CCPR/C/126/D/2750/2016 officers singled out by the eyewitness were not collected until more than four years after the disappearance. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 In its observations of 13 September 2016, the State party asked the Committee to find that it had not violated any of the articles of the Covenant. 6.2 The State party reiterates that the investigations were carried out promptly as soon as the authorities learned of the disappearance, on 21 October 2010. In this regard, the State party says that it was unaware of “evidence on which Ms. Galindres based her claim that she was not allowed to file a complaint on 20 October 2010”. The State party also reiterates that the investigations were carried out with all due diligence and argues that the obligation to investigate is not an obligation of result, but of means, to be interpreted in such a way as not to impose a disproportionate burden on the authorities. The State party adds that the investigation was impartial, since the public prosecutor’s office is by law independent of the inter-municipal police, and that it was thorough, since both state and federal authorities carried out all the necessary investigations and actions. 6.3 The State party again details all the steps taken and specifies that, as far as the examination of the car was concerned, “there was no sign whatsoever of the car having been used by anyone other than the alleged disappeared person”. The State party also adds that a number of other officers,20 in addition to the three police officers identified and the deputy chief of the inter-municipal police, Javier Amador Mercado Guerrero, came forward to testify and that their statements did not “suggest any probable link to the alleged events”. 6.4 Thus, the State party maintains that the disappearance of Mr. Téllez Padilla cannot be attributed to State agents, “since no evidence has been produced in support of such a claim”, and that, on the contrary, there is evidence pointing to different conclusions, such as the fact that none of the police officers admitted being involved and that none of the persons interviewed confirmed the facts. Thus, the State party argues that international responsibility cannot be attributed to it when it has produced evidence that discredits the authors’ version. 6.5 Finally, the State party also maintains that it is not possible to claim that the disappearance resulted from an omission on its part. In this connection, it points out that a State cannot be held responsible for any situation of risk to the right to life if, at the time of the events, the authorities were not aware of the existence of a situation of real and immediate risk to the life of a given individual. The State party notes that it did not receive any warning that Mr. Téllez Padilla was at risk and it was therefore unable to prevent his disappearance. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In their comments of 20 January 2017, the authors state that the authorities did know about the disappearance from the very day it occurred, because Ms. Galindres called the police that same day on the emergency telephone number to report the disappearance of her partner after having asked about him in the offices of three state entities (the intermunicipal police, the Veracruz Investigation Agency and the Federal Investigation Agency). The authors say that the criminal case file contains a record of the call. In addition, the authors point out that there is a record in the case file of the refusal of the Veracruz State Attorney General’s Office to accept the complaint on 20 October 2010.21 7.2 The authors also insist that, despite the consistent account of the eyewitness, the investigations were neither prompt nor thorough; they were not carried out with due diligence; and they involved the loss or alteration of substantial and irreplaceable evidence, 20 21 8 Gregorio Maldonado Ramírez, Marcelo López Hernández, Leodegario Amador Gonzáles, Juan Carlos Novoa Torres and Reyna Vite Chávez. Notably in the statement made to the Public Prosecution Service on 3 November 2010 by the mother of Mr. Téllez Padilla (annex 6: Statement by María Eugenia Padilla García to agent No. 8 of the Public Prosecution Investigative Service, p. 2). GE.19-15740