CCPR/C/113/D/2028/2011 9.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims that, on 10 June 1992, Mr. Ičić was apprehended by Bosnian Serb forces soldiers in Trnopolje, Prijedor; that he was taken to the detention camp of Omarska, where he was last seen alive into the hands of the guard of this camp in life-threating circumstances; that the apprehension occurred within the context of a widespread and systematic attack directed against the civilian population; that, according to public reports, inmates at the Omarska detention camp were kept under inhuman conditions, physically and psychologically abused, tortured and arbitrary killed, followed by the removal and concealment of their mortal remains; and that, against this background, it is reasonable to presume that her son became a victim of enforced disappearance by the Bosnian Serb forces since June 1992. No ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been carried out by the State party to clarify his fate and whereabouts and to bring the perpetrators to justice. In 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 a failure by a State party to bring to justice perpetrators of certain violations — notably torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, summary and arbitrary killings and enforced disappearances — could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. 9.3 The author does not allege that the State party was directly responsible for the enforced disappearance of her son. Indeed, she alleges that the disappearance was initiated in the State party’s territory by the Bosnian Serb forces. 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. 21 The Committee also notes that the State party does not contest the characterization of the events as an enforced disappearance. 9.4 The Committee notes the State party’s information that it has made considerable efforts at the general level, 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. Ičić (see para. 2.12 above), and domestic mechanisms have been set up to deal with enforced disappearances and other war crimes cases (see para. 4.2 above). 9.5 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 the hostile forces of a foreign State. Therefore, while acknowledging the gravity of the disappearances and the suffering of the author, because the fate or whereabouts of her missing son 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, paragraph 3, of the Covenant in the particular circumstances of the present communication. 21 Compare article 7, paragraph 2 (i), of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which defines enforced disappearance as including disappearances conducted by a political organization, with articles 2 and 3 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which distinguishes 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. 13