CCPR/C/120/D/2267/2013 6.9 The Committee is of the view that the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law constitutes a refusal of the right to recognition as a person before the law, in particular if the efforts of the victim’s relatives to obtain access to effective remedies have been systematically impeded.18 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has not furnished any convincing explanation concerning the fate or whereabouts of Youcef Khelifati despite the multiple requests addressed to the State party by the author. The Committee finds that Youcef Khelifati’s enforced disappearance more than 23 years ago denied him the protection of the law and deprived him of the right to recognition as a person before the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 6.10 The author 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. 19 It recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, which states that a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could, in itself, give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. In this case, the family of Youcef Khelifati brought his disappearance to the attention of the competent authorities, including the prosecutor general of the Algiers Court of Justice and the public prosecutor at the Dellys Court, but no action was taken on the complaints, and the State party has failed to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the disappearance. At first, the authorities denied the victim’s arrest (para. 2.3), but the author later received a report from an indirect source that Youcef Khelifati had allegedly been shot dead by the security forces in July 1994 (para. 2.6), without any investigation being carried out or the body being returned to the family. The Committee notes that, instead of carrying out an investigation, the State party hounded the author so that he would apply for a declaration of his son’s death and bring his efforts to establish the truth about his fate and obtain justice to an end. Furthermore, the legal impossibility of applying to a judicial body since the promulgation of Order No. 06-01 on the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation continues to deprive the author and his family of any access to an effective remedy given that the Order prohibits using the justice system to shed light on the worst offences, including enforced disappearance (see CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, para. 7). The Committee finds that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 6 (1), 7, 9 and 16, with regard to Youcef Khelifati, and of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7, with regard to the author and his family. 7. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, finds that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of articles 6 (1), 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant, and of article 2 (3) read in conjunction with articles 6 (1), 7, 9 and 16, with regard to Youcef Khelifati. It also finds a violation by the State party of article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), with regard to the author and his family. 8. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This provision requires that States parties make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. In the present case, the State party is obliged, inter alia, to: (a) conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the disappearance of Youcef Khelifati and provide the author and his family with detailed information about the results of its investigation; (b) release Youcef Khelifati immediately if he is still being held incommunicado; (c) in the event that he is deceased, return his remains to his family; (d) prosecute, try and punish those responsible for the violations that have been committed; (e) provide adequate compensation to the author for the violations perpetrated against him, and to Youcef Khelifati, if he is alive; and (f) provide appropriate satisfaction for the author and his family. Notwithstanding the terms of Order No. 06-01, the State party should ensure that it does not impede enjoyment of the right to an 18 19 8 See communications No. 2164/2012, Basnet v. Nepal, Views adopted on 12 July 2016, para. 10.9; No. 2038/2011, Tharu et al. v. Nepal, Views adopted on 3 July 2015, para. 10.9; and No. 2134/2012, Serna et al. v. Colombia, Views adopted on 9 July 2015, para. 9.5. See communication No. 2132/2012, Kerouane v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 October 2014, para. 7.11. GE.17-16622