CCPR/C/112/D/2117/2011 6.4 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated her allegations insofar as they raise issues under articles 6 (para. 1), 7, 9, 10 (para. 1), 16, and 23, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (para. 3) of the Covenant. The Committee notes, however, that she has not filed any application for compensation with the authorities of the State party for the arbitrary or unlawful detention of her son and that the alleged violation of article 9 (para. 5) is therefore not admissible. The Committee consequently proceeds to consider the communication on the merits with respect to the alleged violations of articles 2 (para. 3), 6 (para. 1), 7, 9, 10 (para. 1), 16, and 23. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the written information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (para. 1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The State party has submitted no observations: it simply refers to its background memorandum and the additional memorandum it provided as observations on the admissibility of a number of individual communications submitted against the State party for cases of enforced disappearance during the “national tragedy”. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence,15 according to which the State party may not invoke the provisions of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation against persons who invoke provisions of the Covenant or who have submitted or may submit communications to the Committee. The Covenant demands that the State party concern itself with the fate of every individual and treat every individual with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Ordinance No. 06-01, without the amendments recommended by the Committee, promotes impunity in the present instance and therefore cannot, as it currently stands, be considered compatible with the provisions of the Covenant. 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not replied to the author’s allegations concerning the merits of the case and recalls its jurisprudence, 16 according to which the burden of proof should not lie solely with the author of a communication, especially given that that the author and the State party do not always have the same degree of access to evidence and that often only the State party is in possession of the necessary information. In conformity with article 4 (para. 2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives and to provide the Committee with the information available to it.17 In the absence of any explanations from the State party in this respect, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, provided they have been sufficiently substantiated. 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s assertion that her son, Hacen Louddi, was arrested at his workplace, in front of witnesses, by police officers from the Châteauneuf PCO on the morning of 9 April 1995 and has been missing since that date. The Committee notes that according to statements by witnesses, Hacen Louddi had been held incommunicado for several months at the Châteauneuf PCO before he finally disappeared on 18 November 1995. The Committee notes that the State party has produced no evidence to shed light on what happened to him while he was under the responsibility of the State. The Committee recalls that, in cases of enforced disappearance, the deprivation of liberty, followed by a 15 16 17 GE.14-22809 See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.2; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.2; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.2. See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para. 7.4; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.3; and Boudjemai v. Algeria para. 8.3. See also International Court of Justice, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), judgment of 30 November 2010, para. 54. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; communication No. 1297/2004, Medjnoune v. Algeria, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 8.3; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.3. 9