CCPR/C/119/D/2206/2012 2.23 On the admissibility of the communication ratione temporis, the authors note that Mrs. Lale and Mrs. Popović went missing before the Optional Protocol entered into force in the State party. They submit, however, that from both the general context and the particular circumstances of the case, it can be inferred that they were subjected to an irreparable and arbitrary violation of their personal integrity and life and that, in such cases of alleged arbitrary killings or executions of missing persons, the appropriate legal analysis for the purpose of competence ratione temporis is that, mutatis mutandis, of enforced disappearance cases. The authors also argue the various violations of the State’s procedural obligations have continued since 1992 and after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party. 2.24 In reference to article 96 (c) of the rules of procedures of the Committee, the authors argue that their communication does not constitute an abuse of rights as the investigations on the fate or whereabouts of their mothers are still ongoing. They argue that the existence of a series of procedures at the domestic level have kept alive the hope of progress being made for thousands of relatives of victims, including the authors in the present case. Eventually, however, the ongoing situation of impunity and the failure to establish the truth on the fate and whereabouts of Mrs. Lale and Mrs. Popović have convinced the authors of the necessity to send a communication to the Human Rights Committee. The complaint 3.1 The authors claim a violation by Bosnia and Herzegovina of article 6, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant in respect of Mrs. Lale and Mrs. Popović. They also claim that they are themselves victims of a violation of their rights under articles 7, 17 and 23 (1), read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 3.2 As regards the alleged violation of article 6, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant in respect of Mrs. Lale and Mrs. Popović, the authors argue that the fact that when the victims were last seen they were being approached by Bosnian soldiers in lifethreatening conditions prompts the conclusion that they were placed in a situation of grave risk to suffer irreparable damages to their personal integrity and life. The authors submit that the State party has an obligation to conduct an ex officio prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation into gross human rights violations, such as enforced disappearances, torture or arbitrary killings. They note that 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 that may impede the enjoyment of the human rights of those individuals. 7 The authors also 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.8 The authors note that, at the time of submitting their communication, Mrs. Lale and Mrs. Popović had been missing for over 20 years and had gone missing while they were in a vulnerable situation as old women fleeing a conflict where violations to the right to life were committed by all parties. The authors note that Mrs. Lale and Mrs. Popović were Bosnian nationals of Serb ethnicity and therefore seen as part of a group opposing the Bosnian army. 3.3 The authors submit that they have promptly and incessantly requested the competent national authorities to establish the whereabouts of Mrs. Lale and Mrs. Popović and to prosecute, judge and sanction those responsible. However, their efforts have been 7 8 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, Chitay Nech and others v. Guatemala, judgment of 25 May 2010, Series C No. 212, para. 92; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, judgment of 29 July 1988, Series C No. 4, para. 172; European Court of Human Rights, Demiray v. Turkey, Application No. 27308/95, judgment of 21 November 2000, para. 50; European Court of Human Rights, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey, Application No. 23763/94, judgment of 8 July 1999, para. 103; and European Court of Human Rights, Ergi v. Turkey, Application no. 23818/94, judgment of 28 July 1998, para. 82. See communication No. 84/1981, Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 21 October 1982, para. 10.