CCPR/C/130/D/2843/2016 Optional Protocol that the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against all agents of the State and to transmit to the Committee the information in its possession.14 5.6 Lastly, the author considers that the State party has breached its general obligation under article 2 (2), read in conjunction with articles 2 (3) and 19 of the Covenant. The principal reason why remedies are ineffective in the State party is that, under article 45 of Ordinance No. 06-01, it is legally impossible for the author to lodge an appeal before the State party’s courts. This ordinance has made it legally impossible to apply for an effective remedy within the legal framework of the State party, in violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, and, furthermore, has criminalized, under article 46, all peaceful expression of complaints and all public discussion of the alleged events, in violation of the author’s right to freedom of expression enshrined in article 19 of the Covenant. For as long as the abovementioned provisions of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation remain applicable, the families of victims have no legal means of claiming their rights under article 2 (3) of the Covenant or even expressing themselves publicly regarding the violations suffered by their relatives, which could result in them receiving a prison sentence of up to 5 years, in violation of article 19 of the Covenant. Lack of cooperation by the State party 6. On 12 October and 13 December 2018, the State party was invited to submit its observations on the merits of the communication. The Committee notes that it has not received any response and regrets the refusal of the State party to provide any information in this regard. In conformity with article 4 (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 transmit to the Committee the information in its possession. 15 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that she has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to her. It notes that, to dispute the admissibility of the communication, the State party has simply referred to the background memorandum of the Government of Algeria on handling the issue of disappearances in the light of the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, in 2018, it reiterated its concern that, despite repeated requests, the State party continued to refer systematically to a standard document (the “aide-memoire”) without responding specifically to the claims made by authors of communications. Consequently, the Committee called on the State party, as a matter of urgency, to cooperate with it in good faith under the individual communications procedure by ceasing to refer to the “aide-memoire” and by responding individually and with specifics to the claims made by authors of communications. 16 7.4 Furthermore, the Committee recalls that the State party has a duty not only to carry out thorough investigations of alleged violations of human rights brought to the attention of its authorities, particularly violations of the right to life, but also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations. 17 Although the family of Sadek Rsiwi brought his enforced disappearance to the attention of the competent authorities on many 14 15 16 17 GE.21-03102 Medjnoune v. Algeria (CCPR/C/87/D/1297/2004), para. 8.3. Mezine v. Algeria (CCPR/C/106/D/1779/2008), para. 8.3; and Medjnoune v. Algeria, para. 8.3. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paras. 7–8. Boudjemai v. Algeria (CCPR/C/107/D/1791/2008), para. 7.4. 7