CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012 in this case, a long period of time, namely, 16 years, had elapsed between the dismissal order being issued by the Puerto Triunfo prosecutor ’s office and the communication being submitted to the Committee, for no apparent reason. Additional observations of the authors 7.1 On 1 April 2014, the authors noted that the State party had not submitted its observations on the merits, as requested by the Committee, but had merely reiterated its observations on the communication’s admissibility. 7.2 The authors reiterated their arguments in response to the questions of admissibility raised by the State party and referred to the Committee ’s jurisprudence, which states that “it is generally for the domestic courts … to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that this evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice ”. 18 They added that, in the instant case, the ordinary criminal procedure legislation in force when the acts occurred in March 1995 did not allow the authors to file as civil parties to the prosecution at the preliminary investigation or inquiry stage, also known as the pretrial phase. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2000, the authors were not empowered to file as civi l parties at the preliminary stage of the criminal proceedings either. This restriction was removed by the Constitutional Court in April 2002. By then, the legal case in Colombia had been shelved. Therefore, the authors were unable to file as civil parties at the preliminary stage of the criminal proceedings, which is a clear case of denial of justice. The authors also maintained that the investigation was not conducted in a rigorous manner for the reasons set out previously. 7.3 The authors reiterated their comments concerning the continuing nature of the enforced disappearance, in keeping with national and international jurisprudence. They stated that Colombian law also obliges the State to take all necessary measures to ascertain the whereabouts of the victim, to establish the reasons for his or her disappearance and to inform the members of the family accordingly. The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has made it clear that the obligation to investigate is closely linked to the continuing nature of the enforced disappearance and to the right of family members to the truth. 19 The authors concluded that there was no abuse whatsoever of the right to submit communications, as violations stemming from the enforced disappearance of Mr. Anzola and Mr. Molina in 1995 of the rights of both the disappeared persons and the members of their family, as well as the obligation of the State to investigate and ascertain the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared persons still obtain today. 7.4 Lastly, the authors cited the Committee’s jurisprudence and reaffirmed that the burden of proof cannot rest on the author of the communication alone, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to the relevant information. In cases where the allegations are corroborated by evidence submitted by the author and where further clarification of the case depends on information exclusively in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider the author ’s allegations as adequately substantiated, in the absence of satisfactory evidence and explanation to the contrary submitted by the State party. 20 __________________ 18 19 20 GE.15-15601 See the Committee’s Views on communication No. 903/1999, Van Hulst v. The Netherlands, of 1 November 2004, para. 6.5. See the Working Group’s general comment on enforced disappearance as a continuous crime (A/HRC/16/48, para. 39). See the Committee’s Views on communication No. 1196/2003, Boucherf v. Algeria, of 30 March 2006; and Bousroual v. Algeria. 11/20