CCPR/C/119/D/2206/2012
and Herzegovina Prosecutor’s Office, where it has remained since. In 2006, the President of
the Association gave a statement to the prosecutor in charge of the case and in 2008 the
authors, together with Rajko Lale, did the same. Twice in 2008, once in September 2009,
and once in 2010, the President of the Association met with the prosecutor in charge of the
case in order to obtain information on the progress of the case, but was informed that the
case was ongoing. On 19 September 2012, the authors sent a letter to the Prosecutor’s
Office requesting information on the most recent developments and progress made by the
office in the case. No reply was received. Consequently, at the time when the authors filed
their communication before the Committee, more than 11 years had passed since they had
submitted their complaint to national authorities, without receiving any information on the
status of the case. The authors argue that the lack of information about the steps taken in the
case make them doubt whether any action or any progress has in fact been made.
2.13 Late in 2003, Mrs. Blagojević sent a request to the Republika Srpska Office for
Tracing Missing and Captured Persons for a certificate registering Mrs. Popović as a
missing person. On 15 December 2003, she received a certificate declaring that Mrs.
Popović had been reported as missing for the purpose of “regulating the rights of the family
prescribed by the law”, together with a missing person’s card for her mother. She did not
receive any other information from the Office. On 29 June 2004, Vide Lale received the
same certificate and card in respect of his mother.
2.14 In 2004 the authors, represented by the Association, filed an application before the
Constitutional Court alleging various violations of the rights of the members of the
association in the handling of the cases of their missing relatives. In a decision dated 13
July 2005, the Constitutional Court found that the authors’ rights to not be subjected to
torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and to private and family life 5
had been violated by the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the government
of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Government of Republika Srpska and the
government of the Brčko Distict of Bosnia and Herzegovina in handling the cases of
several missing persons, including the cases of Mrs. Lale and Mrs. Popović.
2.15 The Constitutional Court found that the authors had been relieved from pursuing
remedies before Bosnian lower courts and declared itself competent to hear the case as “the
applicants did not have at their disposal effective legal remedies for the protection of their
rights”. On the merits, the Court found that the disappearances had taken place on the
territory of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which it noted had an obligation to
investigate reports of disappearances on its territory, but had not provided any of the
applicants with individual information about what had happened to their family members.
The Court found that the Federation must have had certain information at its disposal about
the reported disappearances of the applicants’ relatives that had not been submitted to the
applicants. The Court found this fact sufficient to conclude that the competent organs in the
Federation were refusing without any evident and reasonable justification to present to the
applicants the information on the missing persons they had at their disposal. The Court
ordered all relevant Bosnian institutions to send to it all accessible and available
information relating to the victims who had gone missing during the conflict, no later than
30 days from the receipt of the Court’s decision. It also ordered, as stipulated in the 2004
Law on Missing Persons, the establishment of the Missing Persons Institute, the Fund for
Support of Families of Missing Persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Central
Records of Missing Persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
2.16 The Constitutional Court did not adopt any decision on the issue of compensation,
considering that it was covered by the provisions of the Law on Missing Persons
concerning “financial support” and by the establishment of the Fund for Support to the
Families of Missing Persons. The authors argue that the referred dispositions on financial
support have not been implemented and that the Fund still has not been established. As the
authorities had not complied with the order of the Constitutional Court, the President of the
Association sent a complaint to the Court on 6 February 2006, on behalf of the authors and
other relatives of victims.
5
4
Under articles 2.3 (b) and 2.3 (f) of the Constitution, and articles 3 and 8 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.