CCPR/C/113/D/2028/2011 3.4 The author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which a State party has a primary duty to take appropriate measures to protect the life of a person. 12 In cases of enforced disappearances, the State party has an obligation to investigate and bring perpetrators to justice. In the light of the circumstances of Mr. Ičić’s disappearance, the author argues that the failure of the State party to conduct an effective and thorough investigation in the present case (see paras. 3.1 and 3.2 above) amounts to a violation of his right to life, in breach of article 6, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 3.5 The author refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee, according to which enforced disappearance constitutes, in itself, a form of torture, 13 into which no investigation has yet been carried out by the State party in order to identify, prosecute, judge and sanction those responsible in the case under review. Therefore, Mr. Ičić’s disappearance amounts to a treatment contrary to article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant. 3.6 Mr. Ičić was also a victim of violations of his rights under article 9 of the Covenant. He was deprived of his liberty by the Bosnian Serb forces in life-threatening circumstances (see 3.1. above). However, his detention was not entered in any official record or register and his relatives have never seen him again. He was never charged with a crime, nor was he brought before a judge, or any other official authorized by law to exercise judicial power. He was unable to take proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness of his apprehension. Furthermore, there is no trace of his fate or whereabouts. As no explanation has been given by the State party and no efforts have been made to clarify his fate, the author considers that the State party has violated her son’s rights under article 9, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 3.7 The author maintains that enforced disappearance itself constitutes a violation of article 10 of the Covenant and notes that Mr. Ičić was held in the Omarska detention camp and did not have the possibility of communicating with the outside world. She refers to the jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, in which the conditions endured in Omarska were qualified as inhumane and degrading. 14 She considers that the failure by the State party to investigate the torture and inhuman and degrading treatment that her son suffered in detention amounts to a violation of article 10, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 3.8 The author refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee, according to which enforced disappearance may constitute a refusal to recognize the victim before the law if that person was in the hands of the authorities of the State party when last seen, and if the efforts of his/her relatives to obtain access to effective remedies have been systematically denied.15 In the present case, the failure to the State party’s authorities to conduct an investigation maintains Mr. Ičić outside the protection of the law since June 1992. Consequently, the State party is responsible for a continuing violation of article 16, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 12 13 14 15 See Communication No. 84/1981, Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 21 October 1982, para. 10. See, for instance, Communication No. 1495/2006, Zohra Madoui v. Algeria, Views adopted on 1 December 2008, para. 7.4. See, inter alia, International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Case Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kovčka et al., para 197. See Communications No. 1495/2006, Zohra Madoui v. Algeria, Views adopted on 1 December 2008, para. 7.7; and No. 1327/2004, Grioua v. Algeria, Views adopted on 16 August 2007, para. 7.9. 7