CAT/C/67/D/854/2017 International Humanitarian Law contain two further provisions that are relevant and that are violated by the practice and jurisprudence of Bosnia and Herzegovina as shown in the case of A. Principle 15 sets forth that “a State shall provide reparation to victims for acts or omissions which can be attributed to the State and constitute gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law. In cases where a person, a legal person, or other entity is found liable for reparation to a victim, such party should provide reparation to the victim or compensate the State if the State has already provided reparation to the victim.” Moreover, pursuant to principle 17, “States should provide under their domestic laws effective mechanisms for the enforcement of reparation judgments.” In the case of A, not only has Bosnia and Herzegovina not offered any effective mechanism to guarantee the enforcement of the sentence issued in 2015 by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the flawed jurisprudence endorsed by the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina makes it impossible to apply subsidiary liability, eventually leaving the victim without any enforceable right to compensation and redress. 2.18 The legal systems of most countries provide that the wrongful infliction of personal injuries carries reparations liability, particularly by way of compensation. It has been observed that “in the majority of countries, both the individual offender and the State are liable. The State is in most countries vicariously liable for torts committed by its officials, either expressly or on the basis of employers’ ‘liability’.”15 The legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is plagued by pitfalls in this regard and the existing jurisprudence completely disregards the notion of subsidiary liability, hence leaving victims – including A – without any enforceable right to compensation. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that the facts as submitted reveal an ongoing violation of article 14 (1) in conjunction with article 1 (1) of the Convention because the State party has not ensured in its legal system or practice that she can obtain redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. 3.2 Despite the grave harm suffered and the ongoing psychological and medical consequences endured by the complainant as a result of the sexual violence and illtreatment to which she was subjected, the complainant received no redress or compensation. She therefore calls on the Committee, pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure and according to its well-established practice, to urge the State party to adopt adequate measures of reparation in her favour. Indeed, such measures cannot be limited to pecuniary compensation, 16 but must also cover rehabilitation, 17 satisfaction 18 and guarantees of non-repetition.19 3.3 The complainant recalls the Committee’s views that redress should cover all the harm suffered by the victim and encompass, among other measures, restitution, compensation and guarantees of non-repetition of the violations, taking into account the circumstances of each case. In particular, the Committee pointed out that “the comprehensive reparative concept therefore entails restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition”; that “reparation must be adequate, effective and comprehensive”; and that “monetary compensation alone may not be sufficient redress 15 16 17 18 19 REDRESS, Reparation for Torture: A Survey of Law and Practice in Thirty Selected Countries (London, REDRESS Trust, 2003), p. 47. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 3 on the implementation of article 14, para. 9. On the obligation to provide compensation and the criteria to be followed, see, among others, Human Rights Committee, Usaev v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/99/D/1577/2007), para. 11. See, among others, Human Rights Committee, Sendic v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 28 October 1981, para. 21. In this sense, see 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 International Humanitarian Law, principle 21. Basic Principles, principle 22. See, among others, Usaev v. Russian Federation, para. 11. 5