CCPR/C/130/D/3599/2019 their analysis refers to the case law of the Supreme Court, which is a factor in the general context of impunity, this case law has affected them directly because it was applied by the Court of Manacor when it dismissed their complaint in 2017. 5.4 In addition, the lack of State legislation on the search for disappeared persons and the ineffectiveness of autonomous community legislation are also directly related to the reported violations and the authors’ decision to seek recourse before the Committee. In fact, the regulations in force are contrary to the guiding principles for the search for disappeared persons of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances (which serve as a guide by which to interpret the State party’s obligations), which establish that the search must be governed by a comprehensive, clear, transparent, visible and consistent public policy and that decentralized bodies cannot act as a barrier to an effective search. The authors also argue that the proposals for legislative reform developed by the State party are measures that are not in force and are unlikely to be adopted in the future. To date, no exhumation work has been started in any of the graves where it is thought that the authors’ relatives might be, including the old cemetery of Manacor, the current cemetery of Manacor and the cemetery in the municipality of Petra. Instead of dignifying and preserving the site of the old cemetery, the authorities have installed a playground in its place. It is not known when the authorities might start excavation and exhumation work at the current cemetery because the tender for the project has not been awarded and no schedule has been drawn up for the work. Without specifying its reasons, the State party has ruled out the possibility that the remains might be in the cemetery of the municipality of Petra. Lastly, the authors note that it is contradictory for the State party to claim that the communication is inadmissible as an actio popularis while referring, in most of its comments, to policy proposals for general measures without specifying how these would affect the authors of the communication. 5.5 With regard to the alleged lack of competence ratione temporis, the authors affirm that the two cases against Chile cited by the State party cannot be compared to the present communication for two reasons: because, on ratifying the Protocol, Chile made an interpretative declaration recognizing the competence of the Committee only for acts occurring after March 1990, a declaration not made by Spain; and because, in these cases, responsibility was alleged only for the disappearances themselves whereas, in the present complaint, violations of a procedural nature are also alleged to have occurred at the present time, and to be attributable to the State party’s obstruction of judicial and administrative proceedings initiated after the Covenant was ratified. Moreover, jurisprudence on competence ratione temporis for events occurring prior to ratification has evolved, as the Committee rules on the consequences of violations perpetrated before the entry into force of the Covenant that persist after its ratification owing to a failure to investigate. 5.6 With regard to the alleged inadmissibility for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the authors point out that they have taken legal action, through the Mallorca Association for the Recovery of Historical Memory, at all levels up to and including the Constitutional Court. They also point out that, even if the State party believes that the authors should bring legal challenges directly, without being represented by the Association, the Committee has already stipulated, in a case against Spain, that “when the case law of the highest domestic court has settled the point, ruling out any chance of a successful appeal to the domestic courts, the authors are not required under the Optional Protocol to exhaust domestic remedies”.25 Thus, the State party should have demonstrated the existence of available, effective remedies that might have a chance of being successful. 5.7 The authors argue that the State party has still not done anything to provide an adequate and gender-sensitive response26 and that they are still unable to put flowers on the ground in which their parents and grandparents are buried. Therefore, the State party’s proposal to hold a public ceremony at which they would be given a document attesting to their status as victims (which they already have and which is merely symbolic) is insufficient. 5.8 The authors also affirm that, since the criterion set out in paragraph 2 of the Committee’s guidelines on making oral comments concerning communications is met, the 25 26 10 García Sánchez and González Clares v. Spain (CCPR/C/88/D/1332/2004), para. 6.3. See guiding principles for the search of disappeared persons (CED/C/7), principle 4. GE.21-06035