CCPR/C/112/D/2117/2011 5.5 Lastly, the author notes that the State party has simply referred to its background memorandum and the additional memorandum, and has not refuted the allegations of violations. She therefore considers that the Committee must base its decision on the existing information and that her allegations must be regarded as proven.11 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 The Committee recalls that before considering any claim contained in a communication, it must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 As required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that the case of Hacen Louddi has been submitted to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. However, it recalls that extra-conventional procedures or mechanisms established by the Commission on Human Rights or the Human Rights Council to examine and report publicly on human rights situations in specific countries or territories or on cases of widespread human rights violations worldwide do not generally constitute an international procedure of investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol.12 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the examination of Hacen Louddi’s case by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances does not render the present communication inadmissible under this provision. 6.3 The Committee notes that, by way of disputing the admissibility of the communication, the State party has simply referred to its background memorandum and its additional memorandum, without providing copies of them. The Committee recalls that the State party has a duty not only to carry out thorough investigations of alleged violations of human rights, particularly enforced disappearances or violations of the right to life, that are brought to the attention of its authorities, but also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations. 13 Although the family of Hacen Louddi repeatedly contacted the competent authorities concerning his disappearance, the State party failed to conduct a thorough and effective investigation in order to identify those responsible for the disappearance, since an order for dismissal of proceedings was issued by the investigating judge on 27 March 2007 and confirmed by the Supreme Court on 29 September 2009. The State party has also failed to provide sufficient information indicating that an effective remedy is available, while Ordinance No. 06-01 continues to be applied despite the Committee’s recommendation that it should be brought into line with the Covenant.14 The Committee therefore concludes that article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the communication. 11 12 13 14 8 The author refers to communication No. 207/2002 of the Committee against Torture, Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro, decision adopted on 24 November 2004, para. 5.3; and communication No. 1640/2007 of the Human Rights Committee, El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 4. See communication No. 1874/2009, Mihoubi v. Algeria, Views adopted on 18 October 2013, para. 6.2. See, inter alia, communications No. 1779/2008, Mezine v. Algeria, Views adopted on 25 October 2012, para. 7.4; No. 1781/2008, Berzig v. Algeria, Views adopted on 31 October 2011, para. 7.4; No. 1905/2009, Khirani v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 March 2012, para. 6.4; and No. 1791/2008, Boudjemai v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2013, para. 7.4. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, paras. 7, 8 and 13. GE.14-22809