CCPR/C/115/D/2048/2011 exhausting them.18 Accordingly, the Committee considers the authors’ claim concerning article 26, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant inadmissible pursuant to article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 As to the other claims raised by the authors, the Committee takes note of the State party’s observations that, according to the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the authors have failed to exhaust domestic remedies, since they did not apply to the Prosecutor’s Office requesting an investigation into Ermin Kadirić’s fate and whereabouts. The Committee also takes notes of the authors’ allegations that the Constitutional Court itself held that there was no effective remedy to protect the rights of the relatives of missing persons; that they informed the authorities present on the ground of the arbitrary deprivation of liberty, ill-treatment and arbitrary killing of Ermin Kadirić and the subsequent removal and concealment of his mortal remains since 1992; that, on 13 May 2008, the Constitutional Court found a violation of Dino Kadirić’s rights because of the lack of information on the whereabouts of his father; and that this judgement has not been implemented by the competent authorities. The Committee observes that, more than 22 years after the alleged events concerning Ermin Kadirić, the location of his mortal remains is still unknown and that the State party has failed to provide convincing arguments to justify the delay in completing an investigation. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged and that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 As regards the authors’ claim under article 16, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, the Committee notes that the authors have failed to provide information in support of this claim and therefore considers it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.6 As all admissibility requirements have been met, the Committee declares the authors’ claims under articles 6, 7 and 9, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), in relation to Ermin Kadirić, as well as under articles 7 and 24, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), in relation to the authors, admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the case in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee takes note of the authors’ claims that Ermin Kadirić was arbitrary deprived of his liberty, ill-treated and arbitrarily executed by members of VRS on 20 July 1992 and that his mortal remains were subsequently removed and concealed; that the whereabouts of his body remain unknown to date; that he is still registered as a missing person; and that, therefore, his case amounts to an enforced disappearance. No ex officio prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been carried out by the State party to clarify the whereabouts of his mortal remains and to bring the perpetrators to justice. In that regard, the Committee recalls paragraph 18 of its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, according to which a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations and a failure by a State party to bring to justice perpetrators of certain violations (notably torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, summary and arbitrary killings and enforced disappearance) could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. 18 14 See communication No. 397/1990, P.S. v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 July 1992, para. 5.4.