CCPR/C/122/D/2398/2014 recommendation that it should be brought into line with the Covenant 8 (see the Committee’s concluding observations on the State party’s third periodic report). The Committee therefore concludes that article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication. 6.4 The Committee notes that the author alleges violations that raise issues under articles 2 (2) and (3), 6, 7 read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), 9, 10, 16 and 21 of the Covenant. 6.5 The Committee notes that the author claims a violation of article 2 (2) and (3) of the Covenant in his regard and in regard of Mohamed Millis. The Committee recalls that the provisions of article 2 (2) of the Covenant lay down general obligations for States parties which cannot give rise, when invoked separately, to a claim in a communication. 9 This part of the communication is therefore inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 The Committee notes that the author also devotes a paragraph to article 14 of the Covenant. It notes, however, that the author does not specifically allege any violation of that article with respect to him or to Mohamed Millis and therefore will not consider that issue on the merits. 6.7 The Committee notes that the author has also claimed a violation of article 21 of the Covenant. The Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim of a violation of article 21 of the Covenant and notes that the author does not appear to have taken any legal steps with regard to the alleged attacks on his freedom to demonstrate. Consequently, this part of the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.8 Nevertheless, the Committee considers that the allegations that raise issues under articles 6 and 7 read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) and articles 9, 10 and 16 of the Covenant have been sufficiently substantiated. The Committee therefore proceeds to consider the communication on the merits with regard to the alleged violations of articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 16 of the Covenant. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes that the State party has merely referred to its collective and general comments, which it has previously transmitted to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the Committee in relation to other communications, in order to confirm its position that such cases have already been settled through the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. The Committee refers to its jurisprudence and recalls that the State party may not invoke the provisions of the Charter against persons who invoke provisions of the Covenant or who have submitted, or may submit, communications to the Committee. The Covenant demands that the State party concern itself with the fate of every individual and treat every individual with respect for the dignity inherent in every human being. 10 Given that the amendments recommended by the Committee have not been introduced, Ordinance No. 06-01 on the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation contributes, in the present case, to impunity and cannot be considered compatible with the provisions of the Covenant.11 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not replied to the author’s claims concerning the merits of the case and recalls its jurisprudence, according to which the burden of proof should not lie solely with the author of a communication, especially given 8 9 10 11 GE.18-10582 See CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, paras. 7, 8 and 13. See Poliakov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/111/D/2030/2011), para. 7.4; Castañeda v. Mexico (CCPR/C/108/D/2202/2012), para. 6.8; A.P. v. Ukraine (CCPR/C/105/D/1834/2008), para. 8.5; and Peirano Basso v. Uruguay (CCPR/C/100/D/1887/2009), para. 9.4. See Zair v. Algeria, para. 7.2; and Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.2. See Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.2. 9