CCPR/C/113/D/2022/2011 contact Mr. Hamulić’s relatives in the future in order to provide further information on his case. Additional information submitted by the authors 7.1 On 9 September 2011, the authors provided additional information to the Committee. The authors considered that the State party’s further observations do not provide any substantive information concerning the admissibility and merits of their communication. Furthermore, its observations show that the State party’s authorities do not have any relevant information that may contribute to clarifying Mr. Hamulić’s fate and whereabouts or to provide meaningful indications with regard to the steps taken by them to fulfil the obligations contained in the Covenant. On the contrary, the authorities recognize the existence of serious shortcomings, for instance, in the process of identifying, investigating, judging and prosecuting those responsible for his disappearance. 7.2 The authors reiterate their comments as to the lack of implementation of the Law on Missing Persons, although it entered into force on 17 November 2004. As at the time of submitting the additional information to the Committee, the Fund had not yet been established. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and that the authors have exhausted all available domestic remedies. 8.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication and considers that the authors’ allegations regarding violations of Mr. Hamulić’s rights under articles 6, 7, 9 and 16, read in conjunction with article 2(3), as well as violations of the authors’ rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. The Committee therefore declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the case in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee takes note of the authors’ claims that on 20 July 1992 Mr. Hamulić escaped in the woods surrounding Hambarine, where he was last seen alive; that this area was under control of the National Yugoslav Army and paramilitary groups that were perpetrating acts of ethnic cleansing; that the disappearance occurred within the context of a widespread and systematic attack directed against the civilian population; and that, against this background, it is reasonable to presume that in July 1992 Mr. Hamulić was subjected to enforced disappearance by Army forces. No ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been carried out by the State party to clarify Mr. Hamulić fate and whereabouts and to bring the perpetrators to justice. In this respect, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, according to which failure by a State party to 11