CCPR/C/112/D/1966/2010 their human rights.10 In the present case, despite the complaints promptly filed by Tija Hero with the local authorities and the Red Cross, no ex officio, prompt, thorough, impartial, independent and effective investigation has been carried out in order to locate Seja Hero and clarify his fate and whereabouts. Notwithstanding the existence of strong evidence and concordant testimonies on the identity of those responsible for the arbitrary deprivation of liberty, ill-treatment, and enforced disappearance of Seja Hero, to date no one has been summoned, indicted, judged or convicted for the crimes concerned. 3.3 With regard to article 6 of the Covenant, the authors refer to the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which a State party has a primary duty to take appropriate measures to protect the life of a person. In cases of enforced disappearance, the State party has an obligation to investigate and bring perpetrators to justice. By not doing so, the State party continues to violate its positive procedural obligations under article 6, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. Sejad Hero was illegally detained by members of the JNA who tortured and mutilated him before eyewitnesses, and he has remained unaccounted for since 4 July 1992. Although there are reasons to believe that he has been arbitrarily executed, his mortal remains still have not been located, exhumed, identified and returned to his family. 3.4 The authors further submit that their missing husband and father was illegally detained by members of the JNA and was subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, including mutilation. The authors further refer to the jurisprudence of the Committee, according to which enforced disappearance constitutes in itself a form of torture, on which no ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has yet been carried out by the State party, in order to identify, prosecute, judge and sanction those responsible.11 The authors therefore consider that this amounts to a continuing violation of the State party’s positive procedural obligations under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 3.5 Sejad Hero was arrested on 4 July 1992 by members of the JNA without an arrest warrant, nor was his detention 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 Sejad Hero’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.12 In the instant case, Sejad Hero was deprived of his liberty by 10 11 12 The authors refer to the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 8; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, judgement of 29 July 1988, Series C, No. 4, para. 172; and European Court of Human Rights, Demiray v. Turkey, application No. 27308/95, judgement of 21 November 2000, para. 50; Tanrikulu v. Turkey, application No. 23763/94, judgement of 8 July 1999, para. 103; and Ergi v. Turkey, application No. 23818/94, judgement of 28 July 1998, para. 82. See communications No. 449/1991, Mojica v. Dominican Republic, Views adopted on 15 July 1994, para. 5.7; 1327/2004, Grioua v. Algeria, Views adopted on 10 July 2007, para. 7.6; and 540/1993, Basilio Laureano Atachahua v. Peru, Views adopted on 25 March 1996, para. 8.5. See communication No. 1495/2006, Zohra Madoui v. Algeria, Views adopted on 28 October 2008, para. 7.7; and Grioua v. Algeria, para. 7.9. 7