CCPR/C/126/D/2750/2016 Committee therefore finds that the enforced disappearance of Mr. Téllez Padilla removed him from the protection of the law and deprived him of his right to recognition as a person before the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 9.10 Lastly, the Committee takes note of the authors’ claim that the facts also constitute a violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, which requires States parties to ensure that individuals have accessible, effective and enforceable remedies for asserting the rights recognized in the Covenant. The authors refer to the Committee’s general comment No. 31, which states that failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. The Committee also notes the State party’s assertion that its legal obligation to investigate has been discharged because the appropriate investigations have been conducted promptly, with due diligence, impartially and thoroughly. However, in the present case, the Committee notes that, despite the consistent account given by the eyewitness and the numerous actions undertaken by Mr. Téllez Padilla’s family (see paras. 2.4–2.9 above), no significant progress has been made in the investigations and that, in particular, the appropriate procedures were not carried out in time, which led to the loss of important evidence (as a result of not requesting security camera footage of the scene of the incident in time, not requesting security camera footage at the location of the car, failing to order an on-site investigation at the inter-municipal police station, failing to analyse the call list for the disappeared person’s telephone in time, not collecting fingerprints from Mr. Téllez Padilla’s car, failing to summon the police officers identified to testify in a timely fashion, not ordering a police line-up and failing to investigate the context). The Committee also notes that domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged. Despite the admission by the inter-municipal police, during an inspection by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic six years after the disappearance, that a police operation had indeed been carried out on the day of the disappearance, no progress has been made in the investigations. In view of the above, the Committee considers that the investigations carried out do not appear to have been prompt or thorough; that they were not carried out with due diligence; that they were not independent and impartial; and that they have been ineffective in clarifying the circumstances of Mr. Téllez Padilla’s disappearance or his fate and whereabouts, and in identifying those responsible. The Committee recalls that article 2 (3) of the Covenant does not provide for an autonomous right.45 Nevertheless, in view of the above, the Committee concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9 and 16, in respect of Mr. Téllez Padilla; and of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 7, in respect of the authors of the communication. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it discloses violations by the State party of articles 6 (1), 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant, and of article 2 (3) read in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9 and 16, in respect of Mr. Téllez Padilla; and of article 7 of the Covenant, and article 2 (3) read in conjunction with article 7, in respect of the authors of the communication. 11. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy. This requires that full reparation be made to individuals whose rights have been violated. In this regard, the State party should: (a) carry out a thorough, rigorous, impartial, independent and effective investigation into the circumstances of Mr. Téllez Padilla’s disappearance, ensuring that the officials in charge of the search for Mr. Téllez Padilla and the investigation of his disappearance have the professionalism and autonomy needed to carry out their tasks, without ruling out the involvement of the inter-municipal police, bearing in mind the eyewitness statement and taking into account the context identified in the present case of a link between state authorities and organized crime groups; (b) immediately release Mr. Téllez Padilla if he is still being held incommunicado; (c) if Mr. Téllez Padilla has died, hand over his remains to his family; (d) investigate and sanction any type of action that might have hindered the 45 GE.19-15740 Settled jurisprudence of the Committee since the case of S.E. v. Argentina (CCPR/C/38/D/275/1988), para. 5.3. 13