences committed under the Franco regime, citing a recent example of a dismissal based on the arguments set out in the Supreme Court judgment of 27 February 2012 (see para. 2.17 above). 6.3 The authors also point out that the recent decision of the Committee against Torture 27 is particularly significant in that the Committee deems itself competent ratione temporis to deal with alleged violations of obligations under the Convention that occurred prior to the recognition of the Committee’s competence on the grounds that they constitute a continuing violation of the duty to investigate. They request that the Committee apply, mutatis mutandis, the same criteria to the present case. 6.4 Lastly, the authors are sending three amicus curiae briefs to the Committee that they received directly from their authors.28 6.5 On 24 September 2020, the complainants informed the Committee that they had learned from the media that 17 bodies had been excavated and exhumed in the Manacor cemetery known as San Coletes in July and August 2020. According to information they were able to obtain through unofficial channels, a DNA analysis of the bodies is being carried out and it is possible that one of them might belong to one of the victims, Ms. M.J. They also requested the Committee to postpone consideration of the case, if possible. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible ratione materiae because efforts to obtain reparation and justice for victims of enforced disappearance are covered not by the Covenant but by the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and that the authors’ 27 28 GE.21-06035 Coppin v. Ireland (CAT/C/68/D/879/2018), para. 6.3. The Mallorca Association for the Recovery of Historical Memory recalls that, in 2017, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances recommended that Spain should cooperate with the judicial proceedings in Argentina (A/HRC/36/39/Add.3, p. 122, para. 45). The Inter-American Institute for Social Responsibility and Human Rights recalls that, even when national legislation provides otherwise, serious human rights violations that constitute continuing violations cannot be subject to any statute of limitations or amnesty, irrespective of the date of their commission, in accordance with the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. Lastly, Margalida Capellà Roig argues that the communication is admissible because the Amnesty Act, the Supreme Court’s case law and the Historical Memory Act constitute barriers that impede access to justice, in violation of standards of truth, justice and reparation. She also recalls that, of the European countries that collaborated with Nazi Germany, Spain is the only one where no legal action has yet been taken in connection with crimes committed under international law against the backdrop of the Second World War. 11