CCPR/C/117/D/2100/2011 investigate not only the shipwreck, but also the subsequent “abduction and disappearance of the survivors”. 5.4 Regarding the State party’s observations on the merits of his complaint, the author reiterates that his son, along with 13 other seamen, was subjected to an enforced disappearance and that no information is available about their fate. 5.5 Furthermore, the State party’s authorities do not appreciate the anguish, stress, anger and pain caused by the enforced appearances, as defined by the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The continuing uncertainty about the fate and whereabouts of the seamen adds to the anguish. Besides the possible torture suffered by the seamen, their relatives continue to suffer torture as well. 5.6 Regarding his claims of violations under article 9, the author notes that the State party accepts no other explanation for the shipwreck than an accident. The facts indicate that survivors were abducted and placed in detention in an undisclosed location. The same is true for the claims of violations under article 14: the State party has taken the very convenient position that the investigation has been suspended owing to the lack of additional evidence. Additional observations by the State party 6.1 On 9 February 2012 and on 23 April 2012, the State party submitted that it examined carefully the initial claims made by the author and his responses. The State party is fully aware of its obligations under article 2 (2) and (3). As the State party has not yet ratified the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, it cannot comment on the author’s allegations relating to the provisions of that Convention. 6.2 In general, the State party’s authorities have taken all the steps necessary to investigate the sinking of the Hera, including, as already mentioned, contacting and cooperating with the authorities of Georgia, Greece, Romania, Turkey and Ukraine. Additional observations by the author 7. On 22 February, 20 March and 11 April 2012, on 13 June and 5 and 23 October 2013, and on 31 July 2014, the author reiterated its previous position and requested that the State party investigate the disappearance of his son and the 13 other seamen. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 With regard to the requirement set out in article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee notes that the State party challenged the admissibility of the present communication on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, arguing that the State party has not yet completed its investigation, which has been suspended. The Committee notes that the State party has not demonstrated that the continuing investigation would provide an effective remedy in the circumstances of the author’s case. The 5