CCPR/C/112/D/1970/2010 efforts of his family, no prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been carried out by the State party to clarify the victim’s fate and whereabouts and bring the perpetrators to justice. In that respect, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, according to which a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations and bring to justice perpetrators of certain violations (notably torture and similar cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, summary and arbitrary killings and enforced disappearances) could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. 9.3 The authors do not allege that the State party was directly responsible for the enforced disappearance of their husband and father. Indeed, the authors allege that he was last seen in a portion of the State party’s territory controlled by the armed forces of a foreign State, which did not recognize the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina. What happened thereafter is uncertain, and the authors also allege that other paramilitary forces hostile to the State party were active in the vicinity. The Committee observes that the term “enforced disappearance” may be used in an extended sense, referring to disappearances initiated by forces independent of or hostile to a State party, in addition to disappearances attributable to a State party.14 The Committee also notes that the State party does not contest the characterization of the events as an enforced disappearance. 9.4 The Committee notes the State party’s information that it has made considerable efforts at the general level, in view of the more than 30,000 cases of enforced disappearance that occurred during the conflict. Notably, the Constitutional Court has established that the authorities are responsible for the investigation of the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives, including Ramiz Kožljak (see para. 2.10 above); and domestic mechanisms have been set up to deal with enforced disappearances and other war crimes cases (see paragraph 4.2 above). 9.5 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which the obligation to investigate allegations of enforced disappearances and to bring the culprits to justice is not an obligation of result, but of means, and that it must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities. 15 The Committee further recognizes the particular difficulties that a State party may face in investigating crimes that may have been committed on its territory by the hostile forces of a foreign State. Therefore, while acknowledging the gravity of the disappearances and the suffering of the authors, because the fate or whereabouts of their missing husband and father has not yet been clarified and the culprits have not yet been brought to justice, that in itself is not sufficient to find a breach of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant in the particular circumstances of the present communication 9.6 That being said, the authors claim that, at the time they filed their communication, nearly 18 years since their missing husband and father was last seen, in an area where enforced disappearances are known to have occurred in a systematic manner, and more than 3 years after the judgement of the Constitutional Court, the investigative authorities had not contacted them for information regarding the disappearance of Ramiz Kožljak. In February 14 15 12 Compare article 7, paragraph 2 (i), of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (defining enforced disappearance as including disappearances conducted by a political organization), with articles 2 and 3 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (distinguishing between enforced disappearances conducted by States or by persons or groups acting with their authorization, support or acquiescence, and similar acts conducted by persons or groups acting without such authorization, support or acquiescence); and see communication No. 1956/2010, Durić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Views adopted on 16 July 2014, para. 9.3. See communication No. 1997/2010, Rizvanović v. Bosnia Herzegovina, Views adopted on 21 March 2014, para. 9.5.