CCPR/C/115/D/2064/2011 2005. However, the Court has taken no decision and no effective action has been carried out by the authorities to bring perpetrators to justice or to compensate the author. The Committee also notes that there was a lack of coordination among the State party’s authorities in carrying out the investigation into the case of Božo Mandić. For example, the author submits that the Office of the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Missing Persons Institute made contradictory statements regarding the exploratory excavation carried out at the location indicated as the burial place of Božo Mandić, which had a negative impact on the effectiveness of the investigation. 30 Despite the State party’s efforts to clarify the fate and whereabouts of Božo Mandić 31 and the testimony alleging his death, it has failed to provide the author or the Committee with specific and sufficient explanations for the delays and the shortcomings in its conduct. Nor has the State provided the author and the Committee with relevant and specific information regarding the prosecution of the perpetrators. The Committee considers that the authorities investigating violations such as summary and arbitrary killings and enforced disappearances must be diligent so as to ensure the effectiveness of the investigation. The Committee further considers that authorities investigating such violations 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 notes the anguish and distress caused to the author by the continuing uncertainty resulting from not knowing where his father’s remains may be and the impossibility, if he is deceased, of burying him in accordance with his faith. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 6, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant with regard to Božo Mandić. 8.5 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that he has been revictimized throughout the years of his fight. In this connection, the Committee notes various examples of lack of care or seriousness on the part of State authorities: (a) on 13 December 2011, the author received a letter from the State Investigative and Protection Agency stating that the DNA of a body exhumed by the Office of the Cantonal Prosecutor matched his father’s. However, Agency officials later apologized, indicating that the earlier statement had been a mistake and that there was no DNA match (see para. 6.3); (b) the lack of coordination between Bosnia and Herzegovina authorities, which led to delays and confusion (see paras. 6.8, 6.14 and 8.4); (c) the lack of an adequate follow-up to the information provided by the author in relation to the possibility that the body of Božo Mandić was buried as N.N. in the Visoko cemetery (see paras. 6.7 and 6.10). The Committee considers that these revictimizing circumstances, together with the lack of information as to the fate and whereabouts of Božo Mandić, amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant with respect to the author. 8.6 In the light of the above findings, the Committee will not examine separately the author’s allegations under articles 17 and 23 (1), read in conjunction with article 2(3), of the Covenant.32 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of article 6, read in conjunction 30 31 32 For instance, the Office of the Prosecutor stated in a letter dated 6 February 2013 that it had requested the Institute to deliver the report regarding the exploratory excavation authorized by the Office on 23 January 2012, while the Institute indicated on 6 August 2012 that it had communicated the results of the exploratory excavation to the Office. See paras. 6.14. and 6.8. See paras. 6.5-6.7. See communication 1997/2010, Rizvanović v. Bosnia Herzegovina, Views adopted on 21 March 2014, para. 9.7. 15