CCPR/C/120/D/2267/2013 examination of Youcef Khelifati’s case by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances does not render the communication inadmissible under this provision. 5.3 Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee recalls that the State party has a duty not only to carry out thorough investigations of alleged violations of human rights brought to the attention of its authorities, particularly violations of the right to life, but also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations. 8 Although the family of Youcef Khelifati brought his disappearance to the attention of the competent authorities on many occasions, the State party failed to conduct a thorough investigation into this serious allegation. Moreover, the State party has failed to demonstrate that an effective remedy is available given that Order No. 06-01 of 27 February 2006 is still applied despite the Committee’s recommendations that it should be brought into line with the Covenant (see CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, paras. 7, 8 and 13). The Committee is also concerned that, in spite of three reminders having been addressed to the State party, no information or observations on the admissibility or merits of the communication have been received. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 5.4 The Committee notes that the author claims a violation of article 2 (2) of the Covenant in respect of his rights and those of Youcef Khelifati. The Committee recalls that the provisions of article 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. 5.5 The Committee considers that the allegations, which raise issues under articles 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant have been sufficiently substantiated and that there are no obstacles to admissibility. The Committee therefore proceeds to the consideration of these allegations on the merits. Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. It notes that the State party has not replied to the author’s allegations, to which, in the circumstances, due weight must be given insofar as they have been sufficiently substantiated. 6.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that, on 20 June 1994, Youcef Khelifati was arrested by uniformed police officers from the anti-terrorist squad in front of witnesses. His family has been without news of the victim since then, despite its repeated applications to the administrative authorities and the courts (see paras. 2.8 ff.) since the day of his disappearance. 6.3 The Committee further notes the reprisals against Youcef Khelifati’s family for having sought to shed light on the circumstances of his disappearance. Referring to its jurisprudence,10 the Committee recalls that the State party cannot apply the provisions of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation to persons who invoke the provisions of the Covenant or who have submitted or may submit communications to the Committee. The Covenant requires the State party to show concern for the fate of every person and to treat everyone in a manner that respects the inherent dignity of the human person. The Committee also recalls that, since the amendments recommended by the Committee have not been introduced, Order No. 06-01 contributes to impunity in the present case and therefore cannot, as it currently stands, be considered compatible with the provisions of the Covenant. 6.4 The Committee further recalls that, according to its jurisprudence, the burden of proof cannot rest solely with the authors of a communication, especially when the authors and the 8 9 10 6 Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2013, para. 7.2; No. 1779/2008, Mezine v. Algeria, Views adopted on 25 October 2012, para. 7.2; and Djebrouni v. Algeria, para 7.2. See, for example, communications, Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 7.4. See, inter alia, communication No. 2259/2013, El Boathi v. Algeria, Views adopted on 17 March 2017, para. 6.4. See, inter alia, communications, Belamrania v. Algeria; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.2; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.2; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.2. GE.17-16622