CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012 sufficient justification. 22 In determining what constitutes an excessive delay, each case must be decided on its own merits. The authors have argued that the violation still persists, on account of the lack of official information on the fate and whereabouts of Mr. Anzola and Mr. Molina and the consequent absence of truth, justice and redress for their disappearance in spite of all the legal action taken, which the State party has not disputed. The Committee notes, in particular, that the authors filed numerous legal and administrative complaints between March 1995 and January 2011, but these complaints did not result in any clarification of the circumstances in which Mr. Anzola and Mr. Molina disappeared or in any action to locate their remains or to determine responsibility for their disappearance. In the light of the above, the Committee is of the view that the communication is admissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 8.7 As all admissibility requirements have been met, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 In the absence of comments from the State party regarding the merits of the complaint, the Committee will give due weight to the authors ’ allegations. 9.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claims relating to the enforced disappearance on 9 March 1995 of Mr. Anzola and Mr. Molina in an area that was under the control of paramilitary forces at the time, specifically on a road controlled by the group Autodefensas Campesinas del Magdalena Medio. The Committee observes that, according to the extensive information provided by the authors and available as well from bodies of the United Nations human rights system, the State party encouraged the establishment of “self-defence” groups — according them legal recognition — to assist law enforcement bodies in fighting insurgents and provided them subsequently with training, weapons, logistical support and, in some instances, active involvement by the military in their operations. 23 The Committee also notes that enforced disappearance was a widespread practice used by paramilitary groups beginning in 1988, with the complicity of the Colombian armed forces, according to a broad range of information from national and international sources, including the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, and available to the Committee. 24 The authors point out that the group Autodefensas Campesinas del Magdalena Medio controlled parts of the Middle Magdalena region, includ ing the Medellín-Bogotá motorway where Mr. Anzola and Mr. Molina were disappeared, and that the group operated with the acquiescence of the Colombian army, which had provided training, __________________ 22 23 24 GE.15-15601 Ibid. In its concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Colombia, the Committee reiterated its concern about “links involving extensive violations of articles 6, 7 and 9 of the Coven ant between elements of the armed forces and State security forces, on the one hand, and illegal paramili tary groups. on the other” and recommended that the State party should “take effective measures to terminate the links between elements of the security services and illegal paramilitary groups” (CCPR/CO/80/COL, para. 12). In its concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Colombia, the Committee reiterated its concern at the “collusion between the armed forces and paramilitary groups” (CCPR/C/COL/CO/6, para. 8). See, in this same vein, the judgement of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the 19 Merchants v. Colombia, paras. 84 (b) and 116-118. See the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Human Rights Commission on the situation in Colombia (E/CN.4/1998/16), paras. 41 -43. 13/20