disappearance ... was caused by private persons" is not, in my opinion, well-founded. It is true that the information contained in paragraphs 2.7 and 8 refers merely to the possible involvement of officers and members of the National Police in the brothers' disappearance. Nevertheless, since the investigations of the case are still continuing and the applicable judicial procedures are pending (para. 8.3), it is not proper for the Committee to make such a finding at this stage, notwithstanding the possibility that it might be established that private persons were involved in the disappearances. Thirdly, the finding that "[In] all these circumstances ... the right to life .. and the right to liberty and security of the person ... have not been effectively protected by the State of Colombia" is, in my opinion, too far-reaching. It is true that many cases of disappearances, including this one, are reported to have occurred in Colombia, and that the investigations of these cases seem to have encountered a number of difficulties. This situation is indeed deplorable. Nevertheless, considering the efforts made by the Colombian Government, which can be ascertained from its replies to the Committee's requests for clarifications, I am unable to persuade myself that the Committee's far-reaching finding is justified. Nisuke Ando Communication No. 193/1985 Submitted by: Pierre Giry (represented by counsel) Alleged victim: The author State party: Dominican Republic Date of adoption of views: 20 July 1990 (thirty-ninth session)* Subject matter: In-transit deportation of victim to third country by State party authorities Procedural issues: Lack of due process State party's failure to make submission on the merits Substantive issues: Unlawful and arbitrary arrest Detention Expulsion Right to a fair trial National security considerations Bilateral extradition treaty General comment Articles of the Covenant: 2, 3, 9 (1) and (2), 12 and 13 Article of the Optional Protocol: 4 (2) 130