CCPR/C/126/D/2750/2016 officers made him get out of his car and into a police patrol car; and (c) his family tried very hard to find him and the officers denied that he was in the police station. The Committee notes that the State party has not denied that Mr. Téllez Padilla is missing, and that it has stated that “it may be presumed that the perpetrators of the criminal act may have been law enforcement officials”, but concludes that the disappearance is not attributable to State agents because none of the police officers have admitted any involvement and there is no testimony to support that of the eyewitness. 9.3 The Committee observes that one of the characteristic elements of enforced disappearance of persons is precisely the refusal to acknowledge detention and to reveal the fate and whereabouts of the person, 32 and recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that the burden of proof cannot fall exclusively on the authors of the communication, since the author and the State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and the State party is often the only one with access to the relevant information. 33 Therefore, when the authors have submitted credible complaints to the State party and when further clarification depends on information that is solely in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider the complaints substantiated if the State party does not produce satisfactory evidence or explanations to refute them. 34 The Committee also notes that “it is highly questionable to reject the testimony of witnesses ... based on the denial of the senior officers of the State entity where it is said that the disappeared person was detained” and that “it is neither logical nor reasonable to investigate a forced disappearance and subordinate its clarification to the acceptance or confession of the possible authors or authorities involved”;35 rather, States must establish effective procedures for the thorough investigation of cases of enforced disappearance, 36 taking into account the characteristic elements of this type of offence, such as the refusal of the authorities to acknowledge detention. 9.4 Against the prevailing background of human rights violations – particularly enforced disappearances – taking place at the time and place of the events (see para. 2.10 and footnote 11 above), and in light of the consistent account of the events and the documentation submitted by the authors, the Committee considers that the State party has not provided an adequate and concrete explanation to refute the authors’ allegations concerning the alleged enforced disappearance of Mr. Téllez Padilla. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the acts in question in the present case constitute enforced disappearance.37 9.5 The Committee recalls that, while the Covenant does not explicitly use the term “enforced disappearance”, such disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts that represent a continuing violation of various rights recognized in the Covenant, 38 such as the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to liberty and security of person, and the right to recognition as a person before the law. 39 9.6 In the present case, the Committee takes note of the authors’ claim that the acts constitute a violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant, given the circumstances of Mr. Téllez Padilla’s detention by officers of the inter-municipal police and the absence of news on his 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 GE.19-15740 General comment No. 36 (2918) on the right to life, para. 58. For example, Gyan Devi Bolakhe et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/123/D/2658/2015); Arab Millis v. Algeria (CCPR/C/122/D/2398/2014); Sarita Devi Sharma et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/122/D/2364/2014); and Himal and Devi Sharma v. Nepal (CCPR/C/122/D/2265/2013). Gyan Devi Bolakhe et al. v. Nepal, para. 7.4. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, judgment of 27 February 2012, Series C, No. 240, para. 161. See also general comment No. 36, para. 58. Herrera Rubio et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/31/D/161/1983), para. 10.3. Article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Gyan Devi Bolakhe et al. v. Nepal, para. 7.7. Settled jurisprudence of the Committee since the case of Sarma v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/78/D/950/2000), para. 9.3, and general comment No. 36, para. 58. 11