CCPR/C/126/D/2750/2016 authors, it was not until nine months later (on 22 October 2012) that his statement was taken, and that when he denied the accusations, there was no analysis of the collaboration between the inter-municipal police and the Los Zetas group. 2.8 On 24 October 2014, Mr. Téllez Padilla’s family filed a new complaint with the Disappeared Persons Search Unit (established on 21 June 2013) at the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic. This gave rise to an official report, 10 for the purposes of which copies of all existing case files were requested. When the report was received on 16 April 2015, it was upgraded to a preliminary investigation. Although the call list for Mr. Téllez Padilla’s telephone was examined and it was determined – in September 2015 – that a call had been made from his telephone a few minutes after his arrest and that on 6 December 2010 a call had been made to check the balance, it was impossible to obtain further information given the time that had elapsed. 2.9 As well as seeking judicial remedies, the authors filed complaints against the intermunicipal police with the Veracruz State Human Rights Commission (21 October 2010) and with the National Human Rights Commission (19 April 2011). None of the actions taken succeeded in establishing the whereabouts of Mr. Téllez Padilla. 2.10 The authors claim that the disappearance of Christian Téllez Padilla took place in a context of serious human rights violations with a clear link between state authorities and organized crime, citing reports from various international and regional bodies. 11 According to the authors, this link between the police and organized crime led to a rise in the number of extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances throughout the country, as well as in the number of complaints of inbuilt impunity for such acts; this situation was reflected in Veracruz, where it was influenced by the presence of organized crime groups such as Los Zetas, the Gulf Cartel and the New Generation Jalisco Cartel. The complaint 3.1 The authors maintain that the communication meets the admissibility criteria under the exception provided for in article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, in that the appropriate remedies have been applied for but have been unreasonably prolonged and important evidence has been lost. The remedies have been ineffective in determining the circumstances of the disappearance and the fate and whereabouts of Mr. Téllez Padilla, and have not allowed those responsible to be punished. 3.2 In particular, the authors cite the Committee’s jurisprudence that if remedies are unreasonably prolonged or proven to be ineffective, there is no obstacle to the consideration of a communication.12 The authors also maintain that the communication is admissible on the basis of the four criteria developed by regional human rights systems to determine what counts as a reasonable period of time for the purpose of determining the effectiveness of remedies.13 Regarding the complexity of the case, the authors maintain that the implication of the inter-municipal police made it impossible to make progress in the investigations. As for the procedural steps taken by the party concerned, the authors argue that they always cooperated in the investigation and that they were the ones who introduced evidence that 10 11 12 13 4 Official report AC/PGR/SDHPDSC/UEBPD/M12/109/2014. The authors cite the 7 October 2015 statement of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on his visit to Mexico in 2015: “For a country that is not engaged in a conflict, the estimated figures are simply staggering ... Official statistics show that 98 percent of all crimes in Mexico remain unsolved, with the great majority of them never even properly investigated.” They also mention the concerns expressed by the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights after its visit in October 2015 (according to the Commission, the extent of enforced disappearance in the country was “alarming”). The authors cite, for example, the case of Pestaño v. Philippines (CCPR/C/98/D/1619/2007). The authors refer to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Ruíz-Mateos v. Spain, application No. 12952/87, judgment of 23 June 1993, paras. 38 et seq.) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Genie-Lacayo v. Nicaragua, merits, reparations and costs, judgment of 29 January 1997, Series C, No. 30, paras. 77 et seq.; Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, preliminary objections, merits and reparations, judgment of 20 November 2014, Series C, No. 288, para. 189). GE.19-15740