CCPR/C/115/D/2048/2011 2.14 On 14 December 2010, Dino Kadirić sent a letter to MPI and the Republika Srpska Operative Team for Tracing Missing Persons requesting information as to the measures they had adopted to date to implement the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 May 2008. On the same day, he also applied to the Constitutional Court and requested it to adopt a ruling establishing that the authorities had failed to enforce its decision of 13 May 2008 pursuant to article 74.6 of its rules of procedure. Nevertheless, as at the time of submitting the communication to the Committee, the authors had not received any reply from the Court or the other entities, and no action had been taken by the authorities. 2.15 As to the requirement under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the authors argue that there was no effective remedy and that the Constitutional Court itself admitted that Dino Kadirić and the other applicants “did not have at their disposal an effective and adequate remedy to protect their rights”.9 In the light of article VI (4) of the State party’s Constitution, the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 May 2008 must be considered final and binding. Therefore, they do not have any other effective remedy to exhaust. With regard to Ms. Kadirić, they argue that, although she did not formally file an application with the Constitutional Court, she initially submitted several requests to the competent national authorities. Since Dino Kadirić had turned 18 years old and was residing in the State party at the time, he and his family decided that he would be the one to submit the application to this Court. They claim that Ms. Kadirić could not be reasonably requested to duplicate the proceedings already undergone by her son and that, as established by the Constitutional Court, no effective remedy was available. 2.16 On the admissibility of the communication ratione temporis, the authors submit that, even though the events took place before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party, when the mortal remains of the alleged victims of an extrajudicial killing or a massacre have not been found, exhumed, identified and returned to their families, the alleged victims are qualified as “disappeared” or “missing” and the State maintains certain ongoing obligations. In the present case, Ermin Kadirić was arbitrarily deprived of his liberty, ill-treated and arbitrarily executed by VRS members and his mortal remains were subsequently removed and concealed. Those remains have not been located and returned to his family and, thus, his whereabouts have not been ascertained to date. Domestic authorities, including the Constitutional Court, have qualified Ermin Kadirić as a missing person. Finally, the authorities have not implemented the decision of the Constitutional Court of 13 May 2008 and the Prosecutor’s Office has not undertaken any measure to sanction those responsible for that failure. The complaint 3.1 The authors submit that the State party has failed to determine and disclose the whereabouts of Ermin Kadirić’s mortal remains, who therefore remains a “missing” person. The State party remains under an ongoing obligation to locate, exhume, identify and return his mortal remains to the family, as well as to prosecute and sanction those responsible for the crimes concerned. The authors maintain that, while the whereabouts of missing persons have not been determined or their remains duly found, the situation is to be considered to be an enforced disappearance. They claim that an enforced disappearance comprises a number of offences and that, in Ermin Kadirić’s case, it amounts to a violation of articles 6, 7, 9 and 16, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. They point out that Ermin Kadirić’s whereabouts have been unknown since 20 July 1992 and that his disappearance occurred within the context of a widespread and systematic attack directed against the civilian population. He was arbitrarily deprived of his liberty, ill-treated and arbitrarily 9 6 The authors refer to the Constitutional Court’s ruling concerning case M.H. and others, para. 37.