A/HRC/45/13/Add.3 investigations to relatives of a disappeared person, independent from the possibility of punishment of alleged perpetrators for the commission of any enforced disappearance.157 41. The Human Rights Committee in the case Bashasha v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya confirmed that States considered to be responsible for an enforced disappearance hold the duty to furnish adequate information arising from an effective investigation into the disappearance. The authorities are under the obligation, in the case of death, to return the remains of the disappeared person as a means to provide an effective remedy.158 In the case of El Boathi’s disappearance, Algeria issued many contradictory pieces of information regarding the victim’s fate, which, according to the Human Rights Committee, contributed to a situation of impunity.159 42. The Human Rights Committee stated in Bashasha v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (paragraph 9): “[T]he State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. The Committee therefore urges the State party a) to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the disappearance and death of the author’s cousin; b) to provide adequate information resulting from its investigation (…).” D. Investigations should continue until the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared person have been clarified 43. The European Court understood enforced disappearance as being continuous, linking it to the prolonged time of distress, anxiety and suffering of the relatives of a disappeared person.160 In Cyprus v. Turkey the Court concluded that the continuous nature of enforced disappearances prompts an ongoing effort to investigate until the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared person have been clarified.161 44. The European Court stated in Cyprus v. Turkey (paragraph 150): “[D]uring the period under consideration, there has been a continuing violation of Article 5 of the Convention by virtue of the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the missing Greek-Cypriot persons in respect of whom there is an arguable claim that they were in custody at the time they disappeared.” 45. The European Court reiterated the obligation of a state to identify and initiate prosecutions of an alleged perpetrator of enforced disappearances under Article 2 ECHR in Varnava a.o. v. Turkey. 162 Moreover, when disappearances occur in life-threatening circumstances, the State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation and to identify and prosecute perpetrators does not come to an end upon discovery of the body or presumption of death.163 46. The European Court stated in Varnava and Others v. Turkey (paragraph 145): “The Court would note that the procedural obligation to investigate under Article 2 where there has been an unlawful or suspicious death is triggered by, in most cases, the discovery of the body or the occurrence of death. Where disappearances in life-threatening circumstances are concerned, the procedural obligation to investigate can hardly come to an end on discovery of the body or the presumption of death; this merely casts light on one aspect of 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 IACHR, Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras (see footnote 123) para. 181; IACHR, The Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia (see footnote 127) para. 143. Human Rights Committee, Bashasha v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, communication No. 1776/2008, 20 October 2008, para. 9. CCPR/C/119/D/2259/2013 para. 7.5. European Court of Human Rights, Çiçek v. Turkey, application No. 45175/12, 5 February 2019, para. 173; European Court of Human Rights, Varnava and Others v. Turkey, Applications nos. 16064/90 – 16073/90, 18 September 2009, para. 186; European Court of Human Rights, Timurtaş v. Turkey (see footnote 119) para. 98; See Section II, E of the Thematic Report. European Court of Human Rights, Cyprus v. Turkey (see footnote 143) para. 150. European Court of Human Rights, Varnava and Others v. Turkey, (see footnote 174) para. 145; European Court of Human Rights, Palić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Application No. 4704/04, 15 February 201, para. 64. European Court of Human Rights, Varnava and Others v. Turkey, (see footnote 174) paras. 144 and 145. 29