CCPR/C/112/D/1966/2010 caused her stress, anxiety, frustration and marginalization, and she considers that the silence of the State party amounts to inhumane treatment. On 10 July 2013, she sent a letter to the Missing Persons Institute urging it to conduct the identification of the said remains without any further delay, and requesting to be kept regularly informed about the status and results of the identification process. No formal reply had been received as of the date of the authors’ submission. The authors further recall that they were forced to declare Sejad Hero dead as a condition for receiving a pension, and that this caused additional suffering to the authors, which they characterize as amounting to a violation of article 7, read both alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant. 7.4 The authors reiterate that no investigation has been initiated by the State party into the illegal detention, torture, enforced disappearance and possible arbitrary execution of Sejad Hero; his remains have not been located and returned to his family; and the authors have not received any compensation for the harm suffered. They observe that the judgement issued on 15 December 2006 by the State Court of Bosnia Herzegovina regarding other crimes against humanity committed in the vicinity of Vogošća cannot be considered as a verdict applicable to the enforced disappearance of Sejad Hero, because the defendant was never charged or convicted for crimes committed in Tihovići. The authors further argue that the ongoing criminal proceedings against another defendant cannot be considered relevant in their case insofar as they have not been formally notified of any charge against that defendant for the crimes committed in Tihovići and, to date, no one has been investigated, judged or sanctioned for those crimes. 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, of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and that the authors have exhausted all available domestic remedies. 8.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication and that the authors’ allegations regarding violations of articles 6; 7; 9; 16 and 24, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, and article 7 read alone, have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. The Committee therefore 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. 9.2 The authors claim that Sejad Hero has been a victim of enforced disappearance since his illegal arrest by the JNA on 4 July 1992 and that, despite the numerous efforts of his family, no prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been carried out by the State party to clarify the victim’s fate and whereabouts, and to bring the perpetrators to justice. In that respect, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, according to which, a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations and a failure by a 12