CCPR/C/112/D/1966/2010 throughout the proceedings was only provided to them at their own request, or after very long delays, a fact that has not been refuted by the State party. The Committee considers that the authorities investigating enforced disappearances must give the families a timely opportunity to contribute their knowledge to the investigation, and that information regarding the progress of the investigation must be made promptly accessible to the families. It also takes note of the anguish and distress caused to the authors by the continuing uncertainty resulting from the disappearance of their relative. The Committee concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of articles 6; 7 and 9, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant with regard to the victim, and article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, with regard to the authors. 9.7 The Committee further notes that the social allowance that they have received depended upon their agreeing to recognize their missing husband and father as dead, while there was no certainty as to his fate and whereabouts. The Committee considers that to oblige families of disappeared persons to have the family member declared dead, in order to be eligible for compensation, while the investigation is ongoing, makes the availability of compensation dependent on a harmful process and constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant with respect to the authors.18 9.8 In the light of the above findings, the Committee will not examine separately the authors’ allegations under articles 16 and 24, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.19 10. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the State party has violated articles 6; 7 and 9, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, with regard to Sejad Hero; and article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, with regard to the authors. 11. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy, including (a) continuing its efforts to establish the fate or whereabouts of Sejad Hero, as required by the Law on Missing Persons 2004, and having its investigators contact the authors as soon as possible to obtain the information that they can contribute to the investigation; (b) continuing its efforts to bring to justice those responsible for his disappearance, without unnecessary delay, as required by the national war crimes strategy; and (c) ensuring adequate compensation for the authors. The State party is also under an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future and must ensure, in particular, that investigations into allegations of enforced disappearances are accessible to the families of missing persons, and that the current legal framework is not applied in a manner that requires the relatives of victims of enforced disappearance to obtain certification of the death of the victim as a condition for obtaining social benefits and measures of reparation. 12. Bearing in mind that by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State 18 19 14 See communication No. 2003/2010, Selimović et al. v. Bosnia Herzegovina, Views adopted on 17 July 2014, para. 12.7; Durić v. Bosnia Herzegovina, para. 9.8; and Rizvanović v. Bosnia Herzegovina, para. 9.6. See Selimović et al. v. Bosnia Herzegovina, para. 12.8.