CCPR/C/115/D/2064/2011 Office of the Prosecutor has not undertaken any measure to sanction those responsible for this failure. 2.14 Since 1992, Milan Mandić has undergone deep and severe psychological stress because of the uncertainty concerning the fate and whereabouts of Božo Mandić. The length of time elapsed and the attitude of official indifference to his anxiety have generated deep frustration and debasement for the author. He has not been able to find his father’s mortal remains and to mourn and bury him in accordance with his religious beliefs and customs. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the State party has violated articles 6 and 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant with regard to Božo Mandić and articles 7, 17 and 23 (1), read in conjunction with article 2 (3), with regard to himself. 3.2 As for the alleged violation of article 6, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant with regard to Božo Mandić, the author submits that there is an ongoing failure by the State party to conduct an ex officio, prompt, thorough, impartial, independent and effective investigation into his father’s enforced disappearance. He argues that the State party has an obligation to conduct a prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation into such gross human rights violations as enforced disappearances, torture or arbitrary killings. In general, the obligation to conduct an investigation also applies in cases of killings or other acts affecting the enjoyment of human rights that are not imputable to the State. In these cases, the obligation to investigate arises from the duty of the State to protect all individuals under its jurisdiction from acts committed by private persons, or groups of persons, which may impede the enjoyment of their human rights. 10 3.3 In relation to the alleged violation of article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), with regard to Božo Mandić, the author claims that the arbitrary killing and the subsequent removal, concealment and mistreatment of his mortal remains amount to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant because of the denial of a dignified burial. 3.4 With regard the author himself, as regards the alleged ongoing violation by the State party of article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, as well as articles 17 and 23 (1), in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, he submits that he suffers severe mental distress and anguish caused by the enforced disappearance of his father and the ongoing lack of information about the cause and circumstances of these human rights violations as well as about the progress and results of the investigations carried out by the State party authorities. This lack of information also violates his right to know the truth. Furthermore, there has been no effective remedy and redress, as the author has never received any form of reparation for the harm suffered. The author further alleges that his family life has been disrupted as a consequence of the enforced disappearance of his father, which has prevented the author from burying his father in accordance with his religious customs and beliefs. 3.5 The author requests the Committee to recommend that the State party (a) order an independent investigation as a matter of urgency concerning the fate and whereabouts of his 10 6 The author refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 8 as well as Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Chitay Nech and others v. Guatemala, judgement of 25 May 2010, Series C No. 212, para. 89 and Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, judgement (merits) of 29 July 1988, Series C No. 4, para. 172; European Court of Human Rights, Demiray v. Turkey, judgement of 21 November 2000, para. 50, Tanrikulu v. Turkey, judgement of 8 July 1999, para. 103 and Ergi v. Turkey, judgement of 28 July 1998, para. 82.