CCPR/C/126/D/2750/2016 4.3 Secondly, the State party submits that the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic also carried out the necessary investigations. Thus, among other steps taken, statements were taken from various persons and acquaintances of Mr. Padilla Téllez; inspections were carried out at the scene of the events; searches were carried out in unmarked graves; 32 public prosecutor’s offices, as well as hospitals and psychiatric units, were instructed to search for Mr. Téllez Padilla; the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) was asked to issue a Yellow Notice; the context was investigated; and a statement was taken from Javier Amador Mercado Guerrero, deputy chief of the inter-municipal police.18 4.4 The State party notes that, as a result of these actions, it has been established that there were several outbreaks of violence between criminal gangs in October 2010 in Poza Rica and that a number of press reports were critical of the actions of the inter-municipal police. However, the State party maintains that Pablo García García demonstrated “with an official document” that at the time of the events “he was enjoying his holiday”, that “he did not know how to use or ride a motorcycle” and that “he does not have a scar like, or similar to, the one borne by the person riding the motorcycle who blocked the way, as described by the complainant”. 4.5 In short, the State party argues that the preliminary investigations are under way, pending the submission of information by various prosecutor’s offices in response to the request for cooperation. It claims that it has followed the search protocols, but that there is no compelling evidence to hold anyone responsible for the events. In this respect, “it may be presumed that the perpetrators of the criminal act may have been law enforcement officials, but it has not been conclusively demonstrated that any member of the intermunicipal police was involved”. It concludes that “the Mexican State has done its utmost to establish the facts” and that the appropriate investigations and actions have been carried out, so that the State party has fulfilled its legal obligation to investigate with due diligence. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 18 July 2016, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility, in which they stressed that they had taken the necessary steps to exhaust the appropriate remedies but that these had not been effective. They maintained that the remedies had been unreasonably prolonged, and that the fate and whereabouts of Mr. Téllez Padilla remained unknown almost six years after his disappearance. 5.2 On the basis of article 12 (2) of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, 19 the authors argue that the initial refusal to receive the complaint was contrary to the obligation to initiate investigations immediately. In addition, the authors maintain that the authorities have not conducted a thorough investigation, so there is still no information on the whereabouts and fate of Mr. Téllez Padilla, those responsible have not been punished and no reparation has been made. In conclusion, they argue that the investigations have been carried out: (a) without due diligence; (b) very belatedly, leading to the loss of crucial evidence; and (c) with long breaks that reduced the effectiveness of several measures and led to unreasonable delays in the investigations. 5.3 Looking at the list of steps taken by the State party, the authors reiterate that actions that were necessary to achieve the objectives of the investigation were not carried out. One of them was to carry out a proper inspection of Mr. Téllez Padilla’s vehicle in order to obtain the fingerprints and DNA of one of those responsible. Another was to issue an immediate court order granting access to the security cameras at the scene of the disappearance. In addition, Mr. Téllez Padilla’s cellphone call list was accessed and analysed too late. Finally, the authors report that the statements of the other two police 18 19 GE.19-15740 However, the State party does not indicate what the outcome of this procedure was. The relevant part of this article of the Convention, which was ratified by the State party on 18 March 2008, provides that: “Where there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person has been subjected to enforced disappearance, the authorities ... shall undertake an investigation, even if there has been no formal complaint.” 7