CEDAW/C/76/D/116/2017 4.8 The State party also notes that it has amended its criminal legislation and the law on witness protection. Amendments introduced into the Criminal Code in 2016 include a definition of hate crime and the criminalization of sexual violence, in line with international standards. The law provides for appropriate prison terms for such criminal offences as rape committed as a hate crime or war crime. The law applies to all war crimes cases in Bosnia and Herzegovina, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings are conducted (see also CEDAW/C/BIH/6, para. 32). Under legal aid legislation, victims are entitled to legal aid free of charge. Judges and prosecutors receive systematic and compulsory training on protection me asures and support for victims of and witnesses to sexual violence under domestic and international laws on gender equality. 4.9 Noting that, under international law, it is necessary to establish a causal relationship between an event and the harm caused, the State party contends that the author has failed to prove that the health condition that she developed in 2006 was a direct consequence of the event in question. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 19 March 2018, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. 5.2 Regarding the State party’s claim that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as an actio popularis, the author contends that she does not challenge laws or practices in the abstract but, rather, asserts that a certain law or practices affected her directly and personally. The complaint should, therefore, be declared admissible. 17 The author states that, although she explains the legal framework and corresponding practice of the State party as general background information, such a description of the applicable legislation and a summary of the existing loopholes identified by international bodies cannot be seen in any way as an actio popularis. The author reiterates that the State party failed to recognize and register her as a civilian victim of armed conflict and deprived her of access to any form of social support or benefits owing to flawed and discriminatory legislation. Thus, the author alleges that the application of the legislation affected her directly and personally and that the direct and personal prejudice she suffered is the core of her complaint. 5.3 On the merits of the communication, the author rebuts the claims of the State party in three main respects: (a) access to information concerning progress made in the investigation into her complaint; (b) the delay in and lack of effectiveness of the investigation, which led to the author not receiving compensation; (c) the failure to recognize the author as a civilian victim of armed conflict and to ensure that she receives social support and benefits. 5.4 With regard to (a), the author alleges that, between 2009 and 2017, she wrote at least 18 letters to different authorities in the country, explicitly seeking information on the status of the investigation of her case. Most of those letters rem ained unanswered. In the few instances where she received a reply, the information provided was inadequate or even contradictory and inaccurate. As for the author’s letter to the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in which the State party alleg es that the author conveyed her satisfaction with the investigation, the author argues that she expressed only generic and complimentary satisfaction that the investigation was continuing, which should not be interpreted as meaning that she was satisfied w ith the effectiveness of the investigation and communication with the authorities. In that letter, she also requested a time frame for the investigation and to be involved in the __________________ 17 20-11100 See Dayras et al. v. France (CEDAW/C/44/D/13/2007). 7/16