CCPR/C/130/D/3599/2019 passage of time since the principal events of the claim (which occurred almost 85 years ago) and the absence of a clear acknowledgement by judicial authorities of the violation of the authors’ relatives’ rights after 1985,32 the Committee cannot conclude that it has jurisdiction over a violation, even with certain continuing effects, stemming from events that occurred in 1936.33 7.7 In addition, the Committee considers that the authors do not adequately explain why they did not present their complaint to the Committee in 1985, upon ratification of the Optional Protocol by Spain, or, alternatively, why they submitted their application more than eight years after the rejection, on 9 September 2010, of their application for amparo. The Committee considers that even communications alleging enforced disappearances should not be submitted after excessive or unexplained delays on the part of authors who have, or should have, become aware that no investigation has been instigated or that the investigation has lapsed into inaction or become ineffective and where, in any of those eventualities, there is no realistic prospect of an effective investigation being carried out in the future to shed light on the fate of the victims, the possible offenders and the whereabouts of the remains, given that 85 years have now passed since the events occurred. 34 While acknowledging the profound suffering, anguish and stress caused by the enforced disappearance of their family members and by the attitude of indifference shown by the State party to their repeated requests for truth and justice for many decades after the disappearance of their relatives, the Committee finds the delayed submission of the communication to be incompatible with the ratione temporis requirements of rule 99 of its rules of procedure and therefore to be inadmissible. 7.8 In relation to the authors’ claim of a continuing violation of their own rights under article 7 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), because of the profound suffering, anguish and stress caused by the enforced disappearance of their family members and by the attitude of indifference shown by the State party to their repeated requests for truth and justice, the Committee considers that the authors have not shown that this claim was raised before the domestic authorities. It therefore considers that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. 8. In the light of the above, the Human Rights Committee decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible ratione temporis under articles 1 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol; (b) authors. 32 33 34 GE.21-06035 That the present decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the Ibid., para. 6.4; see also Yusupova v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/114/D/2036/2011), para. 6.6 (the status of victim of arbitrary detention had been recognized by the court); and Tyan v. Kazakhstan, para. 8.4. K.K. et al. v. Russian Federation, para. 6.5. Ibid., para. 6.5. 13