CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012 Appendix II [Original: Spanish] Individual opinion by Committee members Víctor RodríguezRescia and Fabián Omar Salvioli (concurring) 1. The present opinion concurs in all respects with the Committee ’s decision concerning the enforced disappearance of Mr. Anzola and Mr. Molina, namely that the State party has violated their rights under articles 6, 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant and that it has not provided effective remedy to the authors for the disappearance of th eir family members or made the requisite effort to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators and offer appropriate reparation to the authors. The foregoing constitutes a violation of article 2, paragraph 3, read in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9 and 16 , as well as a violation of article 7 and of article 2, paragraph 3, read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant with regard to the family members. 2. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Committee should have elaborated more on its arguments with regard to State responsibility for acts committed by third parties given the central role played by non-State agents in the specific circumstances of the instant case. 3. Bearing in mind the Committee’s finding in paragraph 9.3 of the Views, the following facts have been shown: (a) That Mr. Anzola and Mr. Molina disappeared on 9 March 1995 in an area that at the time was under the control of paramilitary groups, specifically a road under the control of the group Autodefensas Campesinas del Magdalena Medio; (b) 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; (c) That enforced disappearance was a practice used regularly as from 1988 by paramilitary groups with the acquiescence of the Colombian military; (d) That Autodefensas Campesinas del Magdalena Medio controlled areas in the Middle Magdalena region, including the road connecting Medellín and Bog otá where Mr. Anzola and Mr. Molina were disappeared, and that said group operated with the acquiescence of the Colombian army, which is reported to have provided training, weapons and cover for the group’s actions. 4. In the light of these facts, there can be no denying that these irregular armed groups were acting as de facto agents of the State at the time the events occurred. This is the conclusion that emerges from the ample information provided in paragraph 9.3. 5. The international responsibility that States parties bear under the Covenant becomes effective as from the moment it is shown that there has been a specific violation of the general obligations to respect and ensure the rights set forth in article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. These general obligations, which are erga omnes by their nature, give rise to a specific duty to prevent individuals from engaging in acts that could create an international responsibility for the State from a human rights standpoint owing to an act or omission by a public authority. In the instant case, both the acts and the omissions of the State, in a setting marked by structural violence, GE.15-15601 19/20