CCPR/C/114/D/2143/2012 responsibility. The Prosecutor’s Office stated that it had taken the “necessary investigative actions in order to determine circumstances of these crimes” and that “the outcomes will surely have a bearing on the fate and disappearance of Mr. Salih Dovadžija”. The Prosecutor’s Office also indicated that Mr. Dovadžija’s case was considered a high priority and should therefore be resolved within four years, but that no specific deadline could be provided. 4.4 In a letter dated 16 May 2012, the Missing Persons Institute described the legal framework that had been established for the prosecution of individuals allegedly involved in war crimes in the post-war period, since December 1995. The Institute referred to the adoption of the Law on Missing Persons of 2004, and recalled that, of the almost 32,000 persons who had gone missing during the war, the remains of 23,000 persons had been found and 21,000 had been identified. 4.5 The State party submits that a regional office was established in Istočno, Sarajevo, as well as a field office and organizational units in Sarajevo. It considers that those initiatives provide the conditions for faster and more efficient processes to search for disappeared persons in Žuč. Their investigators are on site every day to collect information on potential mass graves and to establish contact with witnesses. The State party informs the Committee that the remains of Salih Dovadžija could be found in the area of Žuč where eight exhumations have been carried out and nine bodies have been found since 1996. It states that the Missing Persons Institute, with the support of the appropriate authorities, will continue to take the action necessary to find missing persons more quickly and to solve the case of Salih Dovadžija. 4.6 In a letter dated 9 May 2012, the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Policy argued that family members of civilian victims of war were entitled to disability benefits under the Law on the Basis of Social Welfare, Protection of Civilian War Victims and Families with Children. They would be able to exercise their right to reparation when the law on victims of torture was adopted. On 18 May 2012, the Ministry of Labour, Social Policy, Displaced Persons and Refugees of the Canton of Sarajevo indicated that on 26 December 2007, Ms. Dovadžija had addressed a claim for family benefit to the Department for the Protection of Veterans, People with Disabilities, Social Welfare and Displaced Persons. On 3 March 2008, her request had been rejected “because her husband did not disappear as a civilian victim of war”. Ms. Dovadžija had appealed that decision stating that she wanted to exercise rights solely on the grounds of the law on the protection of veterans and people with disabilities since her husband had been a member of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time of his disappearance. The Ministry had rejected her appeal as unfounded. Ms. Dovadžija had then submitted a complaint before the Cantonal Court. The Ministry had prepared a reply to the complaint and submitted it to the Cantonal Court of Sarajevo. The case remained pending. 4.7 In a letter dated 19 April 2012, the Department for the Protection of Veterans and People with Disabilities of the Municipality of Novo Sarajevo indicated that it had been established that Mr. Dovadžija was not registered in the records of the conscription records of the Municipality of Novi Grad Sarajevo. Authors’ comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 28 June 2012, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s submission. They noted that the State party does not object to the admissibility of their communication or dispute any of the alleged facts. The authors noted that several of the institutions cited by the State party replied that they had not been involved in dealing with Mr. Dovadžija’s case and did not have any information to provide. The authors expressed concern that the long implementation deadlines provided for in the National Strategy for War Crimes Processing would directly affect their case. If the term of “15 years since the 10