CCPR/C/115/D/2064/2011 executed was eight years after the start of the forced disappearance, when, in the year 2000, Milan Mandić learned, through an alleged witness, a certain Blagoje Pesic, a that his father had been executed. This sole witness in fact contradicted himself and was imprecise. 4. As is apparent from the account of all the facts, the author’s family has always treated the case as a forced disappearance of the victim; they never saw or were able to verify that the victim had been executed and his remains have still not come to light, so they have been unable to give him a dignified burial. In the meantime, the victim’s family have continued to take steps to find his remains, but without success. Bozo Mandić continues to be registered as disappeared with ICRC, the International Commission on Missing Persons and the Missing Persons Institute. The Constitutional Court has also listed Bozo Mandić as “disappeared”. 5. Even though most of the rights declared violated in this communication on the basis of an extrajudicial execution might be similar if it had been recognized that the violations occurred as a result of a forced disappearance, there are differences of substance, and also with regard to the redress which should be determined. The forced disappearance exists and is a continuing crime owing to the fact that the victim’s remains have not been found. This has been clearly stated by the norms and the specialized jurisprudence on the subject, which indicates that a forced disappearance shall be considered as continuing and permanent until such time as the fate or whereabouts of the victim have been established; consequently, until the whereabouts of missing persons have been determined or their remains duly located and identified, the appropriate legal treatment for this situation is that of a forced disappearance of persons. b 6. I consider that, since this is a case of forced disappearance — and not solely one of extrajudicial execution — the Committee should have concluded that, in addition to the violations already indicated in the communication, there has been a violation of articles 7 and 16, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant to the detriment of the victim (article 16 on the basis of the principle iura novit curiae) and articles 17 and 23, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant to the detriment of the author. a b 18 According to a document of the Army of the Republika Srpska dated 12 June 1994, contributed by the author, Mr. Pešić had not participated in military actions during the war and, at the time of the events described, he was working in the Civil Protection Corps, mainly digging trenches. See Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, art. III and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, La Cantuta v. Peru, judgement of 29 November 2006, Series C No. 162, para. 114.