CCPR/C/114/D/2143/2012 apprehension. As no explanation has been given by the State party and no efforts have been made to clarify his fate, the authors consider that the State party has violated his rights under article 9, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 3.6 In addition, the authors consider that Mr. Dovadžija’s enforced disappearance prevented his enjoyment of all other human rights, confining him to a situation of absolute defencelessness. In that regard, they refer to the jurisprudence of the Committee according to which enforced disappearance may constitute a refusal to recognize the victim before the law, if that person was in the hands of the authorities of the State party when last seen, and if the efforts of their relatives to obtain access to effective remedies have been systematically denied.12 Mr. Dovadžija was deprived of his liberty by members of the Vojska Republike Srpske and there has been no information as to his fate and whereabouts since then, and no investigation has been conducted by the State party as to his fate and whereabouts. The unceasing efforts made by Mr. Dovadžija’s relatives to obtain access to potentially effective remedies have been impeded, thereby placing the disappeared person outside the protection of the law, which amounts to a continuing violation of article 16, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 3.7 The authors allege that they are themselves victims of a violation by Bosnia and Herzegovina of article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, because of the severe mental distress and anguish caused by: (a) the disappearance of Mr. Dovadžija; (b) the continued uncertainty about his fate and whereabouts; (c) the failure to investigate and ensure an effective remedy; (d) the lack of attention to their case; (e) the denial of Mr. Dovadžija’s status as veteran, despite the evidence available demonstrating that he was captured while on duty with the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina; (f) the nonimplementation of various provisions of the Law on Missing Persons, including those concerning the establishment of the Fund for Support to the Families of Missing Persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina; and (g) the failure by the State party to implement the judgement of the Constitutional Court. The authors therefore consider that they have been victims of a separate violation of article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 3.8 The authors claim that articles 6, 7, 9 and 16 have been violated in conjunction with articles 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant because of the disruption of their family life as a consequence of Mr. Dovadžija’s arbitrary deprivation of liberty and his subsequent enforced disappearance. They consider that those violations have prevented them from burying their loved one in accordance with their religious customs and convictions. 3.9 Dalisa Dovadžija submits that she was not even one year old when her father was disappeared. She was forced to grow up in a particularly vulnerable situation, was unable to enjoy family life, and experienced the ongoing anguish of not knowing the truth about what had happened to her father and the frustration of not being able to help her mother while seeing her in a state of constant despair and anguish. She argues that her mother’s psychological state affected her right to grow up in a peaceful atmosphere. Although the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina were under the obligation to adopt special measures of protection, they left Dalisa Dovadžija in a painful, uncertain situation. She therefore submits that the State party has violated her rights under article 24 (1), read in conjunction with articles 2 (3) and 7 of the Covenant, as she was a child in need of special protection until she reached the age of majority on 31 March 2010. 3.10 The authors stress that their communication does not constitute an abuse of the right of submission pursuant to rule 96 (c) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The term of 12 8 See communications No. 1495/2006, Zohra Madoui v. Algeria, Views adopted on 28 October 2008, para. 7.7; and Grioua v. Algeria, para. 7.9.