CCPR/C/BIH/CO/2 violence, especially those leading to deaths, are thoroughly investigated and that the perpetrators are prosecuted and punished with appropriate sanctions. 12. The Committee is concerned that article 21 of the Law on the Rights of Defenders and Members of their Families, applicable in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, provides that, in order for the family members of missing persons to accede to or maintain a monthly pension, they have to commence proceedings to declare the missing person deceased within two years of the law coming into force. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that in the Republic Srpska, municipal courts require the production by family members of evidence in the form of a death certificate that their relative has been subjected to enforced disappearance when assessing a request for a disability pension under article 25 of the Law on the Protection of Civilian Victims of War and article 190 of the Law on Administrative Procedure. The Committee is concerned that this practice raises issues under articles 2, 6 and 7 of the Covenant, as missing persons and those subjected to enforced disappearance are presumed dead when efforts are being made to find them (arts. 2, 6 and 7) The State party should abolish the obligation in cases of disappearance which makes the right to compensation dependent on the family’s willingness to have the family member declared dead. The State party should ensure that any compensation or other form of redress adequately reflects the gravity of the violation and the harm suffered. 13. While taking note of efforts to provide protection for witnesses of war crimes in the State party, such as the establishment of the Witness Prosecution Unit in the Office of the Prosecutor, the Committee is concerned at the prevailing deficiencies in the implementation of the witness support programme in entities where war crime cases have been transferred, such as the lack of adequate psychological support and that witnesses have been made to confront accused persons in and outside courts. The Committee is concerned that this affects the willingness of witnesses to provide testimony during trials (arts. 6 and 14). The State party should take practical measures to increase the effectiveness of the witness protection programme to ensure the full protection of witnesses. The State party should also ensure that witnesses continue to receive adequate psychological support in entities where war crimes have been transferred. The State party should further ensure that authorities fully investigate cases of suspected intimidation of witnesses to put an end to the climate of fear that stifles efforts to prosecute war crimes at the entity level in the State party. 14. While appreciating the efforts made by the State party to protect the right of persons against refoulement, the Committee is concerned that persons subject to removal on national security grounds are subjected to indefinite detention based solely on the discretionary decisions by the security organs of the State. The Committee is also concerned that the appeals submitted to courts by asylum seekers that are ordered by administrative authorities have no suspensive effect and that information on countries of origin provided by relevant international organizations and agencies is not always sufficiently taken into account (arts. 7, 9 and 10). The State party should revise the law that provides for the detention of persons who are subject to removal from the State party on grounds of national security to ensure that full legal security is guaranteed and that such persons are not held indefinitely. In this regard, the State party should also consider introducing other methods of surveillance in place of indefinite detention. The State party should also ensure that, in all cases involving refoulement, all appeals to courts have suspensive effect and all relevant information on the situation in the country of origin is duly taken into account by competent administrative and judicial organs. 15. The Committee recalls its previous recommendation (CCPR/C/BIH/CO/1, para. 18) and remains concerned that article 132 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which 4