CCPR/C/122/D/2398/2014 Ordinance does not recognize the offence of enforced disappearance and that articles 27, 28, 30 and 37 of the Ordinance make any compensation for the “victims of the national tragedy” conditional on obtaining a declaration of death. He considers that the Charter and its implementing legislation are intended to silence any questions concerning missing persons by awarding compensation without attempting to seek truth and justice. He recalls that, despite the complaints submitted by the author, no investigation has ever been opened. He adds that the fact that Mohamed Millis’s case has been submitted to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances does not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the communication, as that process does not constitute a procedure of international investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. The author concludes therefore that his communication is admissible. 3.3 The author considers that Ordinance No. 06-01 of 27 February 2006 on the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation constitutes a violation of the general obligation under article 2 (2) of the Covenant, in that the provision also entails a negative obligation for States parties to refrain from adopting measures that are contrary to the Covenant. He is of the view that, in adopting the Ordinance, in particular article 45, the State party adopted a legislative measure that deprived of effect rights recognized under the Covenant,1 particularly the right to have access to an effective remedy against violations of human rights. The author considers that a breach, by action or omission, of the obligation imposed by article 2 (2) of the Covenant may engage the international responsibility of the State party. 2 He claims that, despite all his efforts, after the entry into force of the Charter and its implementing legislation, his complaints remained ineffective even though he provided specific information, as the only response in 2008 from the public prosecutor at the Court of Bir Mourad Raïs advised him to follow the procedure for compensation provided for in the Charter. He therefore claims to be a victim of this legislative provision that violates article 2 (2) of the Covenant. 3.4 The author also maintains that in Algeria there are no longer any effective and available domestic remedies to which the families of victims of enforced disappearance may have recourse. He recalls that, since the adoption of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation and its implementing legislation, in particular articles 45 and 46 of Ordinance No. 06-01 on the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation, he has sent about 15 complaints and has received only 2 replies instructing him to follow the compensation procedure provided for in the Charter. He recalls that the mechanism provides only for compensation for “deceased victims of terrorism”, conditional upon the obtention of a declaration of death for the disappeared person, without any investigation being carried out. Such compensation is determined not on the basis of the harm suffered by the victim and his or her family, but by the individual’s age and socioprofessional status. He recalls that, in its 2007 concluding observations on the State party’s third periodic report (CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3), the Committee recognized such reparation as being neither full nor complete and refers to general comments No. 20 on article 7 (Prohibition of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and No. 31 on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant to support the fact that this remedy does not comply with the requirements of article 2 (3) of the Covenant. He considers that the right to an effective remedy must include the right to adequate reparation and the right to the truth and, on the basis of the Committee’s 2007 concluding observations on the State party’s third periodic report (CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3), claims that Ordinance No. 06-01, particularly articles 45 and 46 declaring inadmissible complaints against members of the national defence and security forces, constitutes a violation of the right of victims to obtain effective remedies before national and international bodies. He claims that in terms of impact, the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation and its implementing legislation represent measures that grant amnesty for acts committed by State agents and refers to the Committee’s general comments Nos. 20 and 31 and its position that the nature of those measures contravenes the 1 2 4 In support of his argument, the author refers to the concurring individual opinions of Fabián Salvioli, specifically in the case of Djebbar and Chihoub v. Algeria (CCPR/C/103/D/1811/2008). In support of his argument, the author refers to paragraph 4 of general comment No. 31 on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant. GE.18-10582