CCPR/C/115/D/2214/2012 Statute, although it did retain the element of intention and the idea that efforts by relatives to exercise remedies must be “systematically hampered”. l 14. But, in its Views adopted on 9 July 2015 in the case of Rosa María Serna et al. v. Colombia, the Committee downplayed the importance of the latter condition, considering it as one factor among others in establishing refusal to recognize the victim as a person before the law. m 15. It follows from these two developments that:  Neither the duration of the period during which a person is removed from the protection of the law nor even the intention to remove a person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time is a criterion for a violation of article 16;  It is, rather, the removal of the person from the protection of the law which in itself constitutes a refusal to recognize that person as a person before the law, and the fact that the removal from the protection of the law is made evident — especially for the relatives — by the authorities’ behaviour, which may take the form of either action (a “systematic” hampering of efforts to obtain access to remedies, an explicit refusal, etc.) or omission (lack of response to complaints or any other discretionary or judicial remedies). 16. In the light of these elements, we consider that the Committee should, in this case, have ruled on a violation of article 16 and found a violation. __________________ l m GE.15-22873 See communication No. 2038/2011, Chhedulal Tharu et al. v. Nepal, Views adopted on 3 July 2015, para. 10.9: “With regard to the alleged violation of article 16, the Committee considers that the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law constitutes a denial of the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law if the victim was in the hands of the State authorities when last seen and if the efforts of his or her relatives to obtain access to potentially effective remedies, including judicial remedies (see art. 2 (3) of the Covenant), have been systematically impeded.” See also the individual opinion (concurring) of Olivier de Frouville and the individual opinion of Anja Seibert-Fohr. Communication No. 2134/2012, Rosa María Serna et al. v. Colombia, Views adopted on 9 July 2015, para. 9.5: “The Committee is of the view that the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law constitutes a refusal to recognize that person as a person before the law, in particular if the efforts of his or her relatives to obtain access to effective remedies have been systematically impeded.” (Emphasis added.) 17/17