CCPR/C/112/D/1970/2010 any further delay, and requesting to be kept regularly informed about the status and results of the identification process. No formal reply had been received as of the date of the authors’ submission. The authors further recall that their access to a pension depends upon their recognizing their missing relative as dead, causing them additional suffering, and which they characterize as amounting to a violation of article 7, read both alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 7.4 The authors reiterate that no investigation has been initiated by the State party into the illegal detention, enforced disappearance and possible arbitrary execution of Ramiz Kožljak, his remains have not been located and returned to his family, nor have the authors received any compensation for the harm suffered. They observe that the judgement, issued on 15 December 2006 by the State Court of Bosnia Herzegovina regarding other crimes against humanity committed in the vicinity of Vogošća, cannot be considered as a verdict applicable to the enforced disappearance of Ramiz Kožljak, because the defendant was never charged or convicted for crimes committed in Tihovići. The authors further argue that the ongoing criminal proceedings against another defendant cannot be considered relevant in their case, insofar as they have not been formally notified of any charge against that defendant for the crimes committed in Tihovići and, to date, no one has been investigated, judged or sanctioned for those crimes. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and that the authors have exhausted all available domestic remedies. 8.3 With regard to the authors’ allegations under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, with regard to the request that they declare Ramiz Kožljak dead as part of the application for a pension, the Committee notes the authors’ statements that a pension was in fact granted to Emina Kožljak, despite the absence of such a declaration, and that she had been receiving similar assistance since 1993. The Committee considers that the authors’ allegations in that respect are insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and thus inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 The Committee notes that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication and that the authors’ other allegations regarding violations of articles 6, 7, 9 and 16, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, and article 7, read alone, have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. The Committee therefore declares those claims admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the case in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The authors claim that Ramiz Kožljak has been a victim of enforced disappearance since his presumed illegal arrest by the JNA on 4 July 1992, and that despite the numerous 11