CCPR/C/113/D/2028/2011 Appendices Appendix I [Original: English] Individual opinion of Committee member Anja Seibert-Fohr (concurring) 1. I concur with the Committee’s conclusion on this communication (paragraph 10) and refer to Mr. Gerald L. Neuman’s and my individual opinion in Rizvanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovinaa In the present case, the Committee again has defensibly chosen not to examine separately the allegations under articles 10 and 16, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. I would like to address these claims because, in my opinion, they have not been substantiated. The author does not allege that the enforced disappearance of Mr. Ičić was attributable to Bosnia and Herzegovina, but rather to armed forces that opposed it. These forces were not acting on behalf of a State as an entity that can recognize persons under the law or deny such recognition. It is difficult to see how actors who are not agents of a State, acting without collusion by that State, could themselves negate the recognition by that State of a victim as a person before the law. Without a further basis for connecting the State party to the disappearance, the author has not substantiated a violation of article 16, which is a necessary precondition for the claimed respective right to an effective remedy.b Neither has the author substantiated her claim with respect to article 10. The State’s obligations under article 10 concern the conditions of detention under its own authority, not the forms of lawless deprivations of liberty by others. c Therefore, there is no ground for finding a violation in connection to article 10 if the disappearance is not attributable to the State. The obligation to investigate the disappearance of Mr. Ičić is connected rather to articles 6, 7 and 9, which require positive measures of protection irrespective of whether the actual atrocity is connected to the State party. This provided the basis for the Committee’s conclusion in paragraph 10. In support of this established approach, I refer to my separate opinion in Hamulić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina.d a b c d 16 See communication No. 1997/2010, Rizvanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Views adopted on 15 September 2010, individual opinion by Committee members G. L. Neuman and A. Seibert-Fohr. See communication No. 2022/2011, Hamulić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, individual opinion by Committee member A. Seibert-Fohr, para. 2 with further references. See general comment No. 21 on article 10 (humane treatment of persons deprived of their liberty) (1992), para. 2. See Hamulić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, individual opinion by Committee member A. Seibert-Fohr, paras 5-7.