CCPR/C/120/D/2267/2013 3.6 Recalling that Youcef Khelifati was arrested without a warrant on 20 June 1994 by police officers of the anti-terrorist squad, that he was then held incommunicado without access to a lawyer, without being informed of the grounds for his arrest or of the charges against him, that his detention was not entered into the police custody register and that there is no official record of his whereabouts or fate, the author states that Youcef Khelifati was deprived of his right to liberty and security of person and that the investigations were not as efficient or effective as they should have been. Accordingly, the author contends that the State party is responsible for a violation of article 9 of the Covenant with regard to Youcef Khelifati. 3.7 In the light of the disappearance, the lack of a thorough investigation and the fact that enforced disappearance is often followed by incommunicado detention, the author considers that the State party is also responsible for a violation of article 10 of the Covenant with regard to Youcef Khelifati. 3.8 Recalling that the Algerian authorities have never provided clear information on Youcef Khelifati’s fate and that they intentionally denied him the protection of the law, the author claims that the victim’s dignity and legal personality have been flouted, in violation of his right to recognition as a person before the law, as guaranteed under article 16 of the Covenant. 3.9 The author requests the Committee to order the State party to: (a) find that Algeria has violated articles 2 (2) and (3), 6, 7, 9, 10 and 16 of the Covenant, with regard to Youcef Khelifati, and article 2 (2), together with article 7 read in conjunction with article 2 (3), with regard to the author and his family; (b) locate Youcef Khelifati; (c) bring the perpetrators of the enforced disappearance before the competent civil authorities for prosecution; and (d) provide Youcef Khelifati, if he is still alive, and his family with adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered, including appropriate compensation commensurate with the seriousness of the case, full rehabilitation and guarantees of non-recurrence. State party’s failure to cooperate 4. On 11 July 2013, 28 February 2014, 17 June 2014 and 20 November 2014, the State party was requested to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee notes that this information has not been received. It regrets the State party’s refusal to provide any information on the admissibility and/or merits of the author’s claims. It recalls6 that, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party concerned is required to submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and indicating the measures, if any, that have been taken by the State to remedy the situation. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that the disappearance was reported to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. However, it recalls that extra-conventional procedures or mechanisms established by the Human Rights Council to examine and report publicly on human rights situations in specific countries or territories or on cases of widespread human rights violations worldwide do not generally constitute an international procedure of investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. 7 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the 6 7 GE.17-16622 See communication No. 2157/2012, Belamrania v. Algeria, Views adopted on 27 October 2016, para. 4. See, inter alia, communications No. 2098/2011, Ammari v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 October 2014; No. 2026/2011, Sassene v. Algeria, Views adopted on 29 October 2014; No. 1791/2008, Boudjemai v. 5