CEDAW/C/76/D/116/2017
State party, the alleged violations are of an ongoing nature and their effect has
continued since 4 December 2002 within the jurisdiction of the State party. 6 Thus, the
author contends that the Committee is competent ratione temporis and ratione loci to
examine the present complaint.
3.2 With regard to article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol, the author claims that she
has exhausted all available domestic remedies. She notes that, although she brought
the case to the Constitutional Court, and despite her repeated requests and enquiries,
there has been no effective investigation, prosecution of alleged perpetrators or
adequate remedy for the author. She also notes that the complaint pending before the
Constitutional Court with regard to recognition of her status as a civilian victim of
the armed conflict has no prospect of success, as that Court has regularly ruled all
complaints to be inadmissible owing to the statute of limitations. 7 Thus, she claims
that she could not be reasonably expected to undertake any further steps at the
domestic level.
3.3 The author claims that she has been a victim of the ongoing failure of the State
party to conduct a prompt, effective and thorough investigation of her rape complaint,
which has allowed the perpetrators to enjoy impunity, thereby constituting a violation
of her rights under article 1, read in conjunction with articles 2 (b), (c), (e) and (f)
and 3, of the Convention. The failure to give her access to information on progress
made in the investigation or provide her with a timely opportunity to contribute to the
investigation with information about the facts also constitutes a violation under those
articles. 8
3.4 The author further claims that the State party has violated her rights under
article 15 (1), read in conjunction with article 2 (c) and (e), of the Convention, by not
providing any form of adequate compensation or redress for the harm that she
suffered.
3.5 Moreover, the author alleges that her rights under article 1, read in conjunction
with articles 2 (a) and (c)–(f), 3, 12 and 13 (a) and (b), of the Convention have also
been violated by the discriminatory and flawed nature of legislation, as a result of
which the authorities failed to recognize or register the author as a civilian victim of
armed conflict. The author claims to have been deprived of access to social assistance
and benefits, although she lives in extreme poverty and in preca rious conditions.
3.6 Pursuant to article 7 (3) of the Optional Protocol, the author requests full
reparation for the harm she suffered, including the coverage of material and moral
damages and a number of reparation measures to provide restitution, rehabi litation,
satisfaction (including restoration of dignity and reputation) and guarantees of
non-repetition.
3.7 The author notes that the events occurred in the context of widespread rape and
sexual violence during the war and that the failure to investigat e or prosecute those
__________________
6
7
8
4/16
S.V.P. v. Bulgaria (CEDAW/C/53/D/31/2011). See also A.T. v. Hungary (A/60/38, part one,
annex III), para. 8.5; A.S. v. Hungary (CEDAW/C/36/D/4/2004), para. 10.4; and Kayhan v.
Turkey (A/61/38, part one, annex I), para. 7.4. The author also refers to a number of cases of the
Human Rights Committee, as well as to European Court of Human Rights, Palić v. Bosnia and
Herzegovina (application No. 4704/04), judgment of 15 February 2011.
Vienna Intervention Centre against Domestic Violence and Association for Women’s Access to
Justice on behalf of Akbak et al. v. Austria (CEDAW/C/39/D/6/2005), para. 11.3. See also Human
Rights Committee, Taright et al. v. Algeria (CCPR/C/86/D/1085/2002), para. 7.3; and Wan v.
Portugal (CCPR/C/73/D/925/2000/Rev.1), para. 6.4.
The author claims that women who have identified the perpetrators of rape, and are willing to
testify, are further stigmatized by the fact that their cases can take 15 years to be heard.
20-11100