CAT/C/67/D/854/2017 6.4 The Committee also took note of the State party’s argument that the complainant could initiate a civil proceeding under the Law on Civil Obligations or file a new property claim in the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina once she had met certain conditions. In this regard, the Committee considers that the State party’s failure to adopt adequate and effective domestic legislation and law enforcement practice rendered the application of a remedy that may bring, in the particular circumstances of the present case, effective and sufficient redress to the complainant virtually impossible. Moreover, having unsuccessfully exhausted one remedy, it should not be required, for the purposes of article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, to exhaust alternative legal avenues that would have been directed essentially to the same end and would in any case not have offered better chances of success. 29 In these circumstances, the Committee concluded that it was not precluded by the requirements of article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention from considering the communication. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 The Committee notes that the complainant claims a violation of articles 14 (1) in conjunction with article 1 (1) of the Convention on the grounds that the State party failed in its duty to ensure in its legal system that victims of an act of torture obtain redress and have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible.30 These provisions are applicable insofar as the acts to which the complainant was subjected are determined to be acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.31 In this respect, the Committee notes the decision of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina wherein the complainant was found to be a victim of rape as a war crime against the civilian population committed during the armed conflict. The Committee notes that the State party has not contested these allegations. 7.3 The Committee notes that during the period 1992–1995, the territory where the complainant lived was controlled by the Vojska Republike Srpske and that during the civil war ethnic minorities were exposed to threats, killing, rape and arbitrary detention. 32 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that in May and June 1993, she was forcibly taken from her home at gunpoint and raped by a member of VRS, which resulted in her becoming pregnant and undergoing an abortion. The Committee observes that the rape and other acts of sexual violence and ill-treatment to which she was subjected caused her severe physical and mental pain and suffering and were inflicted intentionally during the armed conflict in the State party in order to punish and intimidate the complainant and to humiliate and degrade her, representing a form of discrimination 33 on the basis of her gender34 and ethnicity. The Committee observes that, in the light of the complainant’s detailed and consistent description of rape, which is corroborated by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina verdict of 28 June 2015 and coincides with the general pattern of sexual violence, particularly rape of women, committed during the internal armed conflict as documented in various intergovernmental and non-governmental reports,35 due weight must be given to the complainant’s allegations. The Committee concludes that the facts as submitted constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Osmani v. Serbia (CAT/C/42/D/261/2005), para. 7.1. Rakishev and Rakishev v. Kazakhstan (CAT/C/61/D/661/2015), para. 8.2. Ben Salem v. Tunisia (CAT/C/39/D/269/2005), para. 16.4. On the crimes committed in Vogosca Municipality during the war, see, among others, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Prosecutor v. Dragan Damjanovic, decisions of 15 December 2006 (Trial Chamber) and 13 June 2007 (second instance verdict). See, generally, International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić, Zdravko Mucić, Hazim Delić and Esad Landžo (case No. IT-96-21-T), Judgment of 16 November 1998, para. 493. On the issue of discrimination against women, including gender-based violence, see Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 19 (1992) on violence against women, para. 6. See, generally, E/CN.4/1993/50, annex II. 9