CCPR/C/117/D/2100/2011 addition, nine judicial orders were sent to Turkey, four judicial orders were sent to Ukraine and one investigation order was sent to Romania with a view to gathering information. 4.6 The Criminal Procedure Code demands that an investigation be carried out to ascertain all possible ways in which the ship could have sunk and the fate of the seamen on board. The speculations of the author about the shipwreck, however, go far beyond the facts collected during the investigation. To date, it has not been ascertained what exactly happened during the shipwreck, which is why the authorities are unable to make a final determination on the matter. 4.7 The State party also submits that the shipwreck occurred in Turkish territorial waters, making it impossible for the Bulgarian investigation team to collect evidence directly or independently. The Bulgarian authorities, for example, requested two additional underwater “inquests” of the sunken ship by Bulgarian experts, but those requests were denied by the Turkish authorities. 4.8 It is undeniable that the author, his wife and the relatives of the remaining 13 seamen are experiencing pain and suffering as a consequence of the shipwreck. The incident is in fact a human tragedy. The author’s claims cannot be brought forward under article 7 of the Convention, however, as there is no causal link between unquestionable pain and suffering and the actions of the State party. The claims should, therefore, be considered “invalid”. Moreover, the author has been fully informed about the steps that were carried out in the process of the investigation. 4.9 Furthermore, concerning the claims related to article 9 of the Covenant, all arguments about biased conduct of the investigation are “unfounded”. Not a single piece of evidence was collected in the course of the investigation to support the author’s allegations in connection with the sinking of the Hera. Article 9, in general, is irrelevant here, as it concerns of the rights of a detained person. 4.10 Regarding the effectiveness of the investigation, it was determined by the order of the City Court of Sofia dated 4 June 2010 that the proceedings were “objective, comprehensive and complete”. It cannot be accepted that this judicial order violated anyone’s rights. It is also established that private individuals cannot carry out official investigations; these must be carried out by the authorized State agencies. It is also not clear what preventive steps should have taken by the Bulgarian authorities, considering that the ship was owned by a company from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, was sailing under a Cambodian flag and was en route from Mariupol, Ukraine, to the Turkish port of Gebze. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 The author, responding to the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits, reiterates his allegations of violations of the Covenant. He stresses that the Turkish military forces abducted 14 seamen from the Hera and that both Bulgaria and Turkey refuse to acknowledge this fact and to disclose the fate of the seamen. 5.2 The author claims that he has exhausted all domestic remedies and that the procedure he has undergone so far can be qualified as “unreasonably prolonged, ineffective” or otherwise unavailable to him. There are no indications that the State party’s authorities have any intention to reopen the investigation, which has been suspended. 5.3 Article 2 (2) and (3) of the Covenant requires States parties to take the steps necessary to adopt such laws and measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights enshrined in the Covenant. The authorities of the State party have rejected the author’s view that there are “sufficient grounds to believe that grave crimes have been committed during the sinking” of the Hera. The State party failed to initiate a thorough inquiry into the allegations; it alone has access to all the relevant information. The State party failed to 4