CAT/C/67/D/854/2017
Bosnia and Herzegovina. The complainant lived in constant fear as during the civil war
ethnic minorities were exposed to threats, killing, rape and arbitrary detention.
2.2
On an unknown date between May and June 1993, Slavko Savić, a member of VRS,
invaded the complainant’s house armed with a gun. Threatening the complainant with his
gun, he forced her into his car. He took the complainant to the bus station and raped her
there. He raped her again subsequently.
2.3
The complainant became pregnant and had to terminate her pregnancy. These events
severely affected her, leaving serious permanent psychological damage. As a consequence
of the trauma, she started experiencing fear, insomnia, intrusive thoughts, nightmares and
images of rape. In 2008, she started psychiatric treatment and has been diagnosed with
permanent personality disorder and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. An expert
witness heard by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted that “the injured party’s
general quality of life has been permanently diminished by 25 per cent due to her
permanently changed personality after the catastrophic experience …”.3
2.4
The complainant did not report the events immediately because she was afraid to do
so while living in a locality controlled by VRS. Even after the conflict, for many years she
did not feel comfortable speaking about her experience. After other women spoke out, she
eventually found the courage to report the events to the authorities and on 5 November
2014, the Prosecutor’s Office filed an indictment against Slavko Savić for war crimes
against the civilian population.
2.5
On 19 January 2015, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina Section I for War Crimes
decided that the author’s and her daughter’s personal data were confidential and assigned
them the pseudonyms A and E, respectively, as a protection measure. On 29 June 2015, the
Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina Section I for War Crimes found Slavko Savić guilty of
war crimes against civilians for the rapes perpetrated against the complainant, sentenced
him to eight years of imprisonment and required him to pay the complainant 30,000 marka
(approximately 15,340 euros) for non-pecuniary damages within 90 days. On 24 November
2015, the Court, sitting as an Appellate Division, confirmed the sentence. Mr. Savić did not
pay the complainant the amount established by the Court.
2.6
On 10 June 2016, the complainant filed an enforcement motion with a view to
ensuring the payment of non-pecuniary damages. On 8 August 2016 and 27 March 2017 the
complainant was informed by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina that Mr. Savić had no
assets; the complainant was therefore compelled to withdraw the enforcement motion on 7
April 2017.
2.7
On the admissibility of the communication ratione temporis, the complainant
submits that Bosnia and Herzegovina has been a State party to the Convention since 1
October 1993. The rapes and ill-treatment took place in May/June 1993. However, those
events gave rise to the ongoing obligations of Bosnia and Herzegovina to investigate,
prosecute and sanction the perpetrator, and to ensure that A obtains redress and has an
enforceable right to compensation. All the relevant facts concerning the continuing lack of
redress in favour of A also occurred after 4 June 2003. Accordingly, the Committee is
competent both ratione loci and ratione temporis to examine the present communication.
2.8
The complainant refers to the practice of the Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women whereby alleged violations are considered to have
continuing effects although they occurred prior to the entry into force of the Optional
Protocol for the respondent State. She argues that the Committee against Torture should
consider applying, mutatis mutandis, the same reasoning and reach the same conclusions in
her case, declaring her communication admissible and duly assessing that not only are the
violations she alleges ongoing in their nature, but also that the effects of the rapes and illtreatment she was subjected to are ongoing.4
3
4
2
Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Slavko Savić (case No. S1 1 K 017213 14 Kri),
para. 391.
See, for example, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, A.T. v. Hungary
(CEDAW/C/32/D/2/2003), para. 8.5; A.S. v. Hungary (CEDAW/C/36/D/4/2004), para. 10.4; and