CCPR/C/126/D/2750/2016 satisfactorily and convincingly explains what happened; and that the refusal of intermunicipal police officers to acknowledge the detention of Mr. Téllez Padilla does not prove that he was not deprived of his liberty by agents of the State party since, precisely, one of the characteristic elements of enforced disappearance is the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, since preliminary investigations are still pending before the Veracruz State Attorney General’s Office and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic. In particular, the State party submits that the authors have applied for the appropriate remedies but that several attorney general’s offices have yet to provide information in response to requests for cooperation. The Committee also takes note of the authors’ claims that domestic remedies have not been effective because their processing has been unreasonably prolonged, so that the fate and whereabouts of Mr. Téllez Padilla remain unknown. 8.4 The Committee recalls that the purpose of the requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted is to give the State party the opportunity to fulfil its duty to protect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the Covenant. 29 However, for the purposes of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, domestic remedies must not be unreasonably prolonged. In view of the fact that almost nine years have elapsed since the disappearance of Mr. Téllez Padilla and the submission of complaints by both the authors of the present communication and Mr. Téllez Padilla’s partner, without any significant progress being made in those investigations and without any justification by the State party for the delay, 30 the Committee considers that those investigations have been unduly prolonged and that, consequently, article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol does not preclude it from considering the present complaint.31 8.5 As all admissibility requirements have been met, and given that the authors’ complaints under articles 2 (3), 6 (1), 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee notes the authors’ assertion that the facts in the present case constitute an enforced disappearance, since all the elements of the definition of that offence are present: (a) Mr. Téllez Padilla was stopped by inter-municipal police officers; (b) the 28 29 30 31 10 enforced disappearance and the State’s argument that the investigation had thrown up no evidence of disappearance at the hands of State agents, the State had failed to meet the burden of proof. Human Rights Committee, Salem Saad Ali Bashasha v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/100/D/1776/2008), para. 7.2. Settled jurisprudence of the Committee since the adoption of its Views on T.K. v. France (CCPR/C/37/D/220/1987), para. 8.3. Ekaterina Abdoellaevna v. The Netherlands (CCPR/C/125/D/2498/2014), para. 6.3. Vladimir Chernev v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/125/D/2322/2013), para. 11.3. GE.19-15740