CCPR/C/113/D/2028/2011 courts, as “no specialized institution on enforced disappearance in Bosnia and Herzegovina seems to be operating effectively”. 6 It found a violation of articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention, owing to the lack of information on the fate of the disappeared relatives of the applicants, including the fate of Mr. Ičić. 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”, and 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 of the latter. 2.13 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. However, the author argues that the dispositions on financial support have not been implemented and that the Fund has still not been established. 2.14 On 13 March 2009, the Administrative Service, Department for Veterans and Protection of the Disabled in Prijedor granted the author a monthly “disability pension” of 149 KM.7 The author claims that such a 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 her and her son. 2.15 The time limits set forth by the Constitutional Court in its decision expired and the relevant institutions neither provided any information on the fate and whereabouts of the victims, nor submitted to the Court any information on the measures taken to implement its decision. On 25 November 2010, the author sent two letters to the Missing Persons Institute and the Republika Srpska Operative Team for Tracing Missing Persons, requesting information about the measures they had adopted so far to implement the judgement of the Constitutional Court of 13 May 2008. On the same day, Ms. Ičić also applied to the Constitutional Court, requesting it to establish that the authorities had failed to enforce its decision of 13 May 2008, pursuant to article 74.6 of its rules of procedure. At the time the communication was submitted to the Committee, she had not received any reply from the Court or the other entities, and no action had been carried out by the authorities. 2.16 As to the requirement under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, the author argues that there was no effective remedy, and that the Constitutional Court itself admitted that Ms. Ičić and the other applicants “did not have at their disposal an effective and adequate remedy to protect their rights”.8 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. 2.17 On the admissibility of the communication ratione temporis, the author submits that, even though the events took place before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for 6 7 8 The author refers to the judgements of the Constitutional Court concerning M.H. and others (case No. AP-129/04), of 27 May 2005, paras. 37-40, and referred to in the judgement for the case of Fatima Hasić and others (case No. AP 95/07), of 29 May 2008. According to the author, it is equivalent to 75 euro. The author refers to the judgements of the Constitutional Court concerning M.H. and others (case No. AP-129/04), of 27 May 2005, para 37. 5