CCPR/C/119/D/2206/2012 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that they have exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to them. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 The Committee notes that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication and that the authors’ allegations regarding violations of articles 6, 7, 17 and 23 (1), read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. 6.5 All admissibility criteria having been met, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee takes note of the authors’ claim that, on 2 August 1992, Bosnian soldiers set on fire the building in which Mrs. Lale and Mrs. Popović had sought refuge. The Committee further notes the authors’ claim that, according to an eyewitness, Mrs. Lale and Mrs. Popović were inside the building just before it was set on fire, that on the following day no bodies were found inside the building and that Mrs. Lale’s and Mrs. Popović’s fate and whereabouts remain unknown since. The Committee also notes the authors’ argument that, against this background, it is reasonable to presume that Mrs. Lale and Mrs. Popović went missing in life-threatening circumstances on 2 August 1992. The Committee notes the authors’ argument that no ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been carried out by the State party to clarify Mrs. Lale’s and Mrs. Popović’s fate and whereabouts and to bring the perpetrators to justice. In this respect, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004), according to which a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations and to bring to justice perpetrators of certain violations — notably torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, summary and arbitrary killings and enforced disappearances — could give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant.9 The Committee considers that the authorities investigating violations such as summary and arbitrary killings and enforced disappearances must be diligent so as to ensure the effectiveness of the investigation and must give the families a timely opportunity to contribute their knowledge to the investigation. Information regarding the progress of the investigation must be made promptly accessible to the families. 7.3 The Committee notes that the authors’ claim that the State party is under an ongoing obligation to locate, exhume, identify and return the victim’s mortal remains to the family and to identify, prosecute and sanction those responsible for the crimes. In that connection, the Committee recognizes the difficulties that a State party may face in investigating crimes that may have been committed on its territory during a complex armed conflict in which multiple forces were involved. Therefore, while acknowledging the gravity of the alleged crimes and the suffering of the authors because the location of the remains of their missing mothers has not yet been clarified and the culprits have not yet been brought to justice, that 9 10 See general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, adopted on 29 March 2004, paras. 8, 15 and 18.