CAT/C/67/D/854/2017 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 21 February 2019, the complainant submitted her comments on the State party’s observations. She reiterates the facts of her case and all her arguments and claims. She adds that since the submission of her complaint to the Committee, her state of health and psychological condition have deteriorated due to the additional stress she has been experiencing in relation to the proceedings. 5.2 The complainant provided some clarifications concerning the State party’s declining to contest the admissibility and the merits of the communication. She stated that her withdrawal of the motion on property claim was a direct consequence of the fact that the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina had informed her that the perpetrator had no property whatsoever, thus making it clear that there were no means to ensure execution of the court judgment and rendering the withdrawal of the motion the sole viable option. 5.3 The complainant observes that she receives a disability pension pursuant to the Law on Social Protection, Protection of Civilian Victims of War and Protection of Families with Children; however, the amount of the pension is not 59,494 marka per month, as claimed by the State party, but 600 marka. Moreover, this pension is a social allowance, different from the compensation she is entitled to pursuant to the verdict of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and article 14 (1) of the Convention. The administrative welfare measures in favour of victims of gross human rights violations can complement, but not replace, fair and adequate compensation for the damage suffered. 5.4 The complainant notes that the State party’s pledge does not encompass all the measures of reparation she requested. In this regard, the complainant reiterated all her claims for redress. She adds that the adoption and implementation of the Law on the Rights of Victims of Torture should be regarded as a necessary additional measure aiming at overcoming a structural problem and providing guarantees of non-recurrence. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainant has not exhausted all available domestic remedies. 6.3 The Committee observes that, even though the events complained of occurred before the date of the Convention’s entry into force for the State party, the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office to open a criminal investigation into the allegations of war crimes against the civilian population was dated 5 November 2014 and that the verdict was issued by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 29 June 2015 and confirmed by the second instance court on 24 November 2015, that is, after the State party had made the declaration under article 22 of the Convention. Therefore, the State party’s alleged failure to fulfil its obligations to provide the complainant with redress and an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation occurred after the State party’s recognition of the Committee’s competence under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee further notes that the State party does not contest the Committee’s competence ratione temporis. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded ratione temporis from considering the complainant’s allegations regarding violations of her rights under article 14 (1) in conjunction with article 1 (1) of the Convention. 28 28 8 Gerasimov v. Kazakhstan (CAT/C/48/D/433/2010), para. 11.2.