A/HRC/45/13/Add.3 in the custody of agents of the State, subsequently disappeared in a context which may be considered life-threatening.” 19. Furthermore, the European Court held in Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia that measures to redress the systemic failure to investigate disappearances in the region would fall into two principal categories. The first concerned the suffering of the relatives of the victims, while the second relates to the ineffectiveness of criminal investigations and the subsequent impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators. 131 In Cyprus v. Turkey, the European Court held that failing to investigate into circumstances conducive to the disappearance of missing persons caused distress and anxiety for the victim’s next of kin, which amounts to inhumane treatment. The latter results from inadequate reactions by State authorities.132 20. The Inter-American Court established that whenever there are reasonable motives to suspect that a person has been subjected to enforced disappearance an investigation should be opened ex officio and without delay.133 In any case, every State authority, public or private officer who is aware of acts intended to forcibly disappear persons, is under the duty to immediately report them.134 In the case Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, the Inter-American Court stated, “whenever there is reason to believe that a person has been subjected to enforced disappearance, an investigation must be conducted.”135 Importantly, investigations do not depend on proof presented before the relevant authorities by the next of kin of the victims and, therefore, if State authorities receive information of an enforced disappearance, these authorities must immediately report those acts so that adequate steps can be taken.136 Family members should have the possibility to become engaged at all stages of the investigative steps while they should be informed of the progress of these steps constantly. 21. The Inter-American Court stated in Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, (paragraph 65): [W]henever there is a reason to belief that a person has been subjected to forced disappearance, an investigation must be conducted. This obligation is independent from the filing of a complaint, since in cases of forced disappearance, International Law and the general duty to guarantee, to which Peru is bound, imposes upon States the obligation to investigate the case ex officio, without delay and in a serious, impartial and effective way. This is a fundamental and conditioning element for the protection of certain rights that are otherwise affected or annulled by those situations, such as the right to life, personal liberty and personal integrity. Without detriment to the foregoing, in any case, every State authority, public or private officer who is aware of acts purported to forcibly disappear persons, shall immediately report them.” 22. The Inter-American Court indicated in Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia (paragraph 145): “The execution of an effective investigation is a fundamental and conditioning element for the protection of certain rights that are affected or annulled by these situations, such as, in the instant case, the rights to personal liberty, humane treatment and life. This assessment is valid whatsoever the agent to which the violation may eventually be attributed, even individuals, because, if their acts are not investigated genuinely, they would be, to some extent, assisted by the public authorities, which would entail the State’s international responsibility.”137 23. In France, the public prosecutor may initiate investigations into enforced disappearances even if no formal complaint has been lodged. Moreover, Article 40, paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that “any constituted authority, public officer or civil servant who, in the performance of his duties, acquires knowledge of a crime or offence shall be required to give notice thereof without delay to the public 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 European Court of Human Rights, Aslakhanova v. Russia, Application No. 32059/02,18 December 2012, para. 217. European Court of Human Rights, Cyprus v. Turkey (see footnote 143). IACHR, Anzualdo Castro v. Peru (see footnote 16) para. 65; IACHR, Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 143; Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras (see footnote 123) para. 177. Ibid. IACHR, Anzualdo Castro v. Peru (see footnote 16) para. 135. IACHR, Gomes-Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 24, 2010, Series C No. 219, para. 108. IACHR, Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia (see footnote 127) para. 145. 25