FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 29620/05 Renad Å EREMET against Bosnia and Herzegovina , Montenegro and Serbia lodged on 1 August 2005

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Renad Å eremet , is a Bosnian-Herzegovinian citizen, who was born in 1966 and lives in Sarajevo .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

When the war started in Bosnia and Herzegovina , the applicant ’ s parents ( Fahrudin and Zijada Šeremet ) lived in Grbavica , a Sarajevo neighbourhood controlled by the VRS forces [1] . On 9 July 1992 people in military uniforms took them from their flat to an unknown location.

The applicant reported their disappearance to a number of authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

In October 2002, at the applicant ’ s request, the competent court issued a declaration of presumed death with respect to his parents.

On 3 November 2004 the domestic Human Rights Commission held that there had been a breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. It ordered the Republika Srpska [2] to release all information within its possession, control, and knowledge with respect to the fate or whereabouts of the applicant ’ s parents. It further ordered that Entity to conduct a full, meaningful, thorough and detailed investigation aimed at making known the fate or whereabouts of the applicant ’ s parents and bringing the responsible to justice before the competent domestic or international criminal courts. Lastly, it awarded the applicant BAM 5,000 [3] for non-pecuniary damage.

On an unknown date the mortal remains of the applicant ’ s father were returned to the family. It would appear that his mother is still missing and that a criminal investigation into the disappearance of his parents is pending.

B. Relevant international and domestic law

The relevant international and domestic law have been set out in Palić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 4704/04 , 15 February 2011 .

COMPLAINTS

The applicant originally complained, on behalf of his parents, that Bosnia and Herzegovina had failed to fulfil its procedural duty to investigate their disappearance; this complaint falls to be examined under Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. He further claimed that Bosnia and Herzegovina had, for many years, refused to engage, acknowledge or assist in his efforts to find out what happened to them; this complaint falls to be examined under Article 3. He also relied on Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention. In 2006 the applicant added, without going into details, that Montenegro and Serbia also bore some responsibility in this case.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Is the application compatible with the provisions of the Convention ratione temporis given that the applicant ’ s parents went missing before 12 July 2002 and has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Having regard to procedural obligations under Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention, has the investigation into the disappearance of the applicant ’ s parents fulfilled those requirements (see Palić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 4704/04 , §§ 63-71 and 79, 15 February 2011, and the authorities cited therein)?

3. Has the applicant himself been subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Palić , cited above , §§ 74-75)?

4. Has there been a breach of Articles 8, 13 or 14 of the Convention?

5. T he Government are requested to provide a copy of the criminal files concerning the disappearance of the applicant ’ s parents.

[1] Vojska Republike Srpske ; l ocal armed forces mostly made up of Serbs; established on 12 May 1992.

[2] Under the General Framework Agreement for Peace, Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of two Entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska . The Agreement did not resolve the Inter-Entity Boundary Line in the Brčko area, but the parties agreed to a binding arbitration in this regard. The Brčko District, under the exclusive sovereignty of the State and international supervision, was inaugurated on 8 March 2000.

[3] The convertible mark uses the same fixed exchange rate to the euro that the German mark has (1 euro = 1.95583 convertible marks ) .