CCPR/C/115/D/2048/2011 exhausted all available domestic remedies”. It further noted that it was conducting criminal investigations, including regarding VRS members that allegedly took part in attacks against civilian non-Serbs who had been living in the municipality of Prijedor; that the persons accused had been charged with crimes against humanity; and that two cases had been recorded and were at the investigation stage. Likewise, the Ministry of Justice of the State party and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republika Srpska stated that they had not received a complaint regarding Ermin Kadirić’s disappearance. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 19 July 2011, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations. They argued that the authorities of the State party acknowledged the merits of the allegations submitted in their communication. They considered of particular relevance the statement of the Prosecutor’s Office that its office was carrying out investigations against persons who had allegedly committed attacks against civilian non-Serbs of the municipality of Prijedor (see para. 4.3 above). They pointed out that they had only become aware of that investigation through the State party’s observations. Nevertheless, at the time of submitting their comments, the authors had not received any official communication about the opening or the progress of that investigation, and they had not been involved with or associated in any way to it, even though they were eyewitnesses to some of the events in question. 5.2 As to the admissibility of the communication, the authors pointed out that they had informed the authorities present on the ground about the arbitrary deprivation of liberty, illtreatment and arbitrary killing of Ermin Kadirić and the subsequent removal and concealment of his mortal remains since 1992. Indeed, the fact that he was among the civilians who were ill-treated and arbitrarily killed in Rizvanovići was known to the main institutions dealing with missing persons in the State party. The registries of those institutions were available and accessible to the competent judicial authorities in charge of investigating the crimes committed in and around Prijedor in 1992. Furthermore, Ermin Kadirić’s name was included in the list of missing persons from Prijedor contained in the book Ni krivi ni duzni,14 which had twice been sent to the Prosecutor’s Office by the Izvor organization. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s Office and other competent authorities had in their possession or could have access to sufficient information to initiate an ex officio investigation on the arbitrary deprivation of liberty, ill-treatment, arbitrary killing and subsequent removal and concealment of the mortal remains of Ermin Kadirić. 5.3 The authors also referred to the general comment of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on enforced disappearance as a continuous crime (paras. 1, 2, 7 and 8).15 They considered that the State party’s observations corroborated their allegations that their relative remained registered as an “unaccounted for” missing person. For instance, the online inquiry tool set up by the International Commission on Missing Persons contained his name and indicated that, although DNA samples had been provided by his relatives, no match had been found. The tracing process was, therefore, still open under the responsibility of the Bosnian authorities, who were under the obligation to establish Ermin Kadirić’s fate and whereabouts; to search for, locate, respect and return his remains to his family; to disclose to the latter the truth regarding the circumstances of the crimes committed, the progress and results of the investigation on his fate; and to guarantee his family’s redress for the ongoing violations. 14 15 10 Published by Patria and Izvor (2000). Contained in A/HRC/16/48, para. 39.