CCPR/C/115/D/2064/2011 Agency, the Office of the District Prosecutor of Istoćno Sarajevo and the Municipality of Novi Grad reiterated their positions with regard to the case and indicated that they did not have new information to report. In a letter dated 3 September 2012, the Office of the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina indicated that as of the time of writing of the letter, it had not received any notification from the Institute regarding the exploratory excavation ordered on 23 January 2012 and that it was not known whether the excavation had taken place and what evidence had been found. The Office of the Cantonal Prosecutor stated that following the transfer of the case regarding the criminal responsibility related to the disappearance of Božo Mandić by the Office of the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the cantonal prosecutor in charge of the case took several investigative steps in relation to the suspect, Većerak Josip. On 31 August 2012, the prosecutor decided to suspend the investigation due to lack of evidence. 24 The author was informed of his right to appeal this decision but did not exercise it. 6.10 In a letter dated 4 September 2012, the Institute reports that it sent a request for the targeted identification of the mortal remains of unidentified persons buried at the cemetery of Visoko. It also indicates that it requested the relevant institutions in Sarajevo Canton involved in the process of cleaning and exhuming bodies during the war to provide relevant information. According to the cantonal minister of the interior, exhumations were indeed conducted in the Novi Grad in the period between 1992 and 2008. The Municipal Civil Defence Protection Headquarters of Novi Grad was in charge of the exhumations and subsequent removal of bodies. However, the name of Božo Mandić did not appear in the records.25 6.11 On 24 December 2012, the author provided comments on the State party’s additional observations. He reiterates his concerns regarding the actions of the Office of the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that he was only informed about some of the decisions taken by national authorities in the context of the present complaint to the Committee. The author also regrets the lack of coordination between Bosnian authorities, which affects the investigation. Furthermore, the author claims that he did not appeal the decision to close the investigation regarding Većerak Josip because it was not clear whether he had to present the appeal before the Office of the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the cantonal prosecutor. 6.12 On 10 January 2013, the State party provided additional observations. It submitted letters from the State Investigation and Protection Agency, the Office of the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Missing Persons Institute and the Office of the Cantonal Prosecutor. All of them reported that they had no new information or developments to report. 6.13 On 5 February 2013, the author expressed his concern regarding the way in which the Bosnian authorities were submitting their observations to the Committee, with delays and without taking his comments into account. In addition, Bosnian authorities had limited themselves to reiterating that they did not have further information to add to past submissions. 6.14 On 14 March 2013, the State party submitted a letter from the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees summarizing the replies of several institutions regarding the investigation of Božo Mandić’s case. The Office of the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina indicated that on 6 February 2013, it had submitted a request to the Missing Persons Institute to submit the official report concerning the exploratory excavation authorized in January 2012. In the meantime, the Institute stated that on 6 August 2012, it 24 25 12 Letter dated 4 September 2012. The State party provided a letter dated 12 September 2012 from the Municipality of Novi Grad indicating that the civil defense forces were the only authority in the municipality that could have relevant information on Božo Mandić’s case; however, they did not have any information.