CCPR/C/126/D/2750/2016 Téllez Padilla, who was removed from the protection of the law and was last seen in the hands of the authorities.15 3.8 Finally, owing to the failure to conduct an effective investigation, the authors also allege a violation of article 2 (3), read alone and in conjunction with articles 6 (1), 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant. In this regard, the authors claim that the State failed to initiate an independent, impartial, serious, thorough and effective ex officio investigation that guaranteed the right to the truth and respected the family’s right to participate in the proceedings (the authors point out that they even had to submit an application for amparo because of the enormous difficulties they faced in trying to obtain copies of the case files, and that international attention had already been drawn to this issue in the State party); 16 and that the authorities also obstructed and vitiated the investigation. In this regard, the authors invoke a number of international rulings that indicate that the period immediately following arrest is crucial to gathering information and thus preventing a disappearance.17 Lastly, the authors recall paragraph 15 of general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, according to which “a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant”. 3.9 As reparation measures, the authors ask that the State party be ordered to: (a) conduct a prompt, impartial and thorough investigation into the facts; (b) continue the search to determine the whereabouts and fate of Mr. Téllez Padilla, in accordance with the relevant international standards; (c) provide the authors with detailed information on the outcome of the criminal investigation and the search; (d) release Mr. Téllez Padilla immediately if he is still in detention; (e) prosecute and punish those responsible; (f) grant the relatives and Mr. Téllez Padilla, if he is still alive, full reparation, including adequate compensation and the necessary rehabilitation; and (g) take measures to prevent similar violations in the future. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 13 May 2016, the State party requested the Committee to consider separately the admissibility and the merits and to declare the communication inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies as the case was still pending. 4.2 First, the State party submits that the necessary investigations were carried out in the cases before the authorities of the state of Veracruz. In this respect, the State party mentions that facial composites were made of two individuals; that Pablo García García was identified as one of those responsible and that he was summoned to appear as an accused person for the purposes of the proceedings; that the attorneys general of 30 states and the Federal District were requested to issue instructions to the appropriate authorities to conduct search operations; that they were also asked to report on whether there was any investigation concerning Mr. Téllez Padilla under way and whether he was being held in a social rehabilitation centre or hospital; that they were also asked to post Mr. Téllez Padilla’s photograph on their website and other media; that psychological help was requested for Mr. Téllez Padilla’s partner and mother; that they were informed that the video footage taken by the cameras was automatically wiped after 15 days; that Ms. Galindres did not show up for appointments in 2012 and 2013 to identify the police officers; and that in 2015 a request was made to have the search included in the reward payment programme. 15 16 17 6 The authors cite the cases of Abdelhakim Wanis El Abani (El Ouerfeli) v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/99/D/1640/2007); Fatma Zohra Berzig v. Algeria, (CCPR/C/103/D/1781/2008); Aîssa Mezine v. Algeria (CCPR/C/106/D/1779/2008); and Ram Kumar Bhandari v. Nepal (CCPR/C/112/D/2031/2011). The authors cite the case before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of Radilla-Pacheco v. Mexico, preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, judgment of 23 November 2009, Series C, No. 209, para. 258. The authors cite precautionary measure No. 453-13 granted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the matter of Daniel Ramos Alfaro regarding Mexico (20 February 2014, para. 11). They also cite Human Rights Watch, “Ni seguridad ni derechos: Ejecuciones, desapariciones y tortura en la guerra contra el narcotráfico en México” (Mexico, 2011, p. 10). GE.19-15740