CCPR/C/114/D/2143/2012 violations, such as enforced disappearances, torture or arbitrary killings. The obligation to investigate also applies in cases of killings, or other acts affecting the enjoyment of human rights, that are not imputable to the State. In those cases, the obligation arises from the duty of the State to protect all individuals under its jurisdiction from acts committed by private persons, or groups of persons, which may impede the enjoyment of the human rights of those individuals.9 3.3 With regard to article 6 of the Covenant, the authors refer to the Committee’s jurisprudence according to which a State party has a primary duty to take appropriate measures to protect the life of a person.10 In cases of enforced disappearance, the State party has an obligation to investigate and bring perpetrators to justice. By not doing so, the State party continues to violate its positive procedural obligations under article 6, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. Mr. Dovadžija was last seen in lifethreatening circumstances in the hands of the Vojska Republike Srpske, and since then he has remained unaccounted for. Although there are reasons to believe that he has been arbitrarily executed, his mortal remains have still not been identified and returned to his family. Despite the complaints promptly filed by Ms. Dovadžija, no ex officio, prompt, thorough, impartial, independent and effective investigation has been carried out in order to locate Mr. Dovadžija and clarify his fate and whereabouts, and to date no one has been summoned, indicted, judged or convicted for the crimes concerned. 3.4 The authors submit that their missing husband and father was subjected to treatment contrary to article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, and the State party’s authorities failed to carry out an ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation and to identify, prosecute and sanction those responsible. The authors refer to the jurisprudence of the Committee according to which enforced disappearance constitutes in itself a form of torture. 11 They therefore consider that Mr. Dovadžija’s disappearance amounts to treatment contrary to article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 3.5 The authors argue that Mr. Dovadžija was also a victim of violations of his rights under article 9 of the Covenant. Given the circumstances of his disappearance (see para. 3.1 above), it is reasonable to presume that he was captured by members of the Vojska Republike Srpske in August 2012 and, according to eyewitnesses, he was held in the detention camps of Podlugovi and Planinja Kuća in Semizovac, as well as at the front line in Žuć. However, his detention was not entered on any official record or register and his relatives have never seen him again. He was never charged with a crime, nor was he brought before a judge or any other official authorized by law to exercise judicial power. He was unable to bring proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness of his 9 10 11 The authors refer to 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; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Chitay Nech and others v. Guatemala, judgement of 25 May 2010, Series C No. 212, para. 89; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, judgement of 29 July 1988, Series C No. 4, para. 172; European Court of Human Rights, Demiray v. Turkey, Application No. 27308/95, judgement of 21 November 2000, para. 50; European Court of Human Rights, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey, Application No. 23763/94, judgement of 8 July 1999, para. 103; and European Court of Human Rights, Ergi v. Turkey, Application no. 23818/94, judgement of 28 July 1998, para. 82. See communication No. 84/1981, Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 21 October 1982, para. 10. See communications No. 449/1991, Mojica v. Dominican Republic, Views adopted on 15 July 1994, para. 5.7; No. 1327/2004, Grioua v. Algeria, Views adopted on 10 July 2007, para. 7.6; and No. 540/1993, Laureano Atachahua v. Peru, Views adopted on 25 March 1996, para. 8.5. 7