CCPR/C/115/D/2064/2011 had sent a letter to the Office of the Prosecutor reporting that it had taken several actions on the case, including an exploratory excavation in Lukavička cesta and in the yard of the Mandić’s house, DNA tests in the mass grave located in the “Lav” cemetery and hearings with witnesses. The Institute further indicated that despite all the activities undertaken, the case of Božo Mandić had not yet been resolved, but that it would continue to take all the necessary measures to solve it. The Office of the Cantonal Prosecutor challenged the author’s submission that it had not been clear to which authority he had to submit an appeal against the closure of the investigation regarding Većerak Josip.26 The author had provided statements in relation to this investigation to the Office of the Cantonal Prosecutor on two occasions and had therefore been aware that it was in charge of the investigation. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication. The Committee also notes the author’s allegations that the Constitutional Court itself held that there was no effective remedy to protect the rights of the relatives of missing persons; that he had informed the authorities about the alleged events concerning Božo Mandić beginning in 1992; that on 15 December 2005, the Court had found that the rights of Božo Mandić’s wife had been violated because of the failure to inform her concerning the whereabouts of her husband; and that the Court’s judgement had not been implemented by the competent authorities. The Committee observes that more than 22 years after the alleged events concerning Božo Mandić, the State party has failed to provide convincing arguments to justify the delay in completing the corresponding investigation. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged and that it is not precluded from examining the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 All admissibility criteria having been met, the Committee declares the authors’ claims under articles 6 and 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), in relation to Božo Mandić, and under articles 7, 17 and 23 (1), read in conjunction with article 2 (3), in relation to Milan Mandić admissible and proceeds to its examination of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims that on 4 April 1992, the Serbian Territorial Defence Force set up a barricade right below the Mandić’s house and that from then on, the house was subjected to crossfire from the Serbian and the Bosnian Territorial Defence armies. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that on or around 10 June 1992, Božo Mandić was wounded by a sniper while he was in the courtyard in front of his house and that his wife took care of him until she was captured by members of the Bosnian 26 See para. 6.11. 13