CED/C/10/D/1/2013 case of Mr. Yrusta remains before the provincial courts, his family will be denied access to justice, truth and redress. The authors are of the view that their brother’s case should be transferred to the federal courts, since the provincial authorities’ failure to investigate his enforced disappearance engages the responsibility of the federal government. Additional observations by the State party 6.1 In the light of the information provided by the parties, the Committee considered it necessary to ask the State party to furnish additional information, in accordance with rule 73 (8) and (9) of the Committee’s rules of procedure (CED/C/1). The Committee first asked the State party to specify the effective domestic remedies available to the authors and their family, at both the provincial and federal levels, for the investigation of the alleged enforced disappearance of Mr. Yrusta. The Committee further requested the State party to provide information on: (a) the stage reached in the investigation into the enforced disappearance of Mr. Yrusta; (b) the procedural steps that remain to be taken in that connection; and (c) the authors’ participation in the investigative proceedings. Lastly, the Committee asked the State party to indicate the extent to which articles 7 and 8 of Act No. 13.004 relating to cases with no identified defendant are applicable in the case of Mr. Yrusta and, if applicable, the date on which the present case could be or would most likely be closed. It also asked what remedies were available to appeal a closure decision. 6.2 On 8 July 2014, the State party answered the Committee’s questions. It states that, by a judicial resolution of 13 March 2014, the request made by Mr. Yrusta’s sisters was denied on the grounds that the Provincial Defender of the Santa Fe Public Criminal Defence Service lacked legal standing because the Office of the Defender was established upon the entry into force of the new Criminal Code of Procedure of the Province of Santa Fe (Act No. 12.734) on 10 February 2014. The State party adds that the Defender was granted leave to appeal that decision and that a review hearing was subsequently held by the Court of Appeal of the First Judicial District of Santa Fe. By a resolution of 23 April 2014, the Court decided to overturn the first instance ruling on the grounds that “it fails to fulfil the right of the prospective plaintiffs to have access to justice. Accordingly, in view of the basis in law invoked by the latter, due process of law must be followed in order to allow them the possibility of intervening in the case”.3 For these reasons, an order was issued which revoked the appealed decision and stated that the appropriate alternate judge should rule in accordance with the law. 6.3 The State party further contends that the lower court judge decided to recuse himself from further proceedings in the case because of a difference of opinion regarding the criteria used by the Appeal Court and on the understanding that to do otherwise might compromise the guarantee of impartiality. Accordingly, he ordered the case to be transferred to the Seventh Bench of the Santa Fe Court for a decision on the application to act as private criminal plaintiffs made by Mr. Yrusta’s sisters. In accordance with the Santa […] 3 8 Article 8: End of the transitional period. All cases which are still pending a final decision on the day the transitional period ends shall be closed automatically, with the exception of privately actionable offences, which shall proceed in accordance with their status. Thereafter, all personal precautionary measures ordered in cases that are closed shall cease automatically. With regard to publicly actionable offences, up to four months prior to the end of the transitional period, a private criminal plaintiff may request that the case in which he or she is a party proceed in accordance with its status; to this end, victims identified as such shall be notified in order to protect their rights. If the prosecutor’s office endorses their request, the case shall proceed under the same procedure. Otherwise, the private criminal complaint procedure provided for in privately actionable offences shall be applied.” Case: “Yrusta, Roberto Agustín (his death) re/Appeal” — Decision of 13 March 2014 (petition to act as private criminal plaintiff), p. 27. GE.16-05682