CCPR/C/112/D/1970/2010
dead in a non-litigation procedure, in order to obtain a pension. Furthermore, article 21 of
the Law on the Rights of Demobilized Soldiers and their Families established that “the
rights referred to in the paragraph 1 of this article shall be also employed by members of
family of missing defender until he is declared deceased but no longer than two years after
this Law comes into force if during that period they do not commence a procedure to
declare the missing defender deceased”.4 So far, Emina Kožljak has refused to apply for
such a declaration.
2.6
On 5 December 2004, the Office for Soldiers-Disability Protection of the
municipality of Vogošća issued a decision recognizing the right of Emina Kožljak to obtain
a monthly pension of KM 315.62.5 She had been receiving similar social assistance since
1993. That pension is a form of social assistance. It can therefore not be considered as an
adequate measure of reparation for the violations suffered.
2.7
On 15 April 2004, Emina Kožljak filed an ante-mortem questionnaire with regard to
her husband with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Association of
the Red Cross of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Red Cross of the Federation of Bosnia
and Herzegovina, and she gave them her DNA samples to facilitate the identification
process of mortal remains exhumed by local forensic experts. So far, she has not received
any feedback on that initiative.
2.8
On 16 August 2005, the Association of Families of Missing Persons from Vogošća
reported the kidnapping of 98 people, including Ramiz Kožljak, to the 5th Police Station of
Vogošća. On 9 September 2005, the Association brought criminal charges against unknown
perpetrators, members of the Serb army, to the Sarajevo Cantonal Prosecutor’s Office, with
a request to the Prosecutor to undertake all necessary measures to identify those responsible
for the kidnapping and to locate and identify the disappeared persons. None of the members
of the Association has received any response from the above-mentioned authorities.
2.9
On 21 September 2005, Emina Kožljak obtained two certificates: one issued by the
State Commission on Missing Persons, declaring that Ramiz Kožljak had been registered as
a missing person since 4 July 1992, and one issued by ICRC, indicating that Ramiz Kožljak
had been registered as missing and that the process of searching for him had been initiated.
2.10 On 27 September 2005, Emina Kožljak submitted an application to the Human
Rights Commission of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, claiming a
violation of articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of articles II, paragraph 3 (b) and (f), of the
constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.6 The Constitutional Court decided to join together
all the applications submitted by members of the Association of Families of Missing
Persons from Vogošća and therefore dealt with them as one collective case. On 23 February
2006, the Constitutional Court adopted a decision, concluding that the applicants of the
collective case were relieved from exhausting domestic remedies before ordinary courts, as
“no specialized institution on enforced disappearance in Bosnia and Herzegovina seems to
be operating effectively”. 7 The Court further found a violation of articles 3 and 8 of the
European Convention, because of the lack of information on the fate of the disappeared
relatives of the applicants. The Court ordered the Bosnian authorities concerned to provide
“all accessible and available information on members of the applicants’ families who went
4
5
6
7
4
Translation provided by the authors.
Approximately 162 euros per month.
A copy of the complaints is available in the file.
Principle on admissibility stated in the Constitutional Court, M.H. and others (case No. AP-129/04),
27 May 2005, paras. 37-40, referred to in the judgement for the case of Mensud Rizvanović: Jele
Stepanović and others (case No. AP 36/06), 16 July 2007.