CCPR/C/122/D/2398/2014 4.2 The State party is of the view that these communications, which incriminate public officials or other persons acting on behalf of public authorities in cases of enforced disappearance during the period in question — from 1993 to 1998 — should be examined taking “a comprehensive approach”. The State party considers that such communications should be placed in the broader context of the sociopolitical situation and security conditions that prevailed in the country during a period when the Government was struggling to combat a form of terrorism aimed at provoking the “collapse of the Republican State”. It was in this context, and in conformity with the Algerian Constitution (arts. 87 and 91), that the Algerian Government implemented precautionary measures and informed the United Nations Secretariat of its declaration of a state of emergency, in accordance with article 4 (3) of the Covenant. 4.3 The State party provides explanations of the context surrounding the period, from 1993 to 1998, during which the events occurred. These standard explanations are repeated systematically by the State party in all communications concerning cases of enforced disappearances.5 State party’s additional observations 5.1 On 27 October 2014, the State party also transmitted an additional note to the main memorandum to the Committee, in which it questioned the intention behind the series of individual communications to the Committee since the beginning of 2009, which, it considered, constituted rather an abuse of procedure aimed at bringing before the Committee a broad historical issue whose causes and circumstances lie outside the Committee’s purview. The State party observes that all these “individual” communications fail to make reference to the general context in which the disappearances occurred. The State party notes that the complaints focus solely on the actions of the security forces, without ever mentioning those of all the armed groups that used criminal techniques of concealment in order to incriminate the armed forces. 5.2 The State party indicates that it will not address the merits of the aforementioned communications until the issue of their admissibility has been settled. It adds that all judicial or quasi-judicial bodies have the obligation to deal with preliminary questions before considering the merits. It considers that the decision in the case in point to consider the questions of admissibility and the merits jointly and simultaneously — aside from the fact that it was not arrived at on the basis of consultation — seriously prejudices the proper consideration of the communications in terms of both their general nature and their intrinsic particularities. Referring to the rules of procedure of the Human Rights Committee, the State party notes that the sections relating to the Committee’s procedure to determine the admissibility of communications are separate from those relating to the consideration of communications on the merits and that therefore these questions could be considered separately. Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party stresses that the author did not submit any complaints or requests for information through channels that would have allowed consideration of the case by the Algerian judicial authorities. 5.3 Recalling the Committee’s jurisprudence regarding the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies, the State party reiterates that mere doubts about the prospect of success or concerns about delays do not exempt the author from the obligation to exhaust these remedies. As to the question of whether the promulgation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation has barred the possibility of appeal in this area, the State party replies that the failure by the author to submit his allegations to examination has prevented the Algerian authorities from taking a position on the scope and limitations of the applicability of the Charter. Moreover, under Ordinance No. 06-01 on the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation, the only proceedings that are inadmissible are those brought against “members of any branch of Algeria’s defence and security forces” for actions consistent with their core duties to the Republic, namely, to protect persons and property, safeguard the nation and preserve its institutions. On the other hand, any allegations concerning actions attributable to the defence or security forces that 5 GE.18-10582 See, inter alia, El Boathi v. Algeria (CCPR/C/119/D/2259/2013), paras. 4.3 ff., and Boudjema v. Algeria (CCPR/C/121/D/2283/2013), paras. 5.3 ff. 7