CCPR/C/114/D/2143/2012 concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of articles 6, 7 and 9 read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant with regard to Mr. Dovadžija. 11.7 The Committee observes that the information with which the authorities have provided the authors concerning Mr. Dovadžija’s case has been extremely limited and general. The Committee considers that authorities investigating enforced disappearances must give victims’ families a timely opportunity to contribute their knowledge to the investigation, and that information regarding the progress of the investigation must be made accessible to the families promptly. It also takes note of the anguish and distress caused to the authors by the continuing uncertainty resulting from the disappearance of their husband and father. 11.8 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that they have been victims of revictimization throughout the 20 years of their struggle to clarify the fate and whereabouts of their husband and father. In this connection, the Committee notes various examples: (a) at the time of the first exhumations carried out in 1996 in Žuč, Sakiba Dovadžija was convinced that she had identified one of the bodies as being her husband’s, however, the authorities did not take into account her request to have it properly identified using reliable technical methods, because the same body had supposedly been identified previously by another person (see para. 2.9 above); (b) even though she reiterated on various occasions her availability to do so, Sakiba Dovadžija was never called by State authorities to provide additional information on the disappearance of her husband, and the information she provided in connection with the investigation of Trifko Radić’s case (see para. 2.18 above) was never followed up; and (c) the authorities of the State party in charge of determining the victims’ entitlements to monthly pensions19 concluded on two occasions that Mr. Dovadžija had deserted the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, without providing any evidence to that effect (see paras. 8.1 and 9.1 above). The Committee notes that Ms. Dovadžija’s claim for a monthly allowance was rejected on the basis of that conclusion, which was never corroborated. On the contrary, the Committee notes that the conclusion is contradicted by various pieces of evidence attesting that Mr. Dovadžija was captured by the Vojska Republike Srpske and disappeared in that context (see the confidential document of the army attesting that Mr. Dovadžija had been captured by the Vojska Republike Srpske (para. 2.5 above) and the testimonies of two eyewitnesses (para. 2.7 above)). The Committee considers that those revictimizing circumstances, together with the lack of information as to the fate and whereabouts of Mr. Dovadžija, amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant with respect to the authors. 11.9 In the light of the above findings, the Committee will not examine separately the authors’ allegations under articles 10, 16, 17, 23 (1) and 24 (1) read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant.20 12. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, is of the view that the State party has violated articles 6, 7 and 9 read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant with regard to Mr. Dovadžija, and article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), with regard to the authors. 13. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with effective remedy, including by: (a) intensifying its investigations to establish the fate or whereabouts of Mr. Dovadžija, as required by the Law 19 20 16 The Department for Veterans and People with Disabilities, Social Welfare and Displaced Persons of Illijaš Municipality. See Rizvanović and Rizvanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, communication No. 1997/2010, Views adopted on 21 March 2014, para. 9.7.