CED/C/10/D/1/2013 Yrusta during a period of between 7 and 10 days following his transfer from Córdoba to the Province of Santa Fe. 3.5 The authors also consider that the State party has violated article 17 (2) (c), (d) and (f) and article 17 (3) because, although Mr. Yrusta was held in prison facilities (officially recognized places of detention), his whereabouts during the period of his disappearance are not known. Should it be established that Mr. Yrusta was held solely in officially recognized facilities, the authors consider that State institutions violated his right to communicate with his family, counsel or any other person of his choice and his right to receive visits by holding him totally incommunicado in isolation cells until the day he died. The authors further claim that the prison services acted in violation of article 17 (2) (f) and article 18 (3), inasmuch as they do not know whether or not registers exist in the places where Mr. Yrusta was held that identify the authority that ordered his transfer and that indicate the grounds for that transfer; the date, time and destination of his transfer; the authority responsible for supervising his detention; the time of admission to, and location of, the place of detention during the period of his disappearance; information concerning his state of health; and the circumstances and cause of his death. They further point out that, if such registers exist, they have not had access to them. 3.6 The authors also claim that the State party has violated article 20 of the Convention since, despite requests to the prison services, they were denied access to a prompt and effective judicial remedy as a means of obtaining without delay the information referred to in article 18 of the Convention. Furthermore, they claim that the refusal to grant their request for standing as private criminal plaintiffs (querellantes) prevented them from gaining access to information relating to the judicial proceedings initiated following the death of Mr. Yrusta. The authors also claim that the State party has violated their right to ascertain the truth regarding the circumstances of the enforced disappearance of their brother, the progress and results of the related investigation and the fate of the disappeared person, a right that is protected under article 24 of the Convention. 3.7 Lastly, the authors consider that the proliferation of procedural steps connected with their request to act as plaintiffs has entailed an undue and unjustified prolongation of the judicial proceedings, making the latter inaccessible and ineffective in the context of the investigation into their brother’s case. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 22 January and 25 February 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication to the Committee and requested that the communication be declared inadmissible under article 31 (2) (d) of the Convention for the reasons set out below. 4.2 The State party recalls that the Convention requires that domestic remedies must have been exhausted in order for an individual communication to be declared admissible. It considers that in the present case the Committee’s intervention would clearly be premature, since the judicial investigation initiated following the death of Mr. Yrusta is still ongoing, and it cannot be argued that the proceedings have exceeded a reasonable period of time. In this connection, the State party points out that judicial proceedings have been opened in the case entitled “Yrusta, Roberto Agustín re/his death” before the Sixth Bench of the Santa Fe Criminal Investigation Court. On 26 February 2013, Mr. Yrusta’s sisters applied to join the proceedings as plaintiffs; their application was denied by a decision of 22 April 2013 on the grounds that “the [applicants’] legal representative lacked standing to bring an action in the capacity invoked”. On 3 June 2013, the authors filed a motion requesting the Santa Fe Criminal Court of Appeal to reconsider the decision of the Sixth Bench of the Santa Fe Criminal Investigation Court. The State party points out that, at the date of submission of its observations, a decision on the motion was still pending. GE.16-05682 5