CCPR/C/112/D/1970/2010 3.2 The authors consider that the responsibility for shedding light on the fate of their missing husband and father lies with the State party. They refer to the report of an expert of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, in which he states that the primary responsibility for carrying out those tasks remains with the authorities under whose jurisdiction a suspected mass grave falls (E/CN.4/1996/36, para. 78). The authors further argue that the State party has an obligation to conduct a prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation into gross human rights violations, such as enforced disappearances, torture or arbitrary killings. In general, the obligation to conduct an investigation 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 to investigate 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 their human rights. 8 In the present case, Ramiz Kožljak was last seen in an area under the control of the JNA and he is inscribed in a list containing the names of those who were captured and arbitrarily executed by members of the JNA on 4 July 1992 in Tihovići. Despite the complaints promptly filed by Emina Kožljak with the local authorities and the Red Cross, no ex officio, prompt, thorough, impartial, independent and effective investigation has been carried out in order to locate Ramiz Kožljak and clarify his fate and whereabouts, and to date no one has been summoned, indicted, judged or convicted for the crimes concerned. 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. 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, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. Ramiz Kožljak was last seen in an area under the control of members of the JNA, where enforced disappearances are known to have occurred in a systematic manner, and since then he has remained unaccounted for. Although there are reasons to believe that he has been arbitrarily executed, his mortal remains still have not been located, exhumed, identified and returned to his family. 3.4 The authors further submit that their missing husband and father was illegally detained by members of the JNA. They consider that the mere fact that Ramiz Kožljak was last seen in the hands of State agents known to have committed several other acts of torture and arbitrary killings, concretely exposed him to a grave risk of suffering violations of his right to personal integrity. The authors further refer to the jurisprudence of the Committee, according to which enforced disappearance constitutes in itself a form of torture, on which no ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has yet been carried out by the State party in order to identify, prosecute, judge and sanction those responsible.9 The authors therefore consider that this amounts to a continuing violation of the State party’s positive procedural obligations under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 8 9 6 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, Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, judgement of 29 July 1988, series C, No. 4, para. 172; and European Court of Human Rights, Demiray v. Turkey, application No. 27308/95, judgement of 21 November 2000, para. 50; Tanrikulu v. Turkey, application No. 23763/94, judgement of 8 July 1999, para. 103; and Ergi v. Turkey, application No. 23818/94, judgement of 28 July 1998, para. 82. 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, Basilio Laureano Atachahua v. Peru, Views adopted on 25 March 1996, para. 8.5.