CCPR/C/126/D/2750/2016 which was needed to establish what happened and who was responsible. In this regard, the authors point out that the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has recalled that “the first hours and days after the deprivation of liberty are when abuses usually occur, including enforced or involuntary disappearances”.22 However, they say that no order was given to carry out an on-site investigation at the inter-municipal police station or to take steps to obtain information from the cameras located in the place where the vehicle was found; that the first visit to the place of detention took place on 27 October 2010, that is, seven days after the events; that the Public Prosecution Service official also received from the police the photographs of the police officers on 27 October 2010; 23 and that the first order to take a statement from Pablo García García was issued on 24 November 2010 (more than two months after the disappearance). Likewise, the authors indicate that on 26 October 2010 they submitted a request to find out whether there was a video recording in the archives of “C4” (Control, Command, Communications and Computing Centre), and that, when no answer had been received two months and 18 days later, they resubmitted the request, only to be told in January 2011 that “the video footage taken by the cameras is automatically wiped after 15 days”.24 7.3 As for the description of Pablo García García as one of the police officers riding a motorcycle, and the State party’s argument that he does not fit the description, the authors maintain that, although the officer’s lawyer stated that the physical description did not correspond exactly to the one given by the eyewitness, no steps were taken to clarify the differences and the witness was not asked to pick him out in a police line-up, as provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such a procedure would have been very pertinent, since when she viewed the photographs on 21 April 2014, the witness was very emphatic when she again identified Pablo García García as one of the police officers on a motorcycle who had blocked her way.25 7.4 The authors also insist that the delay is particularly serious if one takes into account the context in which the disappearance took place, indicating that it is clear from statements in the file that, at the time of the disappearance, there were clashes between the authorities and “Los Zetas”, and that “people were being kidnapped”. 26 In this regard, the authors regret that no steps were taken to establish the veracity of the evidence provided by Pablo García García to rule out his possible participation, despite the fact that one of the statements was signed by a person subsequently arrested for kidnappings and links with “Los Zetas”. The authors also regret that, despite their having provided a copy of the press report of an inter-municipal police operation that took place on the scene that same day, it was not until more than six years later (9 December 2016) that the Office of the AttorneyGeneral of the Republic, during an inspection of the inter-municipal police station, took statements from police officers who acknowledged that the operation had indeed taken place. 7.5 The authors also argue that the State party has not denied that Mr. Téllez Padilla is missing; that – in accordance with the jurisprudence of both the European Court of Human Rights 27 and the Committee 28 – it has not provided any other version of events that 22 23 24 25 26 27 GE.19-15740 A/HRC/33/51/Add.1, para. 54. Annex 7: Veracruz State Attorney General’s Office, Directorate-General of Judicial Investigations, Agency No. 8 of the Public Prosecution Investigative Service, Official letter DGIM/MP8o/2276/2010, Subject: Reply to official letter PGJ/VDH/3945/2010/-NVN, Xalapa-Enríquez, 25 November 2010, p. 3. Annex 23: Agent No. 15 of the Public Prosecution Service attached to the Directorate-General of Investigations in charge of the office of Agency No. 8. Xalapa-Enríquez, Veracruz, 14 January 2011. It is clear from annex 5 to the comments on the observations on the merits that the witness specified that the scar on the officer’s forehead that she had mentioned was “very small and [was] probably from untreated acne or a small cut”. Annex 9: Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Investigation of Organized Crime, Kidnapping Unit, AP PGR/SIEDO/UEIS/561/2010. Statement to the prosecution service by a university classmate, Mexico City, Federal District, 13 June 2014, p. 2. The authors refer to the case of Aslakhanova and others v. Russia, judgment of 18 December 2012, para. 104, in which the European Court of Human Rights held that, faced with testimonies reporting 9