CCPR/C/115/D/2064/2011 magazine and to the Committee. It therefore considers that the author has changed the version of the facts depending on the interlocutor, which greatly hampers the investigation. Božo Mandić is still registered as missing and the Institute continues its work of tracing and locating mass and individual graves, as well as those of more than 8,000 missing people, and to identify remains and return them to the families. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 26 September 2011, the author provided his comments on the State party’s observations. The author welcomes the fact that the State party does not object to the admissibility of the communication and its acknowledgement that Božo Mandić remains registered as a missing person. He recalls that the Bosnian authorities are under an ongoing obligation to establish the fate and whereabouts of Božo Mandić; to search for, locate, respect and return his remains; to disclose the truth regarding his enforced disappearance; and to guarantee the author redress for the ongoing violations. 5.2 The author expresses surprise at the Institute’s assertion that he changed the version of the facts depending on the interlocutor. He was not present when the enforced disappearance of his father took place and he has been trying to reconstruct what happened on 24 June 1992 and afterwards for 19 years, even though this is not his, but the Bosnian authorities’, obligation. He is not a professional investigator, and he has found fragmentary and often contradictory information. Some of these contradictions have been reflected in the press. He states that on 12 September 2011, he wrote to the Institute asking about the actions taken to locate the remains of his father and that he received only a response questioning his credibility. 5.3 The author further argues that the large number of war crimes that still require investigation does not relieve the State party from its responsibility to conduct a prompt, impartial, independent and thorough investigation into cases of gross human rights violations, or from regularly informing relatives of the victims on the progress and results of those investigations. He also states that he informed the Office of the Prosecutor of the events related to the enforced disappearance of his father in due time and that he has taken several actions in order to be kept informed about the results of the investigation. Following the State party’s submission to the Committee on 10 August 2011, he wrote to the Bosnian authorities on 14 and 15 September 2011, requesting additional information about the investigation. He did not receive a satisfactory response. Regarding the State party’s submission regarding the actions taken by the State Investigation and Protection Agency,17 the author asserts that he has never been informed about them. The author reiterates that relatives of victims should be informed regularly on developments in the investigations and their results. He quotes general comment No. 10 (2010) on the right to truth in relation to enforced disappearances of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, according to which the refusal to provide information is a limitation to the right to the truth and providing only general information on procedural matters amounts to a violation of the same right. 5.4 Further, the author considers that the decision of the Office of the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina to classify his father’s enforced disappearance as a less complex case which will be disposed of in 15 years violates any criterion of promptness of the investigation and reiterates the violation of his rights. While he appreciates the adoption of the National Strategy for War Crimes Processing, its implementation has been deficient and cannot be used by the State party as a sufficient response. He further argues that the adoption of a transitional justice strategy cannot replace access to justice and redress for the victims of gross human rights violations and their relatives. 17 See para. 4.3. 9