CCPR/C/113/D/2022/2011 perpetrators themselves, ICRC, prisoners and family members, among other sources. The authors claim that although the authorities were aware of Mr. Hamulić’s disappearance and had access to relevant information, no ex officio, prompt, thorough, impartial, independent and effective investigation was carried out in order to locate him, to make known his fate and whereabouts and, should he have died, to locate, exhume, identify and return to his family his mortal remains. 2.7 On 19 November 2007, Ms. Hamulić requested from the Administrative Service of the Department for Veterans and Protection of the Disabled in Prijedor a disability pension pursuant to article 25 of the Law on the Protection of Civilian Victims of War and article 190 of the Law on Administrative Procedure, on the basis of the death of her son Mustafa and the disappearance of her other son Husein. 2.8 On 4 March 2008, Ms. Hamulić applied to the Human Rights Commission of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, claiming violation of articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as articles II.3 (b) and (f) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Constitutional Court decided to join together several applications submitted by relatives of missing persons, and therefore dealt with them as one collective case. 2.9 On 13 May 2008, the Constitutional Court adopted a decision in which it concluded that the applicants of the collective case were relieved from exhausting domestic remedies before ordinary courts, as “no specialized institution on enforced disappearance in Bosnia and Herzegovina seems to be operating effectively”.4 The Court further found a violation of articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention, because of the lack of information on the fate of the disappeared relatives of the applicants, including the fate of Husein Hamulić. The Court ordered the Bosnian authorities concerned to provide “all accessible and available information on members of the applicants’ families who went missing during the war, urgently and without further delay and no later than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the decision”. The Court also ordered the authorities to ensure the operational functioning of the institutions established in accordance with the Law on Missing Persons, namely the Missing Persons Institute, the Fund for Support to the Families of Missing Persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Central Records of Missing Persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, immediately and without further delay, and no later than 30 days from the date of the court order. The competent authorities were requested to submit information within six months to the Constitutional Court about the measures taken to implement the decision. 2.10 The Constitutional Court did not adopt a decision on the issue of compensation, considering that it was covered by the provisions of the Law on Missing Persons concerning financial support and by the establishment of the Fund for Support to the Families of Missing Persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, the authors argue that the dispositions on financial support have not been implemented and that the Fund has still not been established. 2.11 On 22 September 2008, to follow up on the Constitutional Court’s decision, the Missing Persons Institute addressed a letter to Ms. Hamulić stating that her son had been reported as a missing person to the Institute and ICRC and that it was trying to find out his fate, in cooperation with the State Prosecutor’s Office, the Ministry of the Interior and security agencies. The authors point out that the Institute did not provide any information 4 4 The authors refer to the Constitutional Court’s judgements concerning M.H. and others (case No. AP129/04), 27 May 2005, paras. 37-40, and Fatima Hasić and others (case No. AP 95/07), 29 May 2008.