CED/C/10/D/1/2013 as to the lawfulness of his situation; (g) the death of Mr. Yrusta in the prison facility to which he was transferred; (h) the investigation of the cause and circumstances of his death; and (i) the failure to recognize Estela Deolinda Yrusta and Alejandra del Valle Yrusta, Mr. Yrusta’s sisters, as parties to the prosecution in the judicial and investigative proceedings undertaken in his case. 8.4 In accordance with article 31 (2) (b) of the Convention, the Committee proceeded to determine which of the violations cited by the authors fall within the scope of the Convention. In this regard, the Committee found that the authors’ claims relating to the transfer of Mr. Yrusta without his consent, the acts of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, his death and the investigation thereof do not fall within the competence ratione materiae of the Committee. However, the following claims presented by the authors in the present communication do fall within the Committee’s competence: the alleged enforced disappearance of Mr. Yrusta for a period of more than seven days following his transfer from Córdoba to Santa Fe; the failure to provide information to his family about that transfer; the impossibility of communicating with Mr. Yrusta for a period of more than seven days; the impossibility of gaining access to a court that would reach a decision without delay as to the lawfulness of Mr. Yrusta’s situation following his prison transfer; the inability of the authors to take an active part in the investigation into their brother’s case, including his enforced disappearance, because they have been refused legal standing as private criminal plaintiffs; and the absence of any investigation into that enforced disappearance. 8.5 The Committee recalled that, in accordance with article 31 (2) (d) of the Convention, a communication must be declared inadmissible when all effective available remedies have not been exhausted, unless the application of the remedies has been unreasonably prolonged. The Committee noted that, according to the State party, the judicial investigation into the cause of the death of Mr. Yrusta is currently before the Sixth Bench of the Santa Fe Criminal Investigation Court and that the proceedings are ongoing. However, it noted that the State party failed to make any reference to the investigation into the alleged enforced disappearance of Mr. Yrusta in its observations or its reply to the Committee’s specific questions on this point. Nor did it provide information on the effective domestic remedies available to the authors in this regard. The Committee considered that an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the death of the authors’ brother, which occurred when the authors knew his whereabouts in Coronda prison and had already spoken to him by telephone, is not a remedy that can provide redress for a violation of the right not to be subjected to enforced disappearance. 8.6 The Committee took note of the authors’ allegations that, during the period of over seven days during which they claim Mr. Yrusta was disappeared, his family repeatedly asked the prison services for information regarding his whereabouts but received no reply. It also noted that, according to the authors, no remedy was available during this period to allow Mr. Yrusta’s family to gain access to a court that would reach a decision without delay as to the lawfulness of his situation when he was transferred from a prison in Córdoba to one in Santa Fe. The Committee noted that the State party had provided no information on the remedies available in such circumstances. 8.7 The Committee further noted that more than one and a half years had elapsed between 26 February 2013, when the authors submitted their first request to join the proceedings as plaintiffs, and the decision of the Appeal Court to deny the appeal lodged in that connection. The State party failed to provide convincing arguments to justify the delay in reaching that decision. The State party also failed to provide any information on the State organ that would have competence to represent the authors6 or on the progress made in the 6 12 Case file No. 279 (see footnote 4 above), para. 7.3. GE.16-05682