CCPR/C/114/D/2143/2012 2.12 Ms. Dovadžija also applied to the Human Rights Commission within the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, claiming violation of articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as articles II (3) (b) and (f) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Constitutional Court decided to combine several applications submitted by relatives of missing persons, and dealt with them as one collective case. 2.13 On 16 July 2007, the Constitutional Court decided that the applicants of the collective case were exempt from exhausting domestic remedies before ordinary courts, as “no specialized institution on enforced disappearance in Bosnia and Herzegovina seems to be operating effectively”.6 The Court found a violation of articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention because of the lack of information on the fate of the disappeared relatives of the applicants, including Mr. Dovadžija. The Court ordered the authorities concerned to provide “all accessible and available information on members of the applicants’ families who went missing during the war … urgently and without further delay and no later than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the decision”. The Court also ordered the authorities to ensure the operational functioning of the institutions established in accordance with the Law on Missing Persons, namely the Missing Persons Institute, the Fund for Support to the Families of Missing Persons of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Central Records of Missing Persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, immediately and without further delay, and no later than 30 days from the date of the court order. The competent authorities were requested to submit information within six months to the Constitutional Court about the measures taken to implement the decision. 2.14 The Constitutional Court did not address the issue of compensation, considering that it was covered by the provisions of the Law on Missing Persons concerning financial support and by the establishment of the Fund for Support to the Families of Missing Persons of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, the authors argue that the provisions on financial support have not been implemented and that the Fund has not been established. 2.15 In the present case, although the deadlines established by the Constitutional Court have expired and the relevant authorities have failed to enforce the Court’s decision, it has not adopted any ruling to establish that the authorities actually failed to enforce its decision under article 74.6 of its rules of procedure. 2.16 On 17 October 2011, Ms. Dovadžija wrote to the Constitutional Court pointing out that four years had elapsed since the judgement concerning her husband’s case and that the relevant institutions had failed to implement it. She called on the Court to adopt a ruling under article 74.6 of its rules of procedure. On 31 October 2011, she received a letter from the Court informing her that on 27 March 2009 it had adopted “information” stating that its decision was considered to have been enforced. 2.17 The Constitutional Court ruling of 27 March 2009 is final and binding. The authors therefore have no other effective remedy to exhaust. Although the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina have been aware of Mr. Dovadžija’s enforced disappearance since 1992, no one has been identified, judged and punished for the crimes concerned. In the spring of 2009, Ms. Dovadžija requested a meeting with a representative of the Cantonal Prosecutor’s Office of Sarajevo. She reported her husband’s enforced disappearance once again and called for a prompt and thorough investigation. She was never contacted by the Prosecutor’s Office. On 18 October 2011, she wrote a letter to the Prosecutor’s Office requesting information on the steps that had been taken to investigate her husband’s case. 6 The authors refer to the Constitutional Court judgement in the case of M.H. and others (case No. AP129/04), 27 May 2005, paras. 37-40. Reference is made to that case in the judgement in the case of Fatima Hasić and others (case No. AP 95/07), 29 May 2008. 5