A/HRC/45/13/Add.3 76. In the case Grioua v. Algeria, the Human Rights Committee applied the concept of a shared burden of proof allowing for rendering a default decision. As such both the respondent State and the complainant hold the duty, respectively, to investigate the complaint and present supporting evidence. 198 The Human Rights Committee took this approach in subsequent cases in contexts of Algeria, Libya and Nepal.199 77. The Human Rights Committee stated in Grioua v. Algeria (paragraph 7.4): “The Committee reaffirms 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 frequently the State party alone has the relevant information. It is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol that the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives and to furnish to the Committee the information available to it.” 78. The Human Rights Committee stated in Chhedulal Tharu and others v. Nepal (paragraph 10.2): “In cases in which the author has submitted allegations that are corroborated by credible evidence and in which further clarification depends on information that is solely in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider the author’s allegations substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanations to the contrary presented by the State party.” H. Obstacles to effective investigation: Statute of limitations, principle of ne bis in idem and prohibition of amnesties, pardons and other similar measures 79. Indicators of ineffective investigation recorded by the European Court included the length of time before an actual investigation was initiated and witness statements were taken, the length of time before statements were taken from the alleged perpetrators or inquiries by police officers on duty at the time, inadequate questions put to the witnesses, a failure by the authorities to consider all relevant information, the failure of the public prosecutor to make any serious attempts to inspect the custody records and to visit the detention places himself,200 sole reliance on the statements of police officers,201 decisions of non-jurisdiction and the lack of securing evidence,202 the lack of cooperation between State agencies and as a result the lack of access to requisite information203 and delays through repeatedly adjourning and reopening investigations.204 80. Further obstacles to effective investigations include limited national capacity and a lack of qualified forensic experts, compounded by economic constraints due to the costly process of DNA identification, the lack of relevant information about gravesites due to witnesses’ fear of testifying or lack of exhumations of known sites, the lack of cooperation between former rival parties, difficulties for investigative bodies to visit places of detention or to obtain essential information from relevant authorities. Obstacles to conducting effective investigations also stem from difficulties in securing access to archives that may contain vital information on the fate of disappeared persons. 81. The Human Rights Committee stated that amnesties are incompatible with the obligation of States to investigate and reiterated that States are to be “duty-bound to 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 Human Rights Committee, Grioua v. Algeria, Communication No. 1327/2004, 10 July 2010, para. 7.4. Human Rights Committee, Sharma v. Nepal, Communication No. 1469/2006, 28 October 2008, para. 7.5 ; Human Rights Committee, Madoui v. Algeria, Communication No. 1495/2006, 28 October 2008 para. 7.3; Human Rights Committee, Benaziza v. Algeria (see footnote 205) para. 9.4; Human Rights Committee, El Alwani v. the Lybian Arab Jamahiriya, Communication No 1295/2004, 11 July 2007 para. 6.3. European Court of Human Rights, Timurtaş v. Turkey (see footnote 119) para. 89; European Court of Human Rights, Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey (see footnote 187) para. 104. European Court of Human Rights, Ergi v. Turkey (see footnote 122) para. 83. European Court of Human Rights, Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey (see footnote 187) paras. 24–52 and 104. European Court of Human Rights, Aslakhanova and others v. Russia (see footnote 147) para. 125. European Court of Human Rights, Baysayeva v. Russia, application No. 47354/07, European Court of Human Rights, 12 June 2012, para. 129; See Section II, D, G, and H of the Thematic Report. 35