CCPR/C/120/D/2267/2013 3.2 The author considers that Order No. 06-01 of 27 February 2006 2 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 entails a negative obligation for States to refrain from adopting measures that are contrary to the Covenant. By adopting the Order, the State party is thus alleged to have taken a legislative measure that vitiates the rights under the Covenant, 3 in particular the right to an effective remedy against human rights violations. The author claims that he and his son have been the victims of this provision of the law and that article 2 (2) of the Covenant has been violated in this case. 3.3 Recalling that all domestic remedies, both judicial and administrative, have been exhausted, without any result or any real investigation having been conducted, the author claims that, under article 2 (3), the State party had the obligation to protect his son, Youcef Khelifati, from violations of his rights by government officials. Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence,4 the author also claims that the failure to investigate allegations of violations could, in and of itself, give rise to a separate violation of the Covenant and that the mere denial of the involvement of the security services cannot satisfy the State party’s obligation under article 2 (3), given that the only response from the authorities petitioned was either silence or a dismissal of the case. The author concludes that article 2 (3) of the Covenant was violated with regard to Youcef Khelifati. 3.4 Regarding article 6, the author notes that, since Youcef’s arrest in 1994 and in the absence of any information, the chances of finding him grow slimmer by the day and that his prolonged absence would suggest that he has died. Moreover, incommunicado detention represents a high risk of a violation of the right to life given that neither detainees nor jailers are monitored in any way. Noting that the Committee’s jurisprudence in the context of enforced disappearances 5 has evolved and that it now recognizes the responsibility of the State for violations of the right to life in certain cases where the death of the victim has not been established, the author claims that the State party has failed in its duty to protect the right to life of his son and that article 6 of the Covenant has therefore been violated. 3.5 Recalling the circumstances of his son’s disappearance, namely the total lack of information on his possible detention or imprisonment or on his state of health and the lack of communication with his family or the outside world, the author contends that Youcef Khelifati was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. Furthermore, in reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence, the author emphasizes that the anguish, uncertainty and distress caused by Youcef Khelifati’s disappearance constitute a form of inhuman or degrading treatment for the family. The author claims that the State party is responsible for a violation of article 7, with regard to Youcef Khelifati, and a violation of article 7 read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, with regard to his family. 2 3 4 5 4 Order No. 06-01 of 27 February 2006 provides for the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. Article 45 of the Order provides that “no individual or collective legal proceedings may be brought against members of any branch of the defence and security forces of the Republic for actions undertaken to protect persons and property, safeguard the nation and preserve the institutions of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria.” The Committee has developed constant jurisprudence with respect to the Order, considering that it contributes to impunity (see, for example, communication No. 2083/2011, Kroumi v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 October 2014, para. 8.2). In its concluding observations on the third periodic report of Algeria (see CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, para. 7), the Committee expressed its concern that the Order promotes impunity and infringes the right to an effective remedy. In support of his arguments, the author refers to the concurring individual opinions of Fabián Salvioli, specifically arguments in the case of Chihoub v. Algeria, communication No. 1811/2008, Views adopted on 31 October 2011. Communication No. 1588/2007, Benaziza v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 9.9. In support of that argument, the author cites communications No. 1753/2008, Guezout et al. v. Algeria, Views adopted on 19 July 2012, para. 8.4; No. 1905/2009, Khirani v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 March 2012 and corrigendum, para. 7.4; No. 1781/2008, Djebrouni v. Algeria, Views adopted on 31 October 2011, para. 8.4; and No. 1780/2008, Aouabdia v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2011, para. 7.10. GE.17-16622