CAT/C/67/D/854/2017 with article 1 (1) of the Convention, as Bosnia and Herzegovina has not ensured in its legal system or in its practice that she can obtain redress. The State party also failed to ensure that she has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. 2.13 She observes that rape is outlawed under customary international humanitarian law11 and, in certain circumstances, it may amount to a war crime. 12 In the instant case, in 2015 the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina convicted the perpetrator of the rapes and illtreatment inflicted on the complainant of war crimes. The fact that the prohibition of torture has evolved into a peremptory norm, or jus cogens, triggers significant consequences, including that “torture may not be covered by a statute of limitations”.13 2.14 The complainant is of the view that it is a well-established fact pursuant to international law and jurisprudence that victims of torture are entitled to redress, including compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. The undisputed right to obtain redress for victims of torture, including sexual violence, has two corollaries that are at the core of the present communication. On the one hand, claims for compensation for crimes under international law, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, cannot be subjected to a statute of limitations since that would render ineffective the right to redress. On the other hand, subsidiary liability shall be applied to make this right enforceable even when the perpetrator has not been identified or, as in the present case, is unable or unwilling to pay compensation. 2.15 The complainant states that, as statutes of limitations do not apply to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, they should not apply to criminal or civil proceedings in which victims of these crimes seek full reparation. In this sense, it is held that, as a trend in the progressive development of international law, the non-applicability of statutes of limitations should also encompass civil claims for crimes under international law, whether made in civil proceedings or as part of criminal proceedings.14 2.16 Applying statutes of limitations of three to five years to the submission of civil claims for non-pecuniary damage by victims of torture, including sexual violence, committed during the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina de facto renders ineffective the right to redress of victims, including the complainant. The victims of rape or other forms of sexual violence face special stigma, fear and marginalization, which often prevent them from coming forward, denouncing the crime and filing complaints to seek compensation. Imposing on them a statute of limitations of three to five years, as established pursuant to article 366 of the Law on Civil Obligations, is definitely unduly restrictive and represents an insurmountable barrier to the enforcement of their right to compensation. This provision does not take into account the continuous nature of the effects of torture or the slow pace of rebuilding a trustworthy, independent justice system in the aftermath of conflicts, and deprives victims of redress and compensation. Furthermore, the jurisprudence of Bosnia and Herzegovina courts in this regard, endorsed by the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, overlooks the fact that the crimes in question are war crimes or crimes against humanity and, as such, shall not be subjected to any statute of limitations, in terms of both criminal and civil proceedings. 2.17 The Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of 11 12 13 14 4 Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I: Rules (International Committee of the Red Cross and Cambridge University Press, 2009), rule 93. See also common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949; article 27, second paragraph, of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention) and articles 76 (1) and 77 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, para. 8 (2) (b). International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija (case No. IT-95-17/1-T), Judgement of 10 December 1998, paras. 153–157. See Amnesty International, International Law Commission: Second Report on Crimes against Humanity–Positive Aspects and Concerns (London, 2016).