CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012 Alleged violations of the authors’ rights 3.7 The authors claim that they are victims of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. They point out that the disappearance of their relatives and the lack of a judicial investigation have caused them great sorrow and had a negative imp act on their lives, with the psychological and psychosocial effects of the disappearances continuing to the present day. Their psychosocial problems have not received attention from the State and they have thus had to resort to private services. Ms. Usuga went through a deep depression that led to alcohol abuse, and she suffers from clinical depression and suicidal thoughts and is taking psychiatric medication. Her physical health has also been affected: she has ailments of the colon and respiratory tract, as well as problems with her blood pressure. Her daughters experienced profound sadness and depression. Karol Juliana Anzola Usuga, who was 9 years old at the time, experienced a particularly profound sense of distress, thinking of death as a way of being reunited with her father. On 3 April 1998, as she was leaving the house of a friend in Medellín, an armed man shot her four times and killed her. Isabel Johana Anzola Usuga is currently receiving psychiatric treatment and taking medication because of the enforced disappearance of her father and the subsequent violent death of her sister. All of this is evidence of the psychosocial impact on the family. 3.8 The authors point out that the effects of enforced disappearance on the relatives of missing persons are widely recognized internationally, including in the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. International jurisprudence is unanimous in considering the anguish and stress caused to families by the disappearance of a loved one and by the continuing uncertainty about the person’s fate and whereabouts as a form of cruel and inhuman treatment. The Human Rights Committee, 11 the European Court of Human Rights, 12 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have all stated as much. 3.9 The authors allege that there have been violations of articles 17 and 23, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 14 May 2012, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication, requesting that the issue of admissibility be considered separately. 4.2 The State party submitted that it was not for the Committee to substitute for domestic judicial decisions on the facts, evidence and investigation of a case; instead, it should ensure that States provide legal proceedings that are in conformity with the rules of due process. According to the State party, the authors of the communication were asking the Committee to act as a review body with competence to weigh the facts and evidence gathered by the State party. 4.3 The State party added that, from the account given of the events, it cannot be established with sufficient certainty that the alleged enforced disappearance of Mr. Anzola and Mr. Molina was a criminal act perpetrated by illegal armed groups that may have been in the area at the time or that the disappearances were directly linked to the modus operandi of these groups or the operation of an alleged stone quarry controlled by paramilitaries. These are investigative assessments that do not fall __________________ 11 12 8/20 The authors cite, among others, the Committee’s Views on communications No. 107/1981, Quinteros v. Uruguay, of 21 July 1983; No. 542/1993, Katombe v. Zaire, of 25 March 1996; No. 540/1996, Laureano v. Peru, of 25 March 1996; Jegatheeswara Sarma v. Sri Lanka; and Bousroual v. Algeria. Kurt v. Turkey, case No. 15/1997/799/1002. GE.15-15601