2.6 On 9 December 1974, proceedings for presumed misadventure were brought in the 11th Criminal Court, Santiago (case No. 796-2), but the investigations failed to establish Jacqueline Drouilly’s whereabouts. On 31 January 1975 the case was dismissed. That decision was upheld on appeal by the Santiago Appeal Court. 17, paragraphs 1 and 2; 18, paragraph 1; and 26 of the Covenant. 3.2 In her own case, she states that the search for her daughter, missing for so many years, has affected her physical and mental health, and that as a result she suffers from depressions and cardiac problems which have necessitated the insertion of a pacemaker. Her family situation has also been affected, her husband and her other two children having been obliged to leave the country out of fear. The author states that this amounts to constant torture (art. 7). 2.7 On 26 February 1975 the author filed a further application for amparo with the Santiago Appeal Court (case No. 294). By memorandum of 17 March 1975 the Ministry of the Interior informed the Court that that person was not being held on Ministry orders. The same information was provided once more in June 1975. On 13 June 1975 the Court rejected the application and referred the case to the relevant criminal court for investigation. On 19 June 1975 presumed misadventure proceedings were brought in the 11th Criminal Court, Santiago (case No. 2681). After some months the case was dismissed. On 16 July 1975, while the above proceedings were ongoing, the author brought a complaint for the abduction of Jacqueline Drouilly and Marcelo Salinas before the same court. This complaint was initially registered as No. 2994 but was later joined to the presumed misadventure case as No. 2681-4. The case was dismissed on 31 March 1976, since no offence could be shown to have been committed. On appeal, on 18 June 1976, the Appeal Court upheld the dismissal. On 3 October 1975 the author again filed an application for amparo with the Appeal Court (case No. 1263), citing the fact that Jacqueline Drouilly had been pregnant at the time of her arrest. The application was declared out of order on 20 October 1975 and this decision was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court on 27 October 1975. 3.3 As to the investigation into her daughter’s disappearance, the author alleges a denial of justice. Moreover, the continuing applicability of DecreeLaw No. 2191 on Amnesty, of 1978, has prevented those responsible from being brought to trial. State party’s submissions on admissibility and on the merits; author’s comments 4.1 In its comments of 25 May 2004, the State party maintains that, although the author has submitted the communication on her own and her daughter’s behalf, the allegations upon which it is based relate to violations of Covenant rights only in respect of the daughter. Consequently, the State party takes the view that the communication has in fact been submitted on behalf of Jacqueline Drouilly. The information collected over a period of years by State bodies, human rights organizations and the courts shows that she was last seen alive in or around January or March 1975, when being held incommunicado in the Cuatro Alamos compound, for which the now defunct DINA was responsible. Consequently, the communication submitted by the author should be declared inadmissible ratione temporis, since the events on which it is based occurred or commenced prior to the entry into force for Chile of the Optional Protocol. 2.8 Jacqueline Drouilly was among those named in a complaint for mass abduction filed on 28 May 1975 with the Santiago Appeal Court in respect of 163 disappeared persons and containing a request for an inspecting magistrate to be appointed to take charge of the investigations. The request was rejected. It was resubmitted in July and August 1975, this time to the Supreme Court, but was again rejected. 4.2 Upon ratification of the Protocol, Chile made the following declaration: “In recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals, it is the understanding of the Government of Chile that this competence applies in respect of acts occurring after the entry into force for that State of the Optional Protocol or, in any event, to acts which began after 11 March 1990.” This declaration applies notwithstanding the argument that the denial of justice continues to be perpetrated by court rulings handed down after 11 March 1990, since the events giving rise to the communication commenced on 30 October 1974 and therefore took place prior to 23 March 1976, the date of the international entry into force of the Covenant. 2.9 The author also states that a criminal complaint was filed with the Santiago Appeal Court on 29 March 2001, for the disappearance of more than 500 members of MIR, including Jacqueline Drouilly. The author alleges unreasonably lengthy proceedings. The complaint 3.1 The author alleges that her daughter was a victim of violations of articles 5; 6, paragraphs 1 and 3; 7; 9, paragraphs 1 to 4; 10, paragraphs 1 and 2; 12, paragraph 4; 13; 14, paragraphs 1 to 3 and 5; 16; 4.3 As to the complaint brought by the author on her own behalf, this is of a general nature. The 4