CCPR/C/113/D/2022/2011 on the actions and measures taken in order to ascertain Husein’s fate and whereabouts and to prosecute and sanction those responsible for his disappearance. 2.12 The time limits set forth by the Constitutional Court in its decision expired and the relevant institutions did not provide any information on the fate and whereabouts of the victims, nor did they submit to the Court any information on the measures taken to implement its decision. The authors argue that although Ms. Hamulić wrote several times to different authorities, at the moment the communication was submitted to the Committee she had not received any further information from the Institute nor from any other authority involved in tracing activities and investigations on the fate and whereabouts of missing persons. 2.13 On 27 January 2009, the Administrative Service of the Department for Veterans and Protection of the Disabled in Prijedor granted Ms. Hamulić a monthly disability pension of 140 marks.5 The right to monthly pension was awarded starting on 1 October 2007. The authors claim that such pension is a form of social assistance and cannot replace the adoption of adequate measures of reparation for the serious human rights violations suffered by the authors and their relative. 2.14 On 18 August 2010, Ms. Hamulić applied to the Constitutional Court and requested it to proceed with the adoption of a ruling establishing that the authorities had failed to enforce its decision of 13 May 2008, pursuant to article 74.6 of its rules of procedure. Nevertheless, at the moment the communication was submitted to the Committee, she had not received any reply from the Court and no action had been carried out by the authorities. 2.15 As to the requirement under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the authors hold that there was no effective remedy and that the Constitutional Court itself admitted that Ms. Hamulić and the other applicants “did not have at their disposal an effective and adequate remedy to protect their rights”.6 In the light of article VI (4) of the State party’s Constitution, the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 May 2008 must be considered final and binding. Therefore, the authors do not have any other effective remedy to exhaust. With regard to Ms. Hodžić, the authors argue that although she did not formally file an application before Court, she accompanied her mother and supported her, undertaking all formal démarches on her mother’s behalf; that her mother would not have been able to follow the proceedings without her support since she is illiterate; that she could not reasonably be requested to duplicate the proceedings already undergone by her mother; and that no effective remedy had been established by the Constitutional Court. 2.16 On the admissibility of the communication ratione temporis, the authors submit that, even though the events took place before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party, enforced disappearance is per se a continuing violation of several human rights7 that lasts and continues to be committed until the victim is located. In their case, 5 6 7 According to the authors, the sum is equivalent to 70 euros. The authors refer to the Constitutional Court’s ruling concerning case M.H. and others (see footnote 4), para 37. The authors refer to the jurisprudence of international courts and bodies, as well as to article 14.2 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session and annexed to General Assembly resolution 56/83. See, inter alia, European Court of Human Rights, Varnava and others v. Turkey, Grand Chamber judgement of 18 September 2009, paras. 136-148; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Goiburú and others v. Paraguay, judgement of 22 September 2006, series C No. 153; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Radilla Pacheco v. México, judgement of 23 November 2009, series C No. 209, paras. 23-24; Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances general comment No. 9 (2010) on enforced disappearance as a continuous crime; International Convention for the 5