A/HRC/45/13/Add.3 the Human Rights Committee stressed the duty to undertake a thorough and effective investigation of the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared person and to provide adequate information emerging from all investigative steps.124 The investigation is part of an effective remedy and should elucidate the circumstances of the disappearance and, if possible, lead to the location and return of remains of the disappeared to their families.125 A failure to investigate would amount to a violation of the ICCPR itself.126 14. The Human Rights Committee stated in Kimouche v. Algeria (paragraph 9): “[T]he State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy, including a thorough and effective investigation into the disappearance and fate of their son, his immediate release if he is still alive, and the appropriate information emerging from its investigation, and to ensure that the authors and the family receive adequate reparation, including in the form of compensation.” 15. The Human Rights Committee stated in Chhedulal Tharu et al. v. Nepal (paragraph 10.10): “Despite the authors’ efforts, no thorough and effective investigation has been concluded by the State party to elucidate the circumstances surrounding their relatives’ detention and alleged deaths, and no criminal investigation has even been started to bring the perpetrators to justice. The State party has failed to explain the effectiveness and adequacy of investigations carried out by the Ministry of Home Affairs Disappearances Committee and the concrete steps taken to clarify the circumstances of their detention or the cause of their alleged deaths. It has also failed to locate their mortal remains and return them to the authors’ families. Therefore, the Committee considers that the State party has failed to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the disappearance of the authors’ relatives.” A. Ex-officio and promptness of the investigation 16. The authorities must act of their own motion once an enforced disappearance has come to their attention. They cannot rely on the initiatives of the next of kin either to lodge a formal complaint or to propose a certain line of inquiry.127 17. The European Court first articulated a duty of investigation of a disappearance in Kurt v. Turkey. The Court stated that Article 5 ECHR (right to liberty and security) must be seen as requiring the authorities to take effective measures to safeguard against the risk of disappearance and “to conduct a prompt effective investigation into an arguable claim that a person has been taken into custody and has not been seen since.” 128 Furthermore, the European Court applies a presumption of violation of Article 2 of the ECHR (right to life) when the victim has last been seen alive in life-threatening circumstances and the respondent State fails to provide convincing explanations as to his or her fate and whereabouts or investigation that caused those events.129 In those contexts, offenses arising from these life-threatening circumstances must be met with adequate accountability mechanisms by national courts.130 18. The European Court stated in Cyprus v. Turkey, (paragraph 132): “The Court recalls that there is no proof that any of the missing persons have been unlawfully killed. However, in its opinion, and of relevance to the instant case, the above-mentioned procedural obligation also arises upon proof of an arguable claim that an individual, who was last seen 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 24 Human Rights Committee, Kimouche v. Algeria, communication No. 1328/2004, 10 July 2007, para. 9. Human Rights Committee, Chhedulal Tharu et al. v. Nepal, communication No. 2038/2011, 21 October 2015, paras.9.3 and 10.10. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 18. European Court of Human Rights, Ergi v. Turkey (see footnote 122) para. 83. See Section II, A of the Thematic Report. European Court of Human Rights, Kurt v. Turkey, (see footnote 121) para. 24; European Court of Human Rights, Cyprus v. Turkey, application No 25781/94, 10 May 2001 para. 132. European Court of Human Rights, Bazorkina v. Russia, application No. 69481/01, 27 July 2006, paras. 110–112. European Court of Human Rights, Nilkolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, application No. 7888/03, 20 December 2007, para. 57.