CCPR/C/112/D/1966/2010 2.13 The time limits set forth by the Constitutional Court in its decision expired and the relevant institutions did not provide any information on the fate and whereabouts of the victims, nor did they submit to the Court any information on the measures taken to implement its decision. On 18 November 2006, the Constitutional Court adopted a ruling in which it declared that the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Government of Republika Srpska, the Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Government of Brćko District had failed to enforce its decision of 23 February 2006. Furthermore, the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina had failed to take any measure to criminally prosecute those who had not enforced the decision of the Constitutional Court. 2.14 The ruling adopted by the Constitutional Court on 18 November 2006 on the failure of the Bosnian authorities to enforce the decision of 23 February 2006 is final and binding. The authors therefore have no other effective remedy to exhaust. The authors also recall that Ermina Hero and Armin Hero were minors when the events in question took place and that they turned 18 in 2004 and 2008 respectively. Until they reached their majority, Ermina Hero and Armin Hero were not formally entitled to bring complaints on behalf of their father, but they actively supported the search activities and the submission of complaints by their mother. Thereafter, they decided that, in order not to create confusion or submit overlapping complaints, Tija Hero would be the only one to represent the family and formally submit complaints to the relevant authorities. 2.15 Since 1992, Tija Hero, Ermina Hero and Armin Hero have undergone deep and severe psychological stress trying to cope with the uncertainty over the fate and whereabouts of Sejad Hero. They have indefatigably applied over the last 18 years to various official authorities with enquiries, but they have never received any plausible information. The authors have continuous feelings of frustration, suffering, distress and anguish. The complaint 3.1 The authors base their complaint on the multi-offensive nature of enforced disappearance. In particular, they consider that the disappearance of their husband and father amounts to a violation of articles 6; 7; 9 and 16, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. In that regard, they refer to (a) the lack of information about the causes and circumstances of the disappearance of their relative; (b) the failure of the national authorities to conduct an ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation into his arbitrary arrest, torture, and subsequent enforced disappearance; (c) the failure to identify, prosecute and sanction those responsible; and (d) the failure to provide an effective remedy to his family. 3.2 The authors consider that the responsibility for shedding light on the fate of their missing husband and father lies with the State party. They refer to the report of an expert of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, in which he states that the primary responsibility for carrying out those tasks remains with the authorities under whose jurisdiction a suspected mass grave falls (E/CN.4/1996/36, para. 78). The author further argues that the State party has an obligation to conduct a prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation of gross human rights violations, such as enforced disappearances, torture or arbitrary killings. In general, the obligation to conduct an investigation also applies in cases of killings, or other acts affecting the enjoyment of human rights that are not imputable to the State. In those cases, the obligation to investigate arises from the duty of the State to protect all individuals under its jurisdiction from acts committed by private persons, or groups of persons, which may impede the enjoyment of 6