had inquired about the activities of the Sanjuán family and that they had identified themselves as agents of the "F2" (a section of the Colombian police forces). 2.2 On 10 March 1982, the author reported the disappearance of her sons to the local police and to the Section of Disappeared Persons of the "F2". She also regularly visited the morgues. Between June and September 1982, the case of her sons was reported to the assistant prosecutor of the Police, to the Armed Forces, to the AttorneyGeneral's office and to the Administrative Department of Security "DAS". Investigations were carried out by most of these authorities for some weeks, but without results. The author also mentions several letters written to the President of the Republic and states that, at the behest of his office, a judge of a criminal court was appointed in February 1983 to initiate the appropriate investigation. At the time of writing, she stated that these proceedings were still pending, due to frequent changes of judges. 2.3 The author claims that she could never obtain from the authorities any official information about her sons' whereabouts. However, in a letter dated 17 August 1982 from the alleged victims' father addressed to State Minister Rodrigo Escobar Navia (with copies sent to the President of Colombia, Minister of Justice and Attorney-General), submitted to the Human Rights Committee as part of communication No. 181/1984, it is stated that the parents of Alfredo Rafáel and Samuel Humberto Sanjuán Arévalo received indications in August 1982, from the Chief of the Administrative Department of Security, "DAS", that their sons had been arrested by agents of the "F2" and that on 13 August 1982 in the course of an interview with the National Director of the "F2", it was intimated that they would soon reappear ("confien en Dios que prontico aparecerán y estén tranquilos"). 2.4 The author claims that articles 2, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been violated. 2.5 She indicates that the case of her sons is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 3. Having concluded that the author of the communication was justified in acting on behalf of the alleged victims, the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee decided, on 17 October 1984, to transmit the communication under rule 91 of the rules of procedure to the State party concerned, requesting information and observations relevant to the question of the admissibility of the communication. The Working Group also requested the State party to forward copies of any official inquiries made in connection with the reported disappearance of Alfredo Ráfael and Samuel Humberto Sanjuán Arévalo. 4. The deadline for the State party's submission under rule 91 of the Committee's rules of procedure expired on 20 January 1985. No rule 91 submission was received from the State party. 5.1 With regard to article 5, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, the Committee noted that the author's statement, that the case of her sons was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, remained uncontested. 5.2 With regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee was unable to conclude, on the basis of the information before it, that there were available remedies in the circumstances of the present case which could or should have been pursued. 6. On 11 July 1985, the Human Rights Committee therefore decided that the communication was admissible. The State party was further requested to forward copies of any official inquiries made in connection with the reported disappearance of Alfredo Rafáel and Samuel Humberto Sanjuán Arévalo. 126