CCPR/C/113/D/2028/2011 evidence on the existence of this camp, which in fact has already been recognized by other authorities of the State party. 7.2 The State party’s further observations show that its authorities do not have any relevant information that may contribute to clarify the fate and whereabouts of the author’s son or to provide meaningful indications with regard to the steps undertaken by them to fulfil the obligations contained in the Covenant. 7.3 The author informs the Committee that, on 24 August 2011, she received a letter from the Office of the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina whereby it communicated to her the information provided to the Committee by the State party in its further observations (see para. 6.4 above). In this respect, the author expresses her concern that the State Investigation and Protection Agency has failed to reply to the requests from Office of the Prosecutor and reiterates that the State party authorities have failed to conduct an investigation on her son’s disappearance for more than 20 years. Furthermore, while the investigations of crimes committed during the war may require time, 15 more years, as noted by the Office of the Prosecutor, would breach any criterion of promptness of the investigation and, therefore, represent a violation of her rights enshrined in the Covenant. 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, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s observations that, according to the Office of the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies since she did not report her son’s disappearance to it until 20 December 2010. The Committee also takes notes of the author’s allegations that the Constitutional Court itself admitted that there was no effective remedy to protect the rights of relatives of missing persons; that she reported her son’s disappearance to different entities, including the Federal Commission for Missing Persons and the Constitutional Court; that, on 13 May 2008, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the author’s rights because of the lack of information on the fate of Mr. Ičić; and that, however, this judgement has not been implemented by the competent authorities. The Committee observes that, more than 22 years after the alleged disappearance of the author’s son, his fate and whereabouts remain unclear and the State party has failed to provide convincing arguments to justify the delay in completing an investigation. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged and that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 As all admissibility requirements have been met, the Committee 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, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 12