CCPR/C/122/D/2398/2014 violation with regard to the author of article 7 read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant.18 7.9 With regard to the alleged violation of article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that Mohamed Millis was arbitrarily arrested, without a warrant, was not formally charged and was not brought before a judicial authority, which would have enabled him to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. In the absence of any information from the State party in that regard, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations.19 The Committee therefore finds a violation of article 9 of the Covenant with regard to Mohamed Millis. 20 7.10 The Committee is of the view that the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law constitutes a refusal to recognize him or her as a person before the law, particularly if the efforts of his or her relatives to obtain access to potentially effective remedies have been systematically impeded. 21 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has not furnished any convincing explanation concerning the fate or whereabouts of Mohamed Millis despite the requests from his relatives and that, when he was last seen, Mohamed Millis was in the hands of the authorities. The Committee finds that Mohamed Millis’s enforced disappearance more than 24 years ago removed him from the protection of the law and deprived him of his right to be recognized as a person before the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 7.11 The author also invokes article 2 (3) of the Covenant, which requires States parties to ensure that individuals have accessible, effective and enforceable remedies for asserting the rights recognized in the Covenant. The Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing complaints of violations of the rights guaranteed under the Covenant. 22 It refers to its general comment No. 31 on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it states that a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. In this case, the family of Mohamed Millis reported his disappearance to the competent authorities; the State party did not carry out a thorough and effective investigation into his disappearance and neither the author nor his family received any information. Furthermore, the legal impossibility of applying to a judicial body since the promulgation of Ordinance No. 06-01 on the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation continues to deprive Mohamed Millis, the author and his family of any access to an effective remedy, given that the Ordinance prohibits using the justice system to shed light on the worst offences, including enforced disappearance. 23 The Committee finds that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant, with regard to Mohamed Millis and of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7 of the Covenant, with regard to the author. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of articles 6, 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant as well as of article 2 (3) read in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant, with regard to Mohamed Millis. It also finds a violation by the State party of article 7 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), with regard to the author. 18 19 20 21 22 23 GE.18-10582 See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.6; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.6; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.6; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para. 7.5; and El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/91/D/1422/2005), para. 6.11. See Chani v. Algeria (CCPR/C/116/D/2297/2013), para. 7.5. See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.7; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.7; and Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.7. See Basnet v. Nepal (CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012), para. 10.9; Tharu et al. v. Nepal, para. 10.9; and Serna et al. v. Colombia, para. 9.5. See Allioua and Kerouane v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2132/2012), para. 7.11. See CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, para. 7. 11