8.1 In response to the Committee's request for more precise information about the progress of investigations concerning the disappearance of the Sanjuán brothers, the State party indicated by note of 22 January 1987 that the case of the Sanjuán brothers (file No. 45317) was under review and that a statement of charges against members of the police force could follow. By letter of 27 January 1989, the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Committee that a criminal investigation was being conducted by Court 34 of the Criminal Bench of Bogotá: In these criminal proceedings, the Ninth Criminal Investigation Judge of Bogotá, who initially heard the case, on 2 May 1983, admitted an application for related civil proceedings brought by the relatives of the victims. Such proceedings are established in Colombian criminal legislation for compensation, in the event that the acts reported are confirmed for the damages incurred, both materially and morally. Further, they offer the injured parties or their representatives an opportunity on requesting evidence in order to ascertain the truth about the offence, its perpetrators and accessories, their criminal liability and the nature and extent of the damages incurred as well as many other activities granted to them by the law, such as the filing of remedies. In the case of the Sanjuán Arévalo brothers, the records show that their representatives have not made effective use of that right and have confined themselves to requesting copies of the proceedings, without really moving matters forward. Because of the alleged involvement of members of the national police force, the military criminal proceedings were expedited by the Inspector-General of Police, the judge of the Court of First Instance, who, on 12 March 1987, qualified the pretrial proceedings by dismissing the case against the officers, non-commissioned officers and members of the police alleged to be implicated. The decision was taken on the ground that the requirements of article 539 of the Code of Military Criminal Justice are not satisfied, i. e. full proof of corpus delicti or the existence of a convincing statement offering solid grounds for credibility or serious evidence identifying the accused as the principals or accomplices of the act under investigation . . . This decision by the judge of the court of first instance was transmitted to the Military Superior Court which confirmed it in toto. 8.2 With regard to the disciplinary investigations, the State party adds that the Attorney-General has reactivated the proceedings and accordingly appointed a special commission by an order dated 8 November 1988, comprising two co-ordinating lawyers of the Judicial Police and two technical investigators to continue to investigate the events that led to the disappearance of the Sanjuán Arévalo brothers. Having completed their mission, the appointed officials submitted on 27 November 1988 the relevant evaluation report suggesting the opening of a disciplinary investigation against the chief of the DIPEC (the former Intelligence Corps of the National Police), the chief of the Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence Section of the DIPEC, the chief of the Judicial Police of the DIPEC, and the non-commissioned officers and members of the National Police Force who acted on the orders of the aforementioned officers. The Office of the Attorney-General, on the basis of the evaluation report, ordered by decree of 19 December 1988 the proceedings to be referred to the Office of the Attorney-General assigned to the National Police so that a formal disciplinary investigation may be opened against the aforementioned officers and non-commissioned officers. 8.3 The State party further observes that since the investigations are still continuing and the applicable judicial procedures are pending, domestic remedies have not been exhausted. 9. No further submissions have been received from the State party or from the author of the communication. 10. The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all written information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. In adopting its views, the Committee stresses that it is not making any finding on the guilt or innocence of the Colombian officials who are currently under investigation for possible involvement in the disappearance of the Sanjuán brothers. The Committee limits itself to expressing its views on the question of whether any of the Covenant rights of the Sanjuán brothers have been violated by the State party, in particular articles 6 and 9. In this connection, the Committee refers to its general comment 6 (16) concerning article 6 of the Covenant, which provides, inter alia, 128