CEDAW/C/76/D/116/2017 of time since the incident. 13 The State party notes that the author’s case was registered when it was filed with the Court in 2009. The Prosecutor’s Office investigated a number of alleged war crimes committed between 1992 and 1995 in the Prijedor area, including the author’s case. There was, however, not enough evidence to identify perpetrators even after the author and witnesses had been heard. On 28 August 2014, the Prosecutor’s Office issued an order to the State Investigation and Protection Agency to take all measures necessary to establish the facts and obtain evidence in order to identify the perpetrator of the crime. In a letter dated 2 October 2014, the author expressed her satisfaction with those investigative actions. The State party contends, therefore, that the author’s allegation that the Prosecutor’s Office and other relevant authorities did not take an active role in investigating the crime committed against her is unfounded. The ongoing investigation efforts were recognized by the Constitutional Court, thus it had ruled that the allegation of the author was unfounded. 14 4.5 The State party also states that, although the right of victims, their families and successors to learn the truth of the circumstance of events leading to gross violations of fundamental rights is acknowledged in international jurisprudence, that does not mean that they may scrutinize police records or copies of all documents or that they must be consulted on every measure taken in the course of an investigation or informed of the names of potential suspects. 15 The State party contends that, were it so, suspects who may be innocent could be stigmatized and suffer the consequences of such investigations. 4.6 With regard to the author’s allegations on the recognition of her status as a civilian victim of armed conflict and the receipt of social support and benefits, 16 the State party notes that the author’s allegation is being re-examined by the administrative body. The State party notes that, on 17 February 2016, the Constitutional Court deemed the allegation by the author that her constitutional rights had been violated as a result of the rejection by the competent bodies of her application for status as a civilian victim of armed conflict to be premature, as the author had filed an administrative claim in 2015. The State party adds that the free legal aid is provided under the Law on Providing Free Legal Aid adopted in 2016, as well as through institutions for the provision of free leg al aid, thus the requirement to pursue civil proceedings is not unreasonable or discriminatory and does not place an excessive burden on the author. 4.7 Considering the fact that a victim of sexual violence is particularly vulnerable and may have difficulty in meeting the conditions required in order to be considered a civilian victim of armed conflict, the State party notes that the Government of the Republika Srpska is in the process of adopting a draft law on the protection of victims of torture in wartime, which would ease those conditions and enshrine the rights of victims of sexual violence to financial compensation, health and psychological support, employment assistance, legal aid and exemption from administrative and court fees. __________________ 13 14 15 16 6/16 The State party also contends that international jurisprudence does not impose an impossible and disproportionate burden on the authorities, where a great number of war crime cases are brought and victims appear before the national courts. See European Cou rt of Human Rights, Osman v. United Kingdom (application No. 87/1997/871/1083), judgment of 28 October 1998, para. 116, and Palić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application No. 4704/04), judgment of 15 February 2011. The State party notes that, since 2016, it has seen an increase in the number of war crimes cases involving sexual violence. In February 2017, 46 criminal cases in which the accused had been charged with sexual violence committed during the war were pending. The State party also notes that the investigation by the Prosecutor’s Office is in its final stages and that the author has been made aware of that fact. European Court of Human Rights, Association “21 December 1989” and others v. Romania (applications Nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08), judgment of 24 May 2011, para. 97. See article 2 (1) of the Law on the Protection of Civilian Victims of War in the Republika Srpska. 20-11100