CCPR/C/130/D/3599/2019 3.7 The authors also claim 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, lasting over 80 years, in the case of F.A.J., caused not only by the enforced disappearance of their family members, the uncertainty surrounding their fate and whereabouts, and the economic and social consequences suffered, in particular, by F.A.J, but also by the attitude of indifference shown by the State party to their repeated requests for truth and justice. Thus, the authors maintain that the enforced disappearance of their parents and grandparents, and the refusal of the authorities to open an investigation, constitute a form of cruel and inhuman treatment bordering on torture.20 They also recall that a psychological evaluation concluded that F.A.J. has always been sickened by sadness and that B.M.R.A. has suffered the effects of the trauma. 3.8 The authors also specify that the obligation to search remains until the missing person is located and, in the event of his or her death, until the remains are exhumed, identified and returned to the family. Failure to do so constitutes a reaffirmation of the violation.21 As with the failure to investigate, failure to bring to justice perpetrators of such violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant.22 3.9 The authors request that the State party: (a) conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the disappearances, removing all legal obstacles for this purpose; (b) locate, identify and return the mortal remains; (c) provide them with psychological and social support; (d) hold a public ceremony at which responsibility is acknowledged, an apology is made and a commemorative plaque is put in place; and (e) provide them with full reparation. 3.10 In addition, the authors generally request, inter alia, that the State party: (a) take all necessary measures to ensure that enforced disappearances are not offences subject to amnesty; (b) establish a truth commission; (c) review the Historical Memory Act in order to bring it into line with international standards; (d) develop a national register of disappeared persons; (e) develop a protocol for collecting and identifying mortal remains; (f) guarantee public access to State, military and Catholic Church archives; and (g) design and implement educational programmes on violations committed during the Civil War and the dictatorship. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 10 July 2019, the State party set out four grounds for inadmissibility, after first making various proposals for legislative reforms related to historical memory. It explained that these proposals related to some of the reparation measures requested by the authors, such as the exhumation of mass graves, the establishment of a national list of victims, the opening of State archives, the inclusion of materials on the Civil War and the Franco regime in educational curricula, the establishment of a national DNA bank, the establishment of a truth commission, the annulment of judgments issued by the extraordinary courts under the Franco regime, the declaration of the rights of persons who had been punished by the Political Affairs Courts in force at the time of the events in order to punish persons collaborating with the Republicans, and the outlawing of associations that defend and extol fascism, Nazism and the Franco regime. 20 21 22 8 See Zaier v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2026/2011), para. 7.6; Serna et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012), para. 9.8; Rizvanović and Rizvanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/110/D/1997/2010 and Corr.1), para 9.6; Ičić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/113/D/2028/2011), para 9.7; Prutina et al. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/107/D/1917/2009, 1918/2009, 1925/2009 and 1953/2010), para. 9.6; Selimović et al. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/111/D/2003/2010), para 12.7; Durić and Durić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/111/D/1956/2010), para 9.8; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 58; E/CN.4/1998/43, para. 72; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L//V/II.68, Doc. 8 rev.1, p. 205; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, judgment of 22 September 2006, merits, reparations and costs, para. 97, Series C No. 36; and Gómez Palomino v. Perú, judgment of 22 November 2005, merits, reparations and costs, Series C No. 153, para. 61. See Cifuentes Elgueta v. Chile (CCPR/C/96/D/1536/2006), para. 8.5; Yurich v. Chile (CCPR/C/85/D/1078/2002), para. 6.4; Sarma v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/78/D/950/2000), para. 6.2; Sankara et al. v. Burkina Faso, para. 6.3. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 18. GE.21-06035