CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012 point clearly to a violation of the aforementioned general duty to ensure those rights. The State’s objective responsibility derives equally from its having established paramilitary structures and from its failure to effectively eliminate those structures; this created a situation of high and constant risk in the region where the authors were disappeared. 6. The Committee should also have laid greater stress on the probative value it attached to the general context and circumstantial evidence in deciding on responsibility. In cases such as this one, it falls to the State to show that it held no responsibility for the enforced disappearance and that it had conducted a prompt, thorough and effective investigation to ascertain the facts and punish the perpetrators. 7. The task of properly assessing the evidence — giving the necessary weight to each element, including the specificities of circumstance and context — in such complex situations as this one is a duty that is incumbent upon international protection bodies and procedures such as the Committee in pursuance of the objectives and purpose of the human rights treaties. 20/20 GE.15-15601