CCPR/C/119/D/2586/2015 mandates are to examine and report publicly on human rights situations in specific countries or territories, or cases of widespread human rights violations worldwide, do not generally constitute an international procedure of investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. 12 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the examination of Mr. Zakharenko’s case by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances does not render the present communication inadmissible under this provision. 6.3 As to the State party’s argument that the Committee cannot consider communications submitted to it by a third party, the Committee notes that nothing in the Optional Protocol prevents authors of communications from designating third parties as recipients of the Committee’s correspondence on their behalf. It also notes that it has been its longstanding practice that authors may designate representatives of their choice, not only to receive correspondence, but to represent them before the Committee. Similarly, it has been the long-standing practice of the Committee to allow relatives to bring proceedings for alleged victims, who have died, disappeared or been prevented for other reasons from bringing a communication or designating a representative. Both modes of representation are reflected in rule 96 (b) of the rules of procedure. In the present case, the authors have presented a duly signed power of attorney for the counsel to represent them and Mr. Zakharenko — their son and father — before the Committee. The Committee therefore considers that, for purposes of article 1 of the Optional Protocol, the communication has been presented by the alleged victims, through their duly designated representative. Accordingly, it is not precluded by virtue of article 1 of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 6.4 Regarding the State party’s argument that the authors have not exhausted the domestic remedies available, the Committee takes note of the authors’ claim that they have submitted a number of complaints regarding the disappearance of Mr. Zakharenko and that the investigation has been ongoing since 1999 without any result owing to lack of effectiveness of the investigation conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office. The Committee takes note in that regard of the complaints filed by the authors on 26 January and 2 August 2004, 12 January 2005, 1 and 6 February 2009, 9 June and December 2010, an unspecified date in February 2011, 30 April 2013 and others, to the Prosecutor of the city of Minsk, the investigator of serious cases of the Minsk Prosecutor’s Office and the Prosecutor General. The Committee also notes that the State party has not provided any details about the current state of the investigation and has not demonstrated that the continuing investigation is effective despite the apparent lack of any progress for many years, notwithstanding the serious and grave nature of the authors’ allegations. A State party cannot avoid review of a communication merely by relying on the existence of an ongoing investigation when such an investigation is extremely prolonged and patently fruitless. Under these circumstances, the Committee considers that domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged 13 and ineffective. Accordingly, it finds that article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol does not preclude it from considering the communication. 6.5 The Committee considers that the authors’ claims are sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and therefore proceeds to their consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 26 of the Covenant have been violated by the State party because of the enforced disappearance of 12 13 See communication No. 1811/2008, Djebbar and Chihoub v. Algeria, Views adopted on 31 October 2011, para. 7.2; see also communication No. 1820/2008 (see footnote 4 above), para. 7.2. See, inter alia, communications No. 1560/2007, Marcellana and Gumanoy v. the Philippines, Views adopted on 30 October 2008, para. 6.2; No. 1250/2004, Lalith Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, paras. 6.1-6.2; No. 992/2001 (see footnote 11 above), para. 8.3; and No. 1820/2008 (see footnote 4 above), para. 7.4. 5