CEDAW/C/76/D/116/2017 investigation process as much as possible. The author contends that the fact that those requests have remained unanswered illustrates the indifference of the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the author’s suffering. 5.5 With regard to (b), the author reiterates that the police failed to take any steps to investigate her initial complaint of rape in September 1995. When she filed the complaint, the police did not ask either her, as the injured party, or any witnesses for details. There was no crime scene investigation or medical assessment of the author. Furthermore, she was informed by the State party that the files from that period had been burned and that there was no record of her initial complaint anywhere. Thus, the author had to submit her “new” complaint in January 2009. 5.6 The author notes the State party’s claim that its national legal system only recently became capable of processing war crimes cases, in particular under the national strategy for processing war crimes, the aim of which is to ensure that the country’s huge backlog of cases is processed within a set time frame. The author contends, however, that the implementation of the strategy is being plagued by delays and refers to the concern expressed by numerous international bodies about the State party’s failure to respect the original deadlines and ta rgets set thereunder and about the large number of pending cases. 18 5.7 With regard to the ongoing investigation of her case by the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the author notes that it makes no sense for the State party to claim that it is investigating events that occurred in Prijedor between 1992 and 1995, while the author has already specified that she was raped in August 1995. She states that none of the arguments made by the State party alters the fact that it did not exercise due diligence by investigating her case and identifying, prosecuting and punishing those responsible for her rape more than 20 years after the facts and more than nine years after she filed the “new” complaint. The author reiterates her assertion that the number of crimes involving sexual violence that have been brought to court remains low and that impunity for wartime rape remains rampant, including in her case, which amounts to a violation of article 1, read in conjunction with articles 2(b)–(d), (f) and 3, of the Convention. 5.8 The author also states that, regardless of amendments to criminal law mentioned by the State party, she does not foresee any immediate or realistic chance of forthcoming criminal proceedings against the person responsible for her rape and that she has not been given any meaningful opportunity to obtain compensation or any other measures of reparation for the harm she suffered. The author reiterates that this situation constitutes additional violations by the State party under article 15 (1), read in conjunction with article 2 (c) and (e), of the Convention. 19 5.9 With regard to (c), the author reiterates that her administrative claim for recognition as a civilian victim of armed conflict was rejected by the Banja Luka District Court on 24 June 2016, which the State party does not mention in its observation. In consequence, she has received no social benefits or support and thus __________________ 18 19 8/16 The author refers to CCPR/C/BIH/CO/3, para. 13, CAT/C/BIH/CO/6, para. 16, and a country visit report issued in 2017 by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Nils Muižnieks, in which the Commissioner expressed concern about the fact that, as at December 2016, 358 of the “most complex” and 357 “less complex” cases remained pending in the State party (CommDH(2017)28, para. 17). See also Amnesty International, We Need Support, Not Pity (London, 2017), p. 22. The author also contends that, although the State party refers to one conviction in a case of sexual violence committed during the conflict, it does not thereby demonstrate the efficacy of the national legal system in processing war crimes cases. The author states that the amendment to the Criminal Code referred to by the State party is irrelevant in the present case, as the Code applies only to cases before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The author adds that judges and prosecutors in the Republika Srpska receive no training on conflict-related sexual violence. 20-11100