CCPR/C/130/D/3599/2019 complaint should therefore be submitted to the Committee on Enforced Disappearances. However, the Committee recalls that, although the term “enforced disappearance” is not explicitly used in the Covenant, the enforced disappearance of persons raises issues under several articles of the Covenant, in particular articles 6, 7, 9 and 16. The Committee recalls that it has examined a large number of individual communications related to enforced disappearances and has found violations in several of them. 29 Accordingly, the Committee finds that article 3 of the Optional Protocol does not constitute a barrier to the admissibility of the present communication. 7.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible ratione personae as it is an actio popularis that is intended to serve as a comprehensive critique of legislation and judicial proceedings. The Committee also notes the authors’ assertion that they have analysed the case law of the Supreme Court because it gives context to the issue of impunity and has directly affected them because it was implemented in connection with the challenges that they have brought. Furthermore, they mention the legislation on the search for disappeared persons not only because it breaches international standards on the subject but also because it is directly related to the violations reported in this communication in that it has prevented exhumations from being conducted in any of the graves where their relatives might be. In this regard, the Committee notes that the authors have substantiated the claim that they have suffered personal, individual harm as a result of the disappearance of their parents and grandparents by identifying specific violations of their individual rights under the Covenant. The Committee therefore considers that article 1 of the Optional Protocol does not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication. 7.5 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible ratione temporis because the enforced disappearances occurred before the existence of the Covenant. The Committee also notes the authors’ claim to be subjected to procedural violations in the present because the State party has obstructed actions initiated after the ratification of the Covenant with a view to having investigations initiated in order to establish the fate and whereabouts of the missing persons and identify the perpetrators, and to obtaining reparation for the harm suffered (in part by having the State party hand over the mortal remains). According to the authors, this represents a continuing violation of the duty to investigate by which violations committed prior to the ratification of the Covenant are reaffirmed. The Committee also notes the authors’ assertion that, although the enforced disappearances began before the ratification of the Covenant, they are continuing and persistent violations in themselves, and that the State party did not make a declaration to place a time limit on its responsibility when it ratified the Protocol. 7.6 The Committee recalls that article 2 (3), which has been invoked by the authors in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant, may give rise in exceptional circumstances to a continuing obligation to investigate continuing violations that occurred before the entry into force of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol for the State party (on 27 July 1977 and 25 April 1985, respectively),30 and that cases of enforced disappearances may entail such a continuing effect. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that the events underlying the alleged violation of articles 6, 7, 9 and 16 with respect to the authors’ relatives occurred in 1936, 41 years before the entry into force of the Covenant for the State party and 49 years before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol. It further notes that the obligation under articles 6, 7, 9 and 16, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), did not exist before the Covenant entered into force for the State party in 1977 and could not have been the subject of individual communication proceedings before 1985. 31 The Committee considers that, in the particular circumstances, where the principal events underlying the violation in question took place so far back in time, even before the consolidation of modern international human rights law, it would be unreasonable for it to regard the ratification of the Covenant by the State party as entailing an active duty on its part to investigate enforced disappearances which occurred in the very distant past. Therefore, in view of the significant 29 30 31 12 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36 (2018), paras. 57 and 58. K.K. et al. v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/127/D/2912/2016), para. 6.4. Ibid., para. 6.5. GE.21-06035