CCPR/C/118/D/2128/2012 State party’s observations 4. On 4 May 2015, after three reminders, the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication, referring to the “background memorandum of the Algerian Government on the inadmissibility of individual communications submitted to the Human Rights Committee in connection with the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation”, first sent to the Committee in July 2009. 6 The State party has submitted no observations on the merits of the case. Author’s comments 5.1 On 2 July 2015, the author pointed out that the State party did not comment on any of the facts set out in his communication. The author further states that the information submitted by the State party concerns crimes of enforced disappearance and the application of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation, which have nothing to do with his complaint or claims. 5.2 The author reiterates his claims in their entirety and adds that, on 27 December 2012, i.e., nearly five years after he submitted his appeal of 1 April 2008 against the judgment of 26 March 2008 of the Appeal Court of Mascara (para. 2.14 above), the Supreme Court finally handed down its decision, in which it dismissed the appeal on the merits. The author argues that this delay was manifestly unreasonable and that he was unable to defend himself or obtain legal aid during the proceedings. Moreover, owing to the existence of article 147 of the Algerian Constitution,7 which states that “judges shall obey only the law”, and to the monist system established by the Constitution, the author was unable to invoke the Covenant before the Supreme Court. In his view, this provision penalizes him, is an impediment to the impartiality of the courts and is contrary to the principle of the primacy of international law. Accordingly, article 147 of the Algerian Constitution should be amended. Failure of the State party to cooperate 6. The Committee recalls that, after having received three reminders, the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication by making reference to its “background memorandum of the Algerian Government on the inadmissibility of individual communications submitted to the Human Rights Committee in connection with the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation”, which has no bearing whatsoever on the case under consideration. The Committee finds it regrettable that, in so doing, the State party has abstained from formulating any response regarding the admissibility or merits of the complaints lodged by the author. In accordance with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party is required to submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State. In the absence of a reply from the State party, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations to the extent that they have been properly substantiated. 8 6 7 8 8 See, for example, communication No. 1899/2009, Lakhdar-Chaouch v. Algeria, Views adopted on 21 March 2014, paras. 4.1 to 4.9. Now article 165. See, for example, communication No. 1422/2005, El Hassy v. the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 24 October 2007, para. 4. GE.16-23057