CCPR/C/128/D/3018/2017 leader of an opposition party who had denounced government corruption, criticized government policies and urged the population to organize against the Government (paras. 2.2–2.3), all suicidal activities. There is evidence that he was threatened, shortly before he vanished, by armed men in a vehicle similar to those used by the Bolivarian National Intelligence Services. Mr. Mora Márquez sent text messages to several friends about his situation that ended ominously with the word “beware” (para. 2.4). The few text messages that were sent from his mobile right after he disappeared raised suspicions, both for their form and their content, as to their authenticity; especially worrying was the fact that the messages praised the “immortal comandante”, a sentiment that this fierce critic of the Government would never have espoused (para. 2.7). Moreover, the authors have alleged that when they met with the Secretary-General of the State of Mérida, he told them that this had happened to their father “because he was talking a lot of nonsense” (para. 2.15), an allegation that the State party did not rebut. 5. In the face of these damning facts, the State party has offered no credible explanation, other than the baseless speculation that the victim’s disappearance could have been the work of irregular groups operating in Colombia (para. 6.1). Nowhere is any clue provided as to why Colombian operatives would be interested in Mr. Mora Márquez; on the contrary, given his background and relentless public opposition, the victim fits the profile of those routinely targeted by official agents. Compared to other cases where a finding of enforced disappearance was made, 9 the facts here – both the general context and the specific circumstances – are, in my view, of sufficient weight to raise a presumption of State involvement in the disappearance of Mr. Mora Márquez. 6. Turning to the procedural dimension of the State party’s obligations in respect of Mr. Mora Márquez’s disappearance, the State party failed in its obligations under article 2 (3) when read in conjunction with article 6 of the Covenant. On this point, I am in full agreement with the arguments set out by my colleagues José Manuel Santos Pais and Gentian Zyberi (see annex I), but I wish to add a few observations of my own. 7. In not finding a violation of the procedural obligation, the Committee was persuaded by two facts: that the State party was unaware of any risk to the victim’s life since he had not complained of the threats he had received and that the State party had conducted 45 investigative procedures in relation to Mr. Mora Márquez. Unfortunately, neither of these reasons leads me to a similar conclusion of non-violation. The relevance of bringing threats to the attention of the authorities is to secure its protection through the prior adoption of positive measures.10 However, the relevant duty in this context is the duty to investigate – that is to say, one that arose after Mr. Mora Márquez disappeared. In assessing how the State authorities met this obligation, their lack of prior knowledge of threats is irrelevant – what counts are the steps they took after the victim disappeared, which, as has been more fully detailed by my aforenamed colleagues, were inadequate. While it is not for the Committee to assess the usefulness of specific measures, this broad position is qualified where the failure to take measures is manifestly unreasonable, as the majority noted (para 9.6). Here, there is no way to assess the reasonableness or not of what was done, as the State party provided no details. Aside from making unsupported claims that they conducted a “serious investigation” (para. 6.2), which included taking 45 investigative steps, the authorities have not elaborated on what these were. 8. The duty to investigate is indeed one of means, not of result. Nonetheless, an investigation “must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective”.11 The combined deficiencies discussed above lead me to the conclusion that, in respect of Mr. Mora Márquez’s disappearance, the State party also failed to fulfil its obligations under article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 6, of the Covenant. 9 10 11 GE.20-07124 See, for example, Godínez Cruz v. Honduras, paras. 153–156. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela, para. 128. See Godínez Cruz v. Honduras, para. 188. 13