CCPR/C/114/D/2143/2012 this respect, the Committee recalls 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 to bring to justice perpetrators of certain violations, including enforced disappearances, could give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. 11.3 The authors do not allege that the State party was directly responsible for the enforced disappearance of Mr. Dovadžija. Indeed, they allege that the disappearance was initiated in the State party’s territory by the Vojska Republike Srpske. The Committee observes that the term “enforced disappearance” may be used in an extended sense, referring to disappearances initiated by forces independent of or hostile to a State party, in addition to disappearances attributable to a State party.18 The Committee also notes that the observations of the State party do not contest the characterization of the events as an enforced disappearance. 11.4 The Committee notes the State party’s information that it has made considerable efforts in view of the more than 30,000 cases of enforced disappearance that occurred during the conflict. Notably, the Constitutional Court has established that the authorities are responsible for investigating the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives, including Mr. Dovadžija (see para. 2.13 above), and domestic mechanisms have been set up to deal with enforced disappearances and other war crimes cases (see para. 4.1 above). 11.5 Without prejudice to the continuing obligation of States parties to investigate all dimensions of an enforced disappearance, including bringing those responsible to justice, the Committee recognizes the particular difficulties that a State party may face in investigating crimes that may have been committed on its territory by hostile forces. Therefore, while acknowledging the gravity of the disappearances and the suffering of the authors because the fate or whereabouts of their missing husband and father has not yet been clarified and the culprits have not yet been brought to justice, that in itself is not sufficient to find a breach of article 2 (3) of the Covenant in the particular circumstances of the present communication. 11.6 That being said, the authors claim that, at the time they filed their communication, more than 20 years after the alleged disappearance of their husband and father, and almost 4 years after the judgement of the Constitutional Court of 13 May 2008, the investigative authorities had not contacted them for information regarding the disappearance of Mr. Dovadžija. On 17 October 2011, Ms. Dovadžija wrote a letter to the Constitutional Court pointing out that 4 years had elapsed since the judgement adopted in her husband’s case and that the relevant institutions had failed to implement it; however the Constitutional Court has taken no decision and no effective action has been carried out by the authorities in Mr. Dovadžija’s case. The State party has provided general information about its efforts to ascertain the fate and whereabouts of missing persons and to prosecute perpetrators. Nevertheless, it has failed to provide the authors or the Committee with specific and relevant information concerning the steps taken to establish Mr. Dovadžija’s fate and whereabouts, and to locate his mortal remains, in case of his death. The Committee 18 Compare art. 7 (2) (i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (defining enforced disappearance as including disappearances conducted by a political organization) with arts. 2 and 3 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (distinguishing between enforced disappearances conducted by States or by persons or groups acting with their authorization, support or acquiescence, and similar acts conducted by persons or groups acting without such authorization, support or acquiescence). See also communication No. 1956/2010, Durić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Views adopted on 16 July 2014, para. 9.3. 15