CCPR/C/113/D/2028/2011 9.6 That being said, the author claims that, at the time of the filing of her communication, more than 18 years after the alleged disappearance of her son and more than 2 years after the judgement of the Constitutional Court of 13 May 2008, the investigative authorities had not contacted her for information regarding the disappearance of Mr. Ičić. On 25 November 2010, the author applied to the Constitutional Court and requested it to adopt a ruling establishing that the authorities had failed to enforce its decision of 13 May 2008; however the Constitutional Court has taken no decision and no effective action has been carried out by the authorities as to her son’s case. The State party has provided general information as to its efforts for finding out the fate and whereabouts of missing persons and prosecuting perpetrators. Nevertheless, it has failed to provide the author or the Committee with specific and relevant information concerning the steps taken to establish Mr. Ičić’s fate and whereabouts, and to locate his mortal remains, in case of his death. The Committee observes that the authorities have provided very limited and general information to the author as to her son’s case. The Committee considers that authorities investigating enforced disappearances must give the families a timely opportunity to contribute their knowledge to the investigation, and that information regarding the progress of the investigation must be made promptly accessible to the families. It also takes note of the anguish and distress caused to the author by the continuing uncertainty resulting from the disappearance of her son. The Committee concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of articles 6, 7, and 9, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant with regard to Mr. Ičić, and article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, with regard to the author. 9.7 The Committee notes that the social allowance that the author has received depended upon her agreeing to recognize her missing son as dead, while there was no certainty as to his fate and whereabouts. The Committee considers that to oblige families of disappeared persons to have the family member declared dead, in order to be eligible for compensation, while the investigation is ongoing, makes the availability of compensation dependent on a harmful process and constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant with respect to the author. 22 9.8 In the light of the above findings, the Committee will not examine separately the author’s allegations under articles 10 and 16, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.23 10. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the State party has violated articles 6, 7 and 9, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, with regard to Mr. Ičić; and article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, with regard to the author. 11. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, including (a) strengthening its investigations to establish the fate or whereabouts of Mr. Ičić, as required by the Law on Missing Persons 2004, and having its investigators contact the author as soon as possible to obtain the information that she can contribute to the investigation; (b) strengthening its efforts to bring to justice those responsible for his disappearance, without unnecessary delay, as required by the national war crimes strategy; (c) ensuring that necessary 22 23 14 See communications No. 2003/2010, Selimović et al. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Views adopted on 17 July 2014, para. 12.7; Durić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, para. 9.8; and No. 1997/2010, Rizvanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Views adopted on 15 September 2010, para. 9.6. See Rizvanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, para. 9.7.