CCPR/C/115/D/2064/2011 information about the fate of Božo Mandić. The Court ordered the Bosnian authorities concerned to provide “all accessible and available information on members of the applicants’ families who went missing during the war, … urgently and without further delay and no later than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the decision”. The Court also ordered the authorities to ensure the operational functioning of the institutions established in accordance with the Law on Missing Persons, namely the Missing Persons Institute of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Fund for Support to the Families of Missing Persons of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Central Records of Missing Persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, immediately and without further delay, and no later than 30 days from the date of the court order. The competent authorities were requested to submit information to the Court within six months about the measures taken to implement the decision. 2.9 The Constitutional Court did not address the issue of compensation, considering it to be covered by the provisions of the Law on Missing Persons concerning “financial support” and by the establishment of the Fund. However, the author argues that the section of the law on financial support has not been implemented and that the Fund has not been established. 2.10 Although the deadlines established by the Constitutional Court in the instant case have expired and the relevant authorities have failed to enforce its decision, the Court has not acted in accordance with article 74.6 of its rules of procedure and has not adopted any ruling to establish that the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina actually failed to enforce the decision. 2.11 As the author did not receive any meaningful information as to the fate and whereabouts of Božo Mandić, he submitted two additional complaints to the Constitutional Court on 6 February 2006 requesting the Court to establish criminal responsibility for the lack of implementation of its decision.8 In a letter dated 9 March 2006 to Milan Mandić, the Court explained that it had no competence to establish criminal responsibility for lack of enforcement of judicial decisions. In a letter dated 22 February 2011, Milan Mandić pointed out that five years had passed since the adoption of the decision concerning his father’s case and called on the Court to adopt a ruling on the lack of enforcement. Nevertheless, as at the date of submission of the communication to the Committee, he had not received any reply and the authorities had taken no action. 2.12 The Constitutional Court ruling of 15 December 2005 is final and binding. The authors therefore have no other effective remedy to exhaust. 2.13 As regards the admissibility ratione temporis of the communication, the author submits that even though the events took place before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party, enforced disappearance is per se a continuing violation of several human rights9 that continues until the victim is located. In the author’s case, domestic authorities, including the Constitutional Court, have qualified Božo Mandić as a “missing person”. However, his fate and whereabouts have not been clarified. Further, the authorities have not implemented the decision of the Court of 15 December 2005 and the 8 9 Pursuant to paragraph 105 of the Constitutional Court decision of 15 December 2005, failure to enforce its decision is a criminal offence in accordance with article 239 of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The author refers to the jurisprudence of international courts and bodies. See, inter alia, European Court of Human Rights, Varnava and others v. Turkey, Grand Chamber judgement of 18 September 2009, paras. 136-148 and Musayev and others v. Russia, Chamber (First Section) judgement of 26 July 2007, paras. 158-165; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, judgement of 24 November 2009, Series C No. 211, paras. 44-49 and Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, judgement of 31 January 2006, Series C No. 140. 5