CCPR/C/113/D/2022/2011 provide a sufficient basis for finding a violation of article 16, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. d 5. I would like to emphasize that this conclusion is fully in line with the legal qualification of Mr. Hamulić’s disappearance. The Committee explains in paragraph 9.3 of its Views that the term “enforced disappearance” may be used, in an extended sense, to refer to disappearances initiated by forces independent of or hostile to the State party, in addition to disappearances attributable to the State party. It would be erroneous to conclude from this that any such disappearance automatically renders a State responsible for a violation of article 16, irrespective of attribution and without a further basis for connecting the State party to the disappearance. The fact that an atrocity inflicted upon a victim can be described as an enforced disappearance does not automatically render a State party responsible under article 16 or generate additional obligations to provide effective remedies under article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 6. For the reasons outlined above, I would have preferred to explain that the claim under article 16, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), is not substantiated. But I recognize that the Committee defensibly chose not to reach this issue in this and prior cases. At any rate, I would like to emphasize that the Committee was not motivated by considerations of judicial economy, nor did it ignore the very serious nature of enforced disappearance as one of the most heinous human rights violations and the need for the effective protection for victims of enforced disappearance and their families. It is in recognition of the imperative need to take effective measures to respond to any such crime committed in the territory of a State that the Committee found a violation of articles 6, 7 and 9, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, with regard to Mr. Hamulić, and of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), with regard to the authors. The Committee’s holding therefore shows the highest respect for the suffering and most serious anguish imposed on Mr. Hamulić and his relatives. 7. As I have explained above, the Committee’s conclusions, which focus on articles 6, 7 and 9, do not generally deny victims of enforced disappearance the protection of article 16, nor do the Committee’s Views negate the significant value of the right to recognition as a person before the law. They are based on a careful analysis of the Covenant, in particular article 16, which considers the particularities of the case and gives due regard to the question of attribution. It is the role of the Committee to autonomously examine each communication on the basis of the Covenant and to determine whether the factual circumstances are appropriate for finding a violation of the Covenant by a State party rather than applying generalized notions or making routine findings on the basis of a notion that is not enshrined in the Covenant.e On the basis of this understanding, the Committee has found a violation of the right to recognition as a person before the law in several other cases of enforced disappearance which were actually conducted by the respective State authorities and I am confident that it will continue to do so when such claims are substantiated. d e See Fatima Rizvanović and Ruvejda Rizvanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, communication No. 1997/2010, appendix. See Tahar Mohamed Aboufaied v. Libya, communication No. 1782/2008, appendix II. 15