CCPR/C/127/D/2760/2016 was not aware of a potential situation of risk and it has conducted investigations that comply with the standards and obligations established by the Covenant. 12.5 The Committee stresses that the content and scope of the right to life includes not only negative and positive obligations, but also positive procedural obligations. 54 Specifically, States parties’ duty to protect the right to life entails not only preventing deprivation of life but also investigating and prosecuting potential cases of unlawful deprivation of life, meting out punishment and providing full reparation. 55 In particular, the duty to take positive measures to protect the right to life derives from the general duty to ensure the rights recognized in the Covenant, which is articulated in article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 6, as well as from the specific duty to protect the right to life by law which is articulated in the second sentence of article 6. Hence, States parties are obliged to take adequate preventive measures in order to protect individuals against unlawful and arbitrary deprivation of life.56 States parties also have an obligation to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute such incidents: by ensuring that those responsible are brought to justice, States parties prevent impunity. This obligation is implicit in the obligation to protect and is reinforced by the general duty to ensure the rights recognized in the Covenant, which is articulated in article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 6 (1), and the duty to provide an effective remedy to victims of human rights violations and their relatives, which is articulated in article 2 (3) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 6 (1).57 The Committee also refers to its jurisprudence according to which criminal investigation and ensuing prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights such as those protected by article 6, and that there may therefore be a violation of the Covenant when the State party fails to take appropriate measures to investigate and punish those who have violated those rights and to provide redress to victims,58 including a violation of article 6 of the Covenant in cases where some effort has been made to investigate the case.59 The Committee therefore considers that effective investigation should be considered an obligation inherent in the right to life. 12.6 The Committee also notes that, in the present case, the Ombudsman’s Office concluded that the investigating authority had not exhausted all lines of enquiry and that “the fact that the investigation was based on contradictory statements and testimonies, which were also the basis on which the ‘verbal autopsy report’ was issued, and on an expert opinion on objects that were never found and whose existence was disputed by the father of the disappeared person, in the opinion of this body,” raise serious doubts about the quality of the investigation. The Ombudsman’s Office therefore concluded that there had been a violation of the right to due process, specifically the right to a thorough and exhaustive investigation (paras. 7.2 and 7.7 above). The Committee also notes that the State party, while claiming before the Committee that the investigations complied with the standards and obligations established by the Covenant, also acknowledged its responsibility for the shortcomings in the investigations by performing a public act and issuing a public apology (para. 8.3 above). 12.7 In conclusion, in the light of the above observations regarding the State party’s failure to fulfil its duty to investigate the facts effectively, in a context of vulnerability in which it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Moreno Pérez’s right to life was violated, the Committee finds a violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3). 54 55 56 57 58 59 14 General comment No. 36 (2018) on the right to life, paras. 7, 19, 21 and 27; Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death. General comment No. 36, para. 19. Ibid., para. 21. Ibid., para. 27, which also states that investigations and prosecutions of potentially unlawful deprivations of life should be undertaken in accordance with relevant international standards, including the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death. The Committee also notes that article 3 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which Mexico has ratified, establishes an obligation for States parties to investigate disappearances that are the act of persons or groups of persons acting without the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State and to bring those responsible to justice. Amirov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/95/D/1447/2006), para. 11.2. Herrera Rubio v. Colombia (CCPR/C/31/D/161/1983), para. 11. GE.19-21673