CEDAW/C/76/D/116/2017 monthly disability pension under the Law on the Protection of Victims of Torture in Republika Srpska ranges from 130 marka to 400 marka). 6.6 On 30 April 2020, the author submitted another information note regarding a development in her case. The author reiterates that there have been serious delays in the investigation and prosecution of crimes committed during the conflict, and the goal of completing the investigation and prosecution of the most complex cases by the end of 2015, in accordance with the national strategy for processing war crimes, has not been achieved. Under a revised strategy, it has been proposed that a goal would be set to ensure the prosecution of the most complex and highest priority war crimes cases before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the end of 2023, but that revised strategy has not yet been adopted. 6.7 On 19 April 2017, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina rejected the complaint submitted by the author on 25 August 2016 regarding her application for status as a civilian victim of armed conflict, declaring it unfounded and thus inadmissible. The Court remarked that the applicant had failed to comply with the applicable statutes of limitations under the Law on the Protection of Civilian Victims of War in Republika Srpska and thus rejected all the complaints concerning alleged violations. 6.8 On 6 March 2020, the author was granted her request to obtain health-care benefits pursuant to the Law on the Protection of Victims of Torture in Republika Srpska by a decision of the Department for the Protection of War Veterans and Persons with Disabilities of Prijedor Municipality. The author notes, however, that this does not represent a reparation measure for the suffering that she endured, as it is merely allowing her to access the regular health-care system henceforth and does not guarantee that she will obtain special medical and psychological support. 6.9 Even though she was recognized as a victim of conflict-related sexual violence under the law of the Republika Srpska on 8 February 2019 and granted the right to obtain health-care benefits on 6 March 2020, the author wishes to maintain her initial allegations because her current legal status does not allow her to fully receive prompt, fair and adequate compensation or adequate medical and psychological support. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. Pursuant to rule 72 (4), it is to do so before considering the merits of the commu nication. 7.2 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claim constitutes an actio popularis, since she challenges the legal system as a whole and as it applies to others, rather than an individual violation, and that the communication should be declared inadmissible on that ground. The Committee also notes that the author considers that providing an explanation of the relevant legal framework does not render her communication an actio popularis, especially since she explains how she is personally and directly affected by the legislation. In that regard, the Committee recalls that, under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, communications may be submitted by individuals under the jurisdiction of a State party “claiming to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Convention by that State party” and that a person can only be a victim in the sense that he or she is actually affected. 21 This means that no person may, in the abstract, by way of an actio popularis, __________________ 21 10/16 See Aumeeruddy-Cziffra et al. v. Mauritius (CCPR/C/12/D/35/1978), para. 9.2, and Dayras et al. v. France, para. 10.5. 20-11100