CEDAW/C/76/D/116/2017
grave offences, punish their perpetrators or provide adequate reparation to victims
has been systematic. 9
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1 On 16 October 2017, the State party submitted its observation s on the
admissibility and merits of the communication.
4.2 The State party submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible
as an action popularis (a lawsuit brought by a third party in the interest of the public
as a whole), in particular the parts that relate to the general complaints about national
law and domestic judicial and administrative practice. The State party notes that,
when claiming to be the victim of systemic violations, an author must produce
reasonable and convincing evidence of the fact or the likelihood that a violation
affecting him or her personally occurred or will occur according to international
judicial practice. 10 The State party contends that the author has not proven that she
was personally affected or a direct or immediate victim of the lack of harmonization
between the national legal system and administrative and judicial practice. The State
party also notes that the author’s case continues to be the subject of an ongoing
investigation or examination before national authorities in criminal and
administrative proceedings.
4.3 Concerning the merits of the communication, the State party submits that the
competent authorities at all levels have made significant efforts to process war crimes
and bring those responsible to justice. The State party notes that it adopted its national
strategy for processing war crimes in 2008, which provides that the most complex and
highest priority war crime cases should be prosecuted within seven years and other
war crime cases within 15 years. 11 The State party concludes that, by implementing
the strategy, it has fulfilled its obligation to process war crimes with reasonable speed,
as confirmed by domestic cases on sexual violence during wartime. 12
4.4 The State party highlights the investigative efforts and commitment of relevant
authorities with regard to the author’s allegation of sexual violence, in spite of the
difficulties generated by the large number of cases related to grave and mass violations
of fundamental rights during the war, the complexity of the case at hand and the lapse
__________________
9
10
11
12
20-11100
Reports of and observations made by the European Commission, the Committee on the
Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Special Rapporteur on violence against
women, its causes and consequences, the Special Representative of the Secretary -General on
Sexual Violence in Conflict, the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture and
the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are cited in the communication in
support of the author’s claims.
The State party refers to Senator Lines GmbH v. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the
United Kingdom (application No. 56672/00), decision of 10 March 2004, in which the European
Court of Human Rights stated that an applicant “must produce reasonable and con vincing
evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting him personally will occur”. See also
European Court of Human Rights, Aksu v. Turkey (applications Nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04),
judgment of 15 March 2012, and Burden v. United Kingdom (application No. 13378/05),
judgment of 29 April 2008, para. 33.
The State party contends that the European Court of Human Rights has deemed the timelines to
be reasonable, and the domestic authorities have taken measures to fulfil them (see Palić v.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, para. 51, and Zuban and Hamidović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
(applications Nos. 7175/06 and 8710/06), decision of 2 September 2014, paras. 21 and 23).
See, for example, Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Veselin Vlahović. The details
of the case are not provided.
5/16