CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012 violations”. 14 The Committee has also established that a State party’s failure to investigate allegations of violations can be a breach of the Covenant in and of itself. 15 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has found that the prohibition of enforced disappearance and the corresponding duty to investigate it and punish those responsible have become principles from which no derogation is possible. 16 5.6 The authors submitted that the reference to the dismi ssal decision issued by the Puerto Triunfo prosecutor ’s office on 26 October 1996 was not intended to ask the Committee to act as a court of fourth instance and to review and overturn the decision but rather to provide evidence to determine whether the Sta te party had fulfilled its duty to conduct a serious and comprehensive investigation into the enforced disappearance of Mr. Anzola and Mr. Molina. 5.7 As to the State party’s allegation that the communication constituted an abuse of process because the information in it is unclear, the authors stated that the violent death of the minor Karol Juliana Anzola Usuga is described in an effort to demonstrate the psychosocial distress experienced by Mr. Anzola’s family as a result of his enforced disappearance. The authors had in no way insinuated that there was a connection, in terms of the State party’s international responsibility, between Mr. Anzola’s disappearance and his daughter ’s violent death. 5.8 With regard to the inclusion of information obtained by Ms. Usuga and Ms. Serna from a member of the police who refused to identify himself, the authors submitted that the information illustrates the tremendous difficulties faced by Ms. Usuga and Ms. Serna in their search for their missing family members. 5.9 With regard to the submission of the complaint 16 years after the fact, the authors pointed out that neither the Optional Protocol nor the rules of procedure of the Committee set deadlines for the submission of communications. In addition, the rights of the authors and of Mr. Anzola and Mr. Molina are still being violated, since these persons are still missing and their families have not been officially informed about their fate or whereabouts, nor have they been given access to justice, the truth or redress. Additional observations of the State party 17 6.1 On 22 November 2013, the State party reiterated its request to the Committee for the admissibility of the communication to be considered separately. 6.2 The State party reiterated its arguments concerning the inadmissibility of the communication on the ground that the Committee is not competent to evaluate the facts of the case. The State party pointed out that the Puerto Triunfo prosecutor ’s office examined the facts and decided to dismiss the case becaus e the perpetrators of the act could not be identified, in accordance with the criminal procedure legislation in force. 6.3 The State party submitted that, while there is no specific time frame for submitting communications to the Committee, in the past the Committee has declared a number of communications to be inadmissible on the ground of abuse of the above mentioned right, since the communications were submitted after a long period of time or the information submitted was intentionally vague. The State p arty maintained that, __________________ 14 15 16 17 10/20 See the Committee’s Views on communication No. 1588/2007, Benaziza v. Algeria, of 26 July 2010, para. 8.3. General comment No. 31 on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, paras. 15 and 18. Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, judgement of 22 September 2006, series C, No. 153, para. 84. The Committee rejected the State party’s request for the admissibility of the communication to be considered separately from the merits in a note verbale dated 11 July 2012. GE.15-15601