CCPR/C/112/D/2117/2011 the law for a prolonged period of time may constitute a denial of his or her right to recognition as a person before the law if the victim was in the hands of the State authorities when last seen and if the efforts of his or her relatives to obtain access to potentially effective remedies, including legal remedies, have been systematically impeded. In such situations, disappeared persons are in practice deprived of their capacity to exercise their rights and/or to have recourse to any remedy as a direct consequence of the actions of the State, which must be interpreted as a refusal to recognize such victims as persons before the law.8 3.8 The author alleges that Hacen Louddi’s enforced disappearance has fundamentally destabilized her and the rest of her family. Their family life has been destroyed: she has been deprived of her son, and Hacen Louddi’s wife and children have lost a husband and father, in breach of article 23 (para. 1) of the Covenant, the State party having failed in its duty to protect their right to family life. 3.9 Lastly, the author emphasizes that her son was prevented from exercising his right to a remedy against detention and against the alleged violations of articles 7, 9, 10 (para. 1), 16 and 23 of the Covenant, in violation of article 2 (para. 3) of the Covenant. The author also contends that as long as the truth about his fate has not been established, the State party has the obligation, under article 2 (para. 3) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 6 (para. 1), to conduct a thorough investigation into the enforced disappearance, to inform the disappeared person’s family of progress and results in the investigation and to prosecute those responsible for the disappearance. The author notes that the State party has not taken a few simple steps that would have been useful as part of an investigation into Hacen Louddi’s enforced disappearance, such as to identify the persons on guard at the Châteauneuf PCO on the day of his arrest and to confront them with various witnesses in order to clarify his fate. The author considers that the investigation was not effective and that the adoption and retention of Ordinance No. 06-01 perpetuates the impunity of those responsible for enforced disappearances, undermines the right to an effective remedy and is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant concerning the right to an effective remedy. 3.10 The author asserts that domestic remedies have been exhausted, because Hacen Louddi’s disappearance was addressed in a decision by the Supreme Court dated 29 September 2009 in which it rejected the appeal by his spouse challenging the efficacy of the investigation led by the State prosecutor, and because on 27 March 2007, the investigating judge dismissed the proceedings, a decision confirmed by the indictments chamber of the Algiers Court of Appeal on 29 April 2007. 3.11 The author asks the Committee to order the State party: (a) to release Hacen Louddi if he is still alive; (b) to conduct a prompt, thorough and effective investigation into his disappearance; (c) to report to the author and her family on the results of the investigation; (d) to prosecute, try and punish the persons responsible for Hacen Louddi’s disappearance, in conformity with the State party’s international commitments; and (e) to provide appropriate reparation to Hacen Louddi’s beneficiaries for the grave moral and material harm which they have suffered since his disappearance. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 11 April 2013, the State party submitted a note verbale in which it merely referred to the Algerian Government’s background memorandum 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 and to its 8 6 The author cites communication No. 1328/2004, Cheraitia v. Algeria, Views adopted on 10 July 2007; and Atamna v. Algeria. GE.14-22809