CCPR/C/115/D/2048/2011 executed by VRS members and his mortal remains were subsequently removed and concealed. 3.2 In spite of their efforts, the authors have not received any relevant information concerning the location of Ermin Kadirić’s mortal remains. Although the authors reported the events to the relevant State party authorities, no ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been carried out into these crimes and the location of Ermin Kadirić’s body remains unknown. His mortal remains have not been located and returned to his family, and no one has been prosecuted, judged or sanctioned for the crimes concerned. 3.3 The authors argue that the State party is responsible for investigating all cases of enforced disappearance and providing information on the whereabouts of missing persons. In this respect, they refer to a report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances in which it is stated that the primary responsibility for carrying out these tasks remains with the authorities under whose jurisdiction a suspected mass grave falls. 10 They further argue that the State party has an obligation to conduct an ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation of gross human rights violations, such as enforced disappearances, torture or arbitrary killings. The obligation to conduct an investigation also applies in cases of killings or other acts affecting the enjoyment of human rights that are not imputable to the State. In such cases, the obligation to investigate arises from the duty of the State to protect all individuals under its jurisdiction from acts committed by private persons or groups of persons that may impede the enjoyment of their human rights.11 3.4 The authors refer to the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which a State party should investigate thoroughly cases of missing and disappeared persons in circumstances that may involve a violation of the right to life and to criminally prosecute, try and punish those deemed responsible for such violations. In Ermin Kadirić’s case, the failure of the State party to conduct an effective and thorough investigation (see paras. 3.1 and 3.2 above) amounts to a violation of his right to life, in breach of article 6, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 3.5 The authors submit that enforced disappearance constitutes, in itself, a form of torture.12 The State is under an ongoing obligation to thoroughly investigate all allegations of torture and to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. In cases involving massacres or arbitrary killings, it is appropriate to presume a violation of the prohibition of torture and other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment and to shift the burden of proof to the State concerned. In Ermin Kadirić’s case, before being extrajudicially killed, he was subjected to merciless treatment over a number of hours, undergoing all types of indignities and severe ill-treatment (see para. 2.2 above). The authors consider that, during that period, Ermin Kadirić would have experienced feelings of deep frustration, anguish and suffering, as he must have feared his imminent execution, while he was being beaten and humiliated. 10 11 12 See E/CN.4/1996/36, para. 78. See the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 8. See also Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Chitay Nech and others v. Guatemala, judgement of 25 May 2010, Series C No. 212, para. 89, and Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, judgement of 29 July 1988, Series C No. 4, para. 172; and European Court of Human Rights, Demiray v. Turkey, application No. 27308/95, judgement of 21 November 2000, para. 50, Tanrikulu v. Turkey, application No. 23763/94, judgement of 8 July 1999, para. 103, and Ergi v. Turkey, application No. 23818/94, judgement of 28 July 1998, para. 82. See communications No. 449/1991, Mojica v. Dominican Republic, Views adopted on 10 August 1994, para. 5.7; No. 1327/2004, Grioua v. Algeria, Views adopted on 16 August 2007, para. 7.6; No. 1495/2006, Madoui v. Algeria, Views adopted on 1 December 2008, para. 7.4. 7