CCPR/C/126/D/2750/2016 opened new lines of investigation. As for the conduct of the judicial authorities, the authors maintain that those authorities obstructed and “vitiated” the investigation by: rejecting the complaint; contradicting themselves about the existence of security cameras; conducting a negligent expert appraisal of the car so that it was impossible to identify fingerprints; delaying the identification of the police officers – using a facial composite instead of showing the photograph album of the inter-municipal police, before eventually showing it with four photographs missing; taking 44 days to summon one of the police officers identified to testify; and giving full evidentiary value to the certificate produced by that police officer, even though it was signed by an officer who was later arrested on kidnapping charges. Finally, with regard to the last criterion – the effect of the legal situation on the persons involved – the authors point to the serious consequences for their personal integrity of not knowing the whereabouts of Mr. Téllez Padilla. 3.3 Turning to the violations in the present case, the authors assert that it concerns an enforced disappearance, since all the elements of the definition of that offence are met: (a) Mr. Téllez Padilla was stopped by inter-municipal police officers; (b) the officers made him get out of his car and into a police patrol car; and (c) his family tried very hard to find him and the officers denied that he was in the police station. The authors recall that the enforced disappearance of persons constitutes a multiple and continuing violation of several rights; they claim that the State party has violated Mr. Téllez Padilla’s rights under articles 6 (1), 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant, read separately and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. The authors also claim to themselves be victims of a violation by the State party of their rights under article 7 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3). They also allege a violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 3.4 As for the violation of Mr. Téllez Padilla’s right to life, the authors allege that the acts constitute a violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant, given the circumstances of Mr. Téllez Padilla’s detention by police officers and the absence of news on his fate or whereabouts. 3.5 As for the violation of the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the authors maintain that there can be no doubt that Mr. Téllez Padilla suffered greatly from the terrible uncertainty and the harm to his physical and mental integrity, and that the forced disappearance of persons constitutes in itself a form of torture. Furthermore, the authors claim a violation of article 7 of the Covenant in respect of themselves, on account of the distress and suffering caused by their pursuit of justice, by not knowing the whereabouts of their relative and by not knowing whether he was alive or in what conditions he was held captive. 3.6 The authors also allege a violation of article 9 of the Covenant because Mr. Téllez Padilla was arrested without a warrant, was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, was not charged, and was given no chance to appear before a judicial authority in order to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. The authors also cite general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, in which the Committee recognizes “being involuntarily transported” (para. 5) as a form of deprivation of liberty, and states that “enforced disappearances ... constitute a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention” (para. 17). They also cite the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to support the claim of a violation of the right to liberty, because Mr. Téllez Padilla was transferred to an unknown place and his detention was not recorded.14 3.7 With regard to the violation of the right to recognition as a person before the law, the authors rely on the Committee’s Views to allege a violation of article 16 in respect of Mr. 14 GE.19-15740 The authors cite the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, merits, reparations and costs, judgment of 20 November 2012, Series C, No. 253, para. 200, according to which “the deprivation of liberty in legally recognized centers and the existence of records of detainees constitute fundamental safeguards, inter alia, against forced disappearance”. 5