## Facts

- Barbarín Mojica, a Dominican labor leader, filed a communication on behalf of his son, Rafael Mojica (born 1959), a dock worker associated with a port union in Santo Domingo.
- In the weeks before Rafael’s disappearance, he allegedly received death threats from military officers linked to the Dirección de Bienes Nacionales, including Captain Manuel de Jesus Morel and two assistants known as “Martin” and “Brinquito,” reportedly tied to accusations about Rafael’s political views.
- Rafael was last seen on the evening of 5 May 1990; witnesses later saw him at a restaurant near the union area between about 8 p.m. and 1 a.m., after which he boarded a taxi with other unidentified men.
- On 31 May 1990, the family requested an official investigation into Rafael’s disappearance and contacted authorities, but received no reliable information about his fate or whereabouts.
- The State did not provide the Committee with a substantive response or evidence of an effective investigation despite requests and reminders; the Committee proceeded on the author’s submissions.

## Issues

1. Whether Rafael Mojica’s disappearance, viewed as unacknowledged detention attributable to State agents, violated ICCPR articles 6(1) (right to life), 7 (prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment), and 9(1) (freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention).
2. Whether the State’s failure to investigate, prosecute those responsible, and provide a remedy breached its Covenant obligations, including the duty to ensure rights and provide effective remedies.

## Decision

- The Human Rights Committee found the Dominican Republic responsible for violations of ICCPR articles 6(1), 7, and 9(1) in relation to Rafael Mojica.
- The Committee gave due weight to the author’s substantiated allegations because the State failed to rebut them or provide an adequate explanation or investigative record.
- The Committee concluded that the State was obligated to provide an effective remedy, including a thorough investigation into Rafael’s fate, prosecution of those responsible, and appropriate compensation to the author.
- Although article 10(1) had been raised, the Committee’s core findings rested on articles 6(1), 7, and 9(1) in the context of enforced disappearance and lack of investigation.

## Legal Principles

- When a State does not cooperate and fails to provide information within its control, the Committee may credit a complainant’s well-substantiated account and draw adverse inferences from the State’s silence.
- Enforced disappearance or unacknowledged detention attributable to State agents can violate:
  - Article 9(1) where the deprivation of liberty is unrecorded, unacknowledged, and outside judicial control.
  - Article 7 because disappearance and incommunicado detention create a serious risk of ill-treatment and constitute prohibited treatment.
  - Article 6(1) where the State fails to account for the person’s fate and does not dispel the inference of fatal harm.
- The Covenant requires effective remedial measures for serious rights violations, including prompt, thorough, and effective investigation, accountability for perpetrators, and compensation.

## Conclusion

The Committee treated Rafael Mojica’s unaccounted-for disappearance, combined with the State’s failure to investigate or respond meaningfully, as an attributable enforced disappearance violating ICCPR articles 6(1), 7, and 9(1), and required investigation, prosecution, and compensation as the remedy.


Mojica v. Dom. Rep., Comm. No. 449/1991, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/449/1991 (Human Rights Comm. 1994)