CCPR/C/127/D/2760/2016 impunity or the crystallization of some sort of perfect crime gives reason to believe that the disappearance may be attributable to the State.36 The authors also stress that the Office of the Oaxaca Human Rights Ombudsman37 found that the result of the autopsy was informed by “reports issued after the date on which the autopsy was carried out, relating to, inter alia, the journey to the scene, the expansion of the inspection and the reconstruction of events, and the visual inspection conducted at sea”, as a result of which “the document lacks full legal certainty as there is evidence to suggest that the outcome of steps that had not yet been taken when it was issued were taken into consideration”.38 The Ombudsman’s Office also found that “serious doubts persist over the way in which the investigation of the facts was conducted and the likely guilt of the defendants. These stem from the failure to respect the chain of custody in handling the victim’s mobile phone and in following up on other lines of enquiry identified from the evidence gathered; the failure to make proper use of evidence in the investigation, induced witness statements and statements very probably obtained under duress, which is reflected in the clear contradictions in the statements taken during the previous investigation”.39 Moreover, in view of how Mr. Moreno Pérez had reportedly died, the Ombudsman’s Office would have expected traces of blood to have been found in the boat, which was not the case. Furthermore, the fact that Irene Méndez Graf secured her release by proving that she was not in Chacahua on the day the alleged events took place “demonstrates once again how flimsy the evidence is”. By way of conclusion, the institution “warns [...] that since an effective investigation has not been conducted, the crime of homicide and robbery imputed to the defendants, which is based on contradictory statements and testimonies, and on expert evidence based on a body and objects that do not exist, cannot be proved”.40 7.3 With regard to the State party’s responsibility by omission, the authors submit that the acts of tampering with and fabricating evidence have not been the subject of a criminal investigation and that it is for this very reason that the Ombudsman’s Office stated that the investigation should be resumed; that proceedings should be instituted against the officer accused of making threats, committing acts of torture and falsifying statements; and that criminal proceedings should be initiated where appropriate.41 7.4 The authors maintain that, ultimately, this made it possible to conceal the way in which the disappeared person was deprived of his liberty. This entailed actions by State agents that constitute enforced disappearance: (a) the disappearance and subsequent deprivation of liberty of Mr. Moreno Pérez without the State having clarified his whereabouts or the location of his body; (b) the involvement, support or acquiescence of State agents by reason of their direct involvement in the tampering with and fabrication of evidence and in the construction of false testimonies; and (c) the concealment of the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared person also by tampering with and fabricating evidence in order to alter the course of the investigation. 7.5 With regard to the investigations in general, the authors highlight the inconsistencies in the actions of the State party, which is conducting criminal proceedings for alleged homicide and, at the same time, preliminary investigations into a disappearance. 7.6 With regard to the State party’s observation that the investigations are being conducted in a manner consistent with the Covenant, the authors argue that, on the contrary, the investigations were neither immediate nor thorough. They maintain that the State party learned of the disappearance on 8 August 2011 when the first complaint was filed (para. 2.5 above) and that an investigation was still not opened even after the second complaint of 10 August 2011 was filed (para. 2.6 above), which is exactly why the father of the disappeared person approached the Prosecution Service of Puerto Escondido to file a third complaint (para. 2.7 above). Furthermore, the authors maintain that the conclusion drawn by the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes Committed by Public Officials, according to 36 37 38 39 40 41 GE.19-21673 Godínez-Cruz v. Honduras. Merits, Judgment of 20 January 1989, Series C, No. 5, para. 155. Case file DDHPO/1572/(01)/OAX/2014 opened at the request of Mr. Moreno Zamora for violations of his rights attributable to public officials, dated 28 November 2014. The authors enclose a copy of recommendation 13/2016 of the Office of the Oaxaca Human Rights Ombudsman, dated 16 November 2016, p. 46. Recommendation 13/2016 of the Office of the Oaxaca Human Rights Ombudsman, dated 16 November 2016, pp. 48 and 49. Ibid., pp. 43 to 45. Ibid., p. 69. 9