CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012 serve as an excuse for the State’s failure to protect the victims, it is not inconsistent with the possibility that State authorities or State -controlled groups were not directly implicated in the tragic fate of Mr. Anzola and Mr. Molina. 5. It should be emphasized that the facts of the present case differ significantly from those of other enforced disappearance cases, in which the Committee directly attributed the disappearance to the relevant State authorities and was thus able to find an intentional removal from the protection of the law, i.e., an arti cle 16 violation. In these previous cases, there existed specific evidence which directly tied the disappearances to the State party or one of its organs, such as arrest of the victim by State officials or evidence of the victim being in the custody of the State. a In the absence of such evidence, the Committee found only a violation of the State party ’s positive obligations to protect the victims and to investigate the crime. b A similar evidentiary standard — a requirement for specific evidence connecting the disappearance to the State party for a direct violation finding, and for circumstantial evidence in order to make an indirect or procedural violation finding — has also been applied in enforced disappearance cases adjudicated by other international cour ts. c Regrettably, the findings of the Committee in the present case on the issue of intentional removal from the protection of the law are based on a combination of conjectures, which fall short, I believe, of the level of substantiation required in order to establish a direct involvement by the State party in the victims ’ disappearance, which would amount to an intentional removal from the protection of the law. Hence, I cannot join the Committee in finding a violation of article 16 of the Covenant __________________ a b c 18/20 See, inter alia, communication No. 1780/2008, Aouabdia v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2011, para. 7. See, for example, communication No. 1447/2006, Amirov v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 2 April 2009, para. 11.5. See, for example, Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, judgement of 29 July 1988, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Ser. C) No. 4 (1988), paras. 115 and 147; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey, judgement of the European Court of Human Rights of 18 September 2009, para. 186. GE.15-15601