CCPR/C/113/D/2022/2011 feedback. In this regard, the authors reiterate that relatives of victims of enforced disappearance should be closely involved in the investigations. In particular, they should be regularly given information on the process of the investigations and their results, and on whether trials might forthcoming.14 5.4 The authors consider that the implementation of the national strategy for war crimes has been deficient and cannot be used by the State party as a sufficient response concerning the lack of information on the progress and results of the investigations carried out, nor can it justify the inactivity of the authorities concerned. The authors further argue that the adoption of a transitional justice strategy cannot replace access to justice and redress for the victims of gross human rights violations and their relatives. 5.5 In the light of the State party’s reference to the Law on Missing Persons, the authors reiterate that several years after its entry into force some of its crucial provisions, including those concerning the establishment of the Fund, have not been implemented. Furthermore, a number of international institutions have noted that the establishment of the Fund would not be enough to guarantee integral reparation to relatives of missing persons.15 State party’s additional observations on admissibility and merits 6.1 On 4 July and on 11 and 17 August 2011, the State party submitted additional information and reiterated its observations, highlighting the efforts made to determine the fate and whereabouts of all missing persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including in the municipality of Prijedor. Its capacities, however, are still inadequate to dispose of all pending cases in a short period of time. The State party further stated that no relevant developments had occurred in the case of Mr. Hamulić. The Office of the Attorney General of Republika Srpska reported that the Prijedor Office of the Deputy Attorney General had not registered any case concerning his case and the authors’ claims. Likewise, the Prosecutor Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina pointed out that its records of war crimes cases contained no case regarding Mr. Hamulić’s disappearance. Nor was his name registered as victim. 6.2 As regards the argument of the authors that they have received no information about the status of the case of Mr. Hamulić, the State party notes that the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina set up a central database of all pending war crimes cases provided for in the national war crimes prosecution strategy. 6.3 The State party informs that the Law on Establishing and the Manner of Settling of Internal Debt of the Republika Srpska16 establishes courts’ and other authorities’ competence and regulates the proceedings for granting compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in cases of disappeared persons. In addition, the government of the Republika Srpska has taken measures to accelerate the process of tracing missing persons. 6.4 By a letter dated 7 July 2011, the Missing Persons Institute reported that it was making efforts to trace missing persons in the territory of Bosnian Krajina and that it would 14 15 16 10 The authors refer to the general comment of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on the right to the truth in relation to enforced disappearance, para 3, and the report of the Working Group on its mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina (see A/HRC/16/48/Add.1, paras. 34 and 63-64). The authors refer to the concluding observations on Bosnia and Herzegovina of the Committee against Torture (see CAT/C/BIH/CO/2-5, para.18) and the report of Working Group on its mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina (see A/HRC/16/48/Add.1, paras. 39-48). Name of the Act as provided by the State party.