CCPR/C/112/D/2117/2011 additional memorandum on the inadmissibility of communications. Those documents had been transmitted to the Committee in the context of a number of earlier communications, and the State party has not submitted copies of the said memorandums or specific comments on the present communication. 4.2 The content of these documents has been transcribed in several Views adopted by the Committee.9 The State party asked the Committee to note the similarity of the facts and situations described by the authors and to take account of the sociopolitical and security context in which they occur, to conclude that the authors have not exhausted all internal remedies, to recognize that the authorities of the State party have established a comprehensive domestic mechanism for processing and settling the cases referred to in these communications through measures aimed at achieving peace and national reconciliation that are consistent with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and subsequent covenants and conventions, to find the communication inadmissible and to request that the authors seek an alternative remedy. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 8 August 2013, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations. She points out that the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to consider individual communications. This competence is of a general nature and its exercise by the Committee is not subject to the discretion of the State party. That is for the Committee to decide when it considers the communication. The author considers that the adoption by the State party of a comprehensive domestic settlement mechanism cannot constitute grounds for declaring the communication inadmissible. In the present case, the legislative measures adopted to implement the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation are in themselves a violation of the rights enshrined in the Covenant, as the Committee has previously observed.10 5.2 The author recalls that the State party’s declaration of a state of emergency on 9 February 1992 does not affect the right of persons to submit individual communications to the Committee. Article 4 of the Covenant allows for derogations from certain provisions of the Covenant during states of emergency, but does not affect the exercise of rights under the Optional Protocol. 5.3 The author reiterates that following her son’s arrest, the authorities in the State party were duly informed of his disappearance, but that the investigation that was conducted was not effective, since those responsible were not identified and the proceedings were terminated by an order for dismissal. 5.4 The author also recalls the ban, pursuant to article 45 of Ordinance No. 06-01, on bringing individual or collective proceedings against members of Algeria’s defence and security forces. She concludes that Ordinance No. 06-01 has put an end to any possibility of bringing civil or criminal proceedings for crimes committed by the security forces during the civil war, and that the Algerian courts are obliged to declare any such claim inadmissible. 9 10 GE.14-22809 See, for example, communication No. 1931/2010, Bouzeriba v. Algeria, Views adopted on 23 July 2014, paras. 4.1 to 5.4. The author refers to the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on the third periodic report of Algeria, adopted on 1 November 2007 (CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3), paras. 7, 8 and 13. She also refers to Boucherf v. Algeria, para. 11, and to the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture on the third periodic report of Algeria (CAT/C/DZA/CO/3), adopted on 13 May 2008, paras. 11, 13 and 17. Lastly, the author cites general comment No. 29 (2001) of the Human Rights Committee on derogations from the Covenant during a state of emergency, para. 1. 7