CCPR/C/114/D/2038/2011 automatically predetermine the legal analysis under article 16. d Moreover, not every case of a denial of justice or access to a remedy in case of a violation of a right is in violation of article 16.a 4. This line of reasoning is by no means intended to change or weaken the concept of enforced disappearance enshrined in the above-named conventions. Neither does it lead to a fragmented standard for a notion which is not included in the Covenant. It is the role of the Committee to examine communications on the basis of each of the Covenant provisions and to determine whether the factual circumstances are appropriate for finding a violation of the Covenante rather than generalizing or reinterpreting its guarantees by applying legal notions that are not enshrined therein.f For the reasons outlined above, I do not recognize the rationale for renouncing the temporal element under article 16. It would be erroneous to find a violation thereof whenever there is a denial of justice for whatever short period of time. Apart from the fact that the modification was unnecessary for the outcome of the present very serious case, in which the victims had been removed from the protection of the law since 2002,g I fear that lowering the threshold of article 16 for reasons which lie outside the Covenant risks undermining the fundamental value of this human rights guarantee in the long run. d e f g 18 See communication No. 2022/2011, Hamulić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Views adopted on 30 March 2015, appendix I, individual opinion by Committee member Anja Seibert-Fohr, para. 5. Article 16 of the Covenant is an autonomous human right guarantee. The notion “recognition as a person before the law” differs from the wording in the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Accordingly, its interpretation is informed neither by this Convention nor by article 7 (2) (i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. See Hamulić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, individual opinion by Committee member Anja SeibertFohr, para. 7. The Committee found a violation of article 16 under its established jurisprudence, e.g. in Views of the Committee on communication No. 2000/2010, Katwal v. Nepal, adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 11.9.