CCPR/C/131/D/3259/2018 to the San Nicolás de los Garza police force were less than 200 m from her home at around 1 a.m. on the day of the incident. 26 The State party omits this information from its observations and does not appear to have taken it into account in the investigation. Secondly, the author alleges that the support provided by the Executive Commission for Victim Support cannot be considered comprehensive or effective, particularly because, despite her request, there were long periods during which she received no support and because her request for medical care went unanswered. Thirdly, the author adds that, on 20 May 2019, the First District Criminal Court in the state of Nuevo León decided to suspend the amparo proceedings for a period of one year, as none of the actions aimed at finding her son had been effective. This demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the amparo proceedings and gives the lie to the State party’s assertion that the measures taken have been effective and adequate. Fourthly, the author alleges that she has not been informed of the judgment against Mr. G.R. Moreover, according to the information provided by the Executive Commission for Victim Support, there is no indication that any useful information has emerged or been put forward in these proceedings that might serve to establish Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s fate and whereabouts. The offences for which Mr. G.R. was convicted include that of unlawful deprivation of liberty in the form of kidnapping but not that of causing the disappearance of a person. Thus, there is no indication that his conviction is related to Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s disappearance and, even if it were, this would not relieve the State of its obligation to find Mr. Rivera Hidalgo and prosecute all those responsible for his disappearance. 7.2 The author adds that, on 23 May 2019, she met with her representatives and those of the prosecutor’s office of the state of Coahuila, the Attorney General’s Office, the National Human Rights Commission of Nuevo León, the National Search Commission and the Executive Commission for Victim Support. On that occasion, the representatives of the prosecutor’s office of the state of Coahuila informed her that the body found in 2013 was not that of Mr. Rivera Hidalgo. However, it was also stated that it had not been possible to conduct a test to compare the genetic profile of the body found with that of Mr. Rivera Hidalgo’s family members. The author alleges that the contradictions and lack of effective collaboration between the authorities of the State party are a demonstration of official indifference to her suffering and anguish. 7.3 As to the observations on the merits, the author cites international jurisprudence that attributes “a high probative value to the statements of the witnesses, in the context and the circumstances of a case of forced disappearance ... together with pertinent logical inferences, as well as its association with a widespread practice of disappearances”.27 The author argues that the existing evidence, the general context in the State party, and the particular context in the state of Nuevo León reverse the burden of proof. However, the State party has not commented on the above-mentioned context and has not provided any evidence to refute the author’s allegations (paras. 3.1 and 3.2 above). 7.4 With regard to the attribution of enforced disappearance to the State party, the author points out a number of contradictions in the State party’s observations. The first concerns the State party’s affirmation that the evidence gathered indicates that the police were not present in the area on the day of the events. The second relates to the fact that the State party claims that the disappearance was not committed by State agents while acknowledging that one line of investigation concerns the possibility that police officers might have been involved in it. Third, the State party claims that the author’s testimony has not been substantiated but has not been able to discredit it either. The author adds that it is precisely because no thorough investigation has been carried out, for reasons attributable to the State party, that it has not been possible to establish the direct or indirect involvement of State agents with certainty. 7.5 The author notes that the State party claims to have conducted a prompt, impartial and thorough investigation. However, it acknowledges that, on 27 July 2017, the National Human Rights Commission of Nuevo León found that there had been an unjustified delay in the investigation of the facts by the authorities and that no serious and exhaustive investigation had been conducted. This is demonstrated by the fact that, more than eight years after Mr. 26 27 10 According to the documentation provided, patrol cars A05 and A10 were at a distance of 200 m from the author’s home at 2.35 a.m. and 3.17 a.m. respectively. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, para. 169. GE.21-06148