CCPR/C/112/D/1970/2010 3.5 Ramiz Kožljak was last seen in an area under the control of the JNA, and his name is inscribed in an official list containing the names of those allegedly captured and arbitrarily executed on 4 July 1992 by members of the JNA in Tihovići. He was captured without an arrest warrant and his detention was not recorded in any official register or proceedings brought before a court to challenge its lawfulness. As no explanation has been given and no efforts have been made to clarify the fate of the victim, the authors consider that the State party continues to violate its positive procedural obligations under article 9, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 3.6 Additionally, the authors consider that Ramiz Kožljak’s enforced disappearance suspended his enjoyment of all other human rights, confining him to a situation of absolute defencelessness. In that perspective, they refer to the jurisprudence of the Committee, under 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.10 In the instant case, Ramiz Kožljak was deprived of his liberty by members of the JNA and there has been no information as to his fate and whereabouts since then, and no ex officio, prompt, official, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been conducted by the State party as to his fate and whereabouts. The unceasing efforts undertaken by Ramiz Kožljak’s relatives to obtain access to potentially effective remedies have been impeded, thereby placing the disappeared person outside the protection of the law, amounting to a continuing violation of article 16, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 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, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, because of the severe mental distress and anguish caused by (a) the disappearance of Ramiz Kožljak; (b) the request to declare him dead in order to obtain a pension; (c) the continued uncertainty about his fate and whereabouts; (d) the failure to investigate and ensure an effective remedy; (e) the lack of attention to their case; (f) the non-implementation 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; and (g) the failure by the State party to implement the judgment 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, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 3.8 On the admissibility of the communication ratione temporis, the authors submit that, even though the events took place before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party, enforced disappearances are per se a continuing violation of several human rights. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 The State party submitted observations on 25 March 2011. It refers to the legal framework that has been established for the prosecution of war crimes in the post-war period, since December 1995. It states that a national strategy for war crimes was adopted in December 2008, with the objective of finalizing the prosecution of the most complex war crimes in 7 years, and of “other war crimes” within 15 years of the adoption of the strategy. The State party further refers to the adoption of the Law on Missing Persons of 2004, creating the Missing Persons Institute, and recalls that, of the nearly 32,000 persons who 10 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. 7