author fails to demonstrate how her rights under the Covenant have been violated by the State or to show that available domestic remedies have been exhausted. recovered, the Supreme Court has accepted the opinion that such persons should be deemed to have been abducted within the meaning of article 141 of the Criminal Code. Since case law holds that abduction is an ongoing offence or an offence with ongoing effect, i.e., one that continues over time until the victim is found alive or dead, any application or decision on amnesty is deemed untimely unless one of those conditions is met. Until the date of the person’s release or death is established, it cannot be established in law up to what precise date they were deprived of their liberty. If such deprivation of liberty continues beyond the period covered by the Decree-Law, i.e., 11 September 1973 to 10 March 1978, amnesty cannot be granted in the case in question. 4.4 The State party recalls the Committee’s decisions on communications Nos. 717/1996 (Acuña Inostroza), 718/1996 (Vargas), 740/1997 (Barzana Yutronic) and 746/1997 (Menanteau and Vásquez), in respect of Chile, which it found inadmissible for those reasons. 4.5 As to the merits, the State party argues that there has been no violation of the Covenant. On 17 July 1996, the National Reparation and Reconciliation Board asked for the investigation to be reopened but this inquiry, too, was closed in December 1997. At the time of submission of the State party’s comments, the trial of three former DINA agents was ongoing in the Santiago Appeal Court in respect of a criminal complaint filed by the father of Jacqueline Drouilly for aggravated abduction. Also ongoing in the same Court were proceedings in respect of a criminal complaint filed by the College of Social Work for the abduction of several of its members, including Jacqueline Drouilly. 4.9 On this basis, the Supreme Court has revoked the dismissal rulings applying the Decree-Law on Amnesty, resumed investigations into human rights violations and brought those involved to trial. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that a final sentence dismissing a case of illegal detention cannot be exempted as res judicata. 4.10 In parallel, the Ministry of the Interior’s Human Rights Programme has taken the position that, in applying the Decree-Law, it should be interpreted in such a way that it will cease to present an insurmountable obstacle to attempts to establish the truth and identify criminal responsibility for the offences under investigation. The Programme’s position is that amnesty is not applicable to crimes which are not open to amnesty in international humanitarian law, such as crimes against humanity, war crimes and enforced disappearance. 4.6 The National Truth and Reconciliation Commission found that Jacqueline Drouilly and her husband Marcelo Salinas were victims of serious human rights violations by agents of the State. The State party explains the policies of Chile’s democratic Governments on human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, committed under the previous regime. It states, inter alia, that the Ministry of the Interior’s Human Rights Programme is cooperating in investigations into some 300 cases of human rights violations, including the disappearance of Jacqueline Drouilly. 5. In her comments of 22 September 2004, the author points out that she named her daughter’s abductor in her statements to the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission but no proceedings were brought under President Aylwin’s Government. Not until President Lagos took office were cases of human rights violations reopened. The offence committed against her daughter is an ongoing crime, not subject to amnesty or the statute of limitations. Under the rules as currently applied, the trial court needs the very people responsible to state the presumed exact date of the victim’s death, whereupon the abduction becomes homicide, a crime prescriptible after 15 years. This amounts to giving the court itself the right to decide the presumed date of death, despite the absence of a body. The author is critical of this state of affairs, which in her view favours the perpetrators and does not ensure justice for the victims. 4.7 The Decree-Law on Amnesty, of 1978, extinguishes the criminal responsibility of perpetrators and of accessories to or after the fact, in respect of offences committed in Chile during the state of siege in force between 11 September 1973 and 10 March 1978. For many years the Supreme Court used to confirm lower court judgements dismissing cases under this Decree-Law, applying case law which held that the court was not in a position to investigate the facts and identify those responsible for the offence. A substantive shift could be seen in judicial practice beginning in 1998, since when the Supreme Court, applying article 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has repeatedly ruled that a case can be dismissed only on completion of the investigation to establish whether a crime has been committed and identify the perpetrator. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 4.8 In the case of detainees who disappeared or were executed and whose remains were not 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, 5