CCPR/C/119/D/2206/2012 of efficiency, impartiality and independence and that the Office fully respects the right of victims to be informed about measures taken in the case. 4.4 In a letter dated 12 March 2013, the Office for Cooperation and Representation of the government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina before the Constitutional Court provides information on the actions taken by the authorities of the Federation in order to comply with the order of the Constitutional Court of 13 July 2005. The Office notes that, pursuant to the order of the Court, the Commission for Missing Persons gave the applicants the information available on the case. It also notes that, pursuant to the order of the Court, and as prescribed in the Law on Missing Persons, the Missing Persons Institute became operational on 1 January 2008, following which a central record of missing persons was established. The Office however acknowledges that the Fund for Support to the Families of Missing Persons has not yet been made operational. 4.5 In a letter dated 4 March 2013, the Missing Persons Institute of Bosnia and Herzegovina notes that Mrs. Lale went missing on 2 August 1992 and that Mrs. Popović went missing on 30 July 1992 and that they are recorded as such in the databases of ICRC, the International Commission for Missing Persons, the Operational Team of the Republika Srpska and the Missing Persons Institute of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Institute further notes that it has taken all action available to find Mrs. Lale and Mrs. Popović and has, to that end, cooperated with the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina and with the entity Ministries of Justice and the Interior, the Cantonal Ministries of the Interior, Centres for Public Security of the Republika Srpska and with security agencies. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 3 July 2013, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations. They note that the State party does not object to the admissibility of the communication or dispute any of the alleged facts and does not challenge the alleged ongoing violation of their rights under article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 7, 17 and 23 (1), of the Covenant. 5.2 The authors note that, at the time of submitting their communication, more than 20 years had passed since the disappearance of their mothers. They further argue that they have been submitting detailed information about the case to relevant authorities since 2001, including the identity of the alleged perpetrators. Nonetheless, little or no progress has been made in the investigation and no information has been made accessible to them. The whereabouts of their mothers remain unknown and no one has been prosecuted or sanctioned for their disappearance. They express their concern that even if the seven-year deadline referred to in the National War Crimes Prosecution Strategy is applied in their case, it would still entail waiting over 23 years in order for the case to be concluded and the perpetrators brought to justice. They argue that such a long delay does not meet the standards of promptness and effectiveness that shall characterize an investigation into gross human rights violations. 5.3 The authors argue that the information provided by the Prosecutor’s Office on the investigation into the fate of their mothers does not meet the standards required of an effective investigation. They submit that an investigation concerning human rights violations must be carried out ex officio by the State party. They note that the State party has been aware since 1993 of the crimes committed in the Trnovo area and the disappearance of their mothers. However, the State party did not open an investigation into the events or conduct an official inquiry into the events prior to 2001, when they filed their criminal complaint. The authors further note that only Mrs. Popović is listed as a victim in the ongoing case before the Prosecutor’s Office and that, even though they have submitted several complaints about the disappearance of Mrs. Lale, she is not listed as a victim in the case. 5.4 While noting the Prosecutor’s Office statement in its letter that it respects the rights of the victims to be informed about the measures taken in the investigation of the case of their mothers, the authors submit that they have not had access to any information in that regard, despite their continuous inquiries. 9