CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012 prosecutor’s office, the case was neglected by the competent investigative bodies. Since then, despite the many proceedings instituted, no serious or effective investigation into the facts of the case has been carried out by any judicial authority, nor has any disciplinary investigation been launched by the army or the Counsel General’s Office. The regular criminal investigation was shelved. There is no record of any investigation having been carried out by military criminal courts or the National Unit for Justice and Peace of the Attorney General’s Office. The authors submit that, even though the details of the time, manner and place in which the disappearances of Mr. Anzola and Mr. Molina occurred all fit in with the modus operandi of paramilitary groups, the public prosecutor’s office did not focus its investigations on the paramilitary group that was operating in the region at the time. The information supplied by the families and NGOs and the car in which the victims had been travelling were not examined in depth during the investigation. The authors add that no one other than the notary or the relatives of the disappeared persons was ever questioned and yet that was considered a sufficient basis for the public prosecutor ’s office to dismiss the case. Alleged violations of Mr. Anzola’s and Mr. Molina’s rights 3.2 The authors claim that the enforced disappearance of Mr. Anzola and Mr. Molina violated their right, under article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, not to be arbitrarily deprived of their lives. 3.3 The authors also claim that there has been a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. They cite the Committee’s case law, according to which enforced disappearance is inseparably linked to treatment that amounts to a violation of article 7, 8 given that the degree of suffering involved in being held indefinitely without contact with the outside world amounts to torture for the disappeared person. 3.4 The authors claim that there has been a violation of articles 9 and 10 of the Covenant. They highlight the Committee’s established jurisprudence that enforced disappearance constitutes a violation of multiple rights, including the right to liberty and security of the person (art. 9) and the right of all persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (art. 10). 9 3.5 The authors submit that enforced disappearance violates the right of all human beings to recognition as a person before the law, 10 as established in article 16 of the Covenant. They state that one of the defining elements of enforced disappearance is the placement of an individual outside the protection of the law, as stated in the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Inter American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. 3.6 The authors submit that articles 17 and 23, paragraph 1, of the Covenant were also violated. __________________ 8 9 10 GE.15-15601 The authors cite, among others, the Committee’s Views in communications No. 1078/2002, Norma Yurich v. Chile, Views adopted on 2 November 2005; No. 449/1991, Rafael Mojica v. Dominican Republic, Views adopted on 15 July 1994; No. 950/2000, Jegatheeswara Sarma v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 16 July 2003; and No. 440/1990, El-Megreisi v. Libya, Views adopted on 23 March 1994. See the Committee’s Views in communication No. 992/2001, Bousroual v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006; and Jegatheeswara Sarma v. Sri Lanka. See the Committee’s concluding observations on Kuwait (CCPR/CO/69/KWT, para. 11) and on Algeria (CCPR/C/79/Add.95, para. 10). 7/20