CCPR/C/115/D/2048/2011 had not been discriminated against in relation to other citizens since they did not apply to the competent authority to adjudicate a civil lawsuit for non-pecuniary damages. 6.5 The State party further informed the Committee that the Law on Determination and the Manner of Settling the Internal Debt of the Republika Srpska established courts’ and other authorities’ competence and regulated the proceedings for granting compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in cases of disappeared persons. Additional information submitted by the authors 7.1 On 19 and 21 October and 1 December 2011, the authors provided additional information to the Committee. They reiterated their previous allegations and considered that the State party’s further observations did not provide any substantive information concerning the admissibility and merits of their communication. 7.2 The authors expressed their concern about the delays in the investigations. Even if the seven-year deadline for complex cases was respected, that would mean that the whole investigation of the crimes concerned would last for more than 26 years. 7.3 The authors informed the Committee that, on 30 June 2011, the Ministry of Justice of the Republika Srpska had rejected their appeal against the decision of the State Attorney’s Office of the Republika Srpska of 3 June 2011 concerning their request for compensation under the Law on Compensation. Although that decision could be appealed, the authors had refrained from doing so as they did not possess the financial means to afford the expenses related to the proceedings before a regular court. Moreover, it was the practice of the regular courts to reject claims for non-pecuniary damage concerning harm suffered during the war, as they applied a statute of limitations of subjective three years and objective five years. Therefore, in practice, the authors did not have an effective remedy through which to obtain compensation for the non-pecuniary damage that they had suffered. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 With regard to the authors’ claim of a violation of article 26, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, the Committee notes the authors’ allegation, related to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, that their appeal against the dismissal by the State Attorney’s Office of the Republika Srpska of their requests for compensation under the Law on Compensation (see para. 2.14 above) was rejected by the Ministry of Justice of the Republika Srpska on 30 June 2011; that although this decision could be appealed, they refrained from doing so as they did not possess the financial means to afford the expenses related to the proceedings; and that, in any event, it is not an effective remedy, since in practice regular courts reject these requests, applying a statute of limitations. The Committee recalls, however, that ordinarily financial considerations and unsubstantiated doubts about the effectiveness of domestic remedies do not absolve the authors from 13