CEDAW/C/76/D/116/2017 conducted any investigation into her initial complaint in 1995 and that the report of the author had never been registered. On 1 February 2013, the Prosecutor’s Office replied to an inquiry from the Human Rights Ombudsperson Institution, stating that the investigation was ongoing and that witnesses and the injured party would be heard. On 19 March 2014, the District Prosecutor’s Office in Banja Luka informed the author that, as the case had been registered with the Prosecutor’s Office, the District Prosecutor could take no action unless the case was transferred by a court decision. 4 2.5 On 4 June 2014, the author filed an appeal to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, alleging that there had been no effective investigation of her case or prosecution of the perpetrators and that she had not received adequate compensation or reparation. 5 On 17 February 2016, her appeal was rejected as unfounded. The Constitutional Court held that, given the context in which the crimes had been committed and the exceptional difficulties faced by the national authorities in investigating many complex crimes, it was not possible to argue that the authorities were breaching their positive obligations. Although the Court recognized that the investigative process had been slow and mostly inconclusive, it decided that that was a result of the exceptional circumstances and not owing to a lack of due diligence on the part of the authorities. Since the Court’s ruling, the author has not been contacted by the Prosecutor’s Office or any other authority responsible for investigating her complaints. 2.6 In the meantime, on 9 August 2012, the author wrote to the Department for the Protection of War Veterans and Persons with Disabilities of Prijedor Municipality to request registration as a civilian victim of armed conflict, which is necessary to receive social support and assistance. The request was rejected as time-barred, since it was registrable only until 31 December 2007. On 3 September 2012, the author submitted an appeal against that decision to the Ministry of Labour and Protection of War Veterans and Persons with Disabilities in Banja Luka. On 4 November 2015, that appeal was also rejected owing to the statute of limitations. On 17 December 2015, the author filed a complaint against that decision with the District Court in Banja Luka, which was rejected on 24 June 2016 as unfounded. 2.7 On 25 August 2016, the author submitted a complaint to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, alleging that the unreasonable statute of limitations in the Law on the Protection of Civilian Victims of War in the Republika Srpska prevented her from being recognized and registered as a civilian victim of armed conflict and from receiving social benefits to which she would otherwise be entitled. 2.8 The event of 1995 caused the author physical and psychological suffering. The rape caused problems with her thyroid gland and a major genital infection, for which she could not afford appropriate treatment owing to financial constraints. According to the author, it developed into a cervical disease in 2006 and cervical cancer in 201 2, as a result of which she had her cervix removed. She has been diagnosed with a depressive disorder and permanent personality change because of her traumatic experience, which also affected her marital life. The author’s inability to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband after the rape led to their divorce in 2009. She currently lives below the poverty line and does not have enough resources to cover basic needs and medical expenses. Complaint 3.1 The author states that the communication should be deemed to be admissible. Although the facts took place before the Optional Protocol entered into force for the __________________ 4 5 20-11100 Similar replies were received from the Prosecutor’s Office on 31 July 2014 and the District Court of Banja Luka on 12 September 2014. Despite the absence of challenged court decision, the author was able to lodge an appeal containing allegations of grave human rights violations pursuant to the rules of the Constitutional Court. 3/16

Select target paragraph3