CCPR/C/130/D/3599/2019 and Mr. A.M. were last seen alive in the custody of State officials who concealed their fate and whereabouts as part of a systematic plan to make people disappear. Although these enforced disappearances began before the entry into force of the Covenant, the State party has, since the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, violated its positive procedural obligations to investigate and establish the fate and whereabouts of disappeared persons, to identify, prosecute and punish the perpetrators and to provide full reparation. They also emphasize that the communication is admissible ratione temporis because they brought legal challenges after the entry into force of the Protocol.9 3.2 Secondly, the complainants maintain that they have exhausted all available avenues by which action might be taken to investigate the events, identify, prosecute and punish the perpetrators, locate the authors’ relatives and provide full reparation for the harm suffered. They recall that the National High Court declined jurisdiction to hear the case and referred it to the Court of Palma de Mallorca, where the proceedings were dismissed. The dismissal was upheld by the High Court of Mallorca and the Constitutional Court did not admit an application for amparo. Later, following the opening of a grave near Manacor, they made an unsuccessful application to the Court of Manacor. Furthermore, and although mention of this fact is not necessary to demonstrate that domestic remedies have been exhausted, their attempt to seek remedy before the Argentine courts was blocked by Spain. In this respect, they mention that several experts and special rapporteurs of the United Nations issued a joint communiqué entitled “España debe extraditar o juzgar a los responsables de violaciones graves de derechos humanos” (Spain must extradite or prosecute persons responsible for serious human rights violations), a view which the Committee against Torture has also expressed.10 Ultimately, the administrative measures taken to locate their relatives and obtain reparation were also unsuccessful. 3.3 The authors argue that lack of access to justice is a structural problem. Owing to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court that established case law on the purported reasons for which Spanish judges are prevented from investigating crimes committed during the Civil War and the Franco era (see para. 2.17 above), there are no reasonable and effective avenues of recourse available in the State party to establish the fate and whereabouts of victims of enforced disappearance during that period. The Amnesty Act remains in force, despite the repeated requests for its repeal made to the State party, including those issued by the Committee, 11 the Committee against Torture, 12 the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances,13 and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, who is further concerned about the State party’s official line that “either we all agree that we are fully reconciled, or the only alternative is the resurgence of underlying hatreds”.14 These bodies have also expressed concern about the pattern of impunity established by the Supreme Court.15 Furthermore, as the Committee has noted, the Historical Memory Act is ineffective and insufficient in that it makes the work of exhuming and identifying disappeared persons a private initiative. 16 In short, the United Nations has already taken it for granted that in the State party: (a) there are no remedies that would allow access to justice; (b) there are no effective search measures; and (c) there are no resources to provide compensation and comprehensive reparation to the victims of the Civil War and Franco’s dictatorship. The Council of Europe and the European Parliament have 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 6 Tyan v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/119/D/2125/2011), para. 8.4. CAT/C/ESP/CO/6, para. 14; see also A/HRC/27/56/Add.1, para. 84. CCPR/C/ESP/CO/5, para. 9; CCPR/C/ESP/CO/6, para. 21; see also general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 27. CAT/C/ESP/CO/5, para. 21; CAT/C/ESP/CO/6, para. 15. A/HRC/27/49/Add.1, paras. 37, 43 and 64. A/HRC/27/56/Add.1, para. 102; see also paras. 67, 71 and 74; A/HRC/27/56/Add.3, paras. 7 and 10. A/HRC/27/49/Add.1, para. 37; A/HRC/38/39/Add.3, p. 122, para. 44; CAT/C/ESP/CO/6, para. 15; A/HRC/27/49/Add.1, para. 77. CCPR/C/ESP/CO/6, para. 21; see also A/HRC/27/49/Add.1, paras. 21–25 and 67; CED/C/ESP/CO/1, para. 31; A/HRC/27/49/Add.1, paras. 63 and 64. GE.21-06035