CCPR/C/130/D/2843/2016 implemented precautionary measures and informed the United Nations Secretariat of its declaration of a state of emergency, in accordance with article 4 (3) of the Covenant. 4.3 The State party provides explanations of the context surrounding the period from 1993 to 1998, during which the events occurred. These explanations are repeated systematically by the State party in all communications concerning cases of enforced disappearance.9 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 11 October 2018, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations. She emphasizes that the observations are inappropriate, since they refer to a standard document dated July 2009 and addressed to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, not to the Committee. The State party’s observations make no mention of the specifics of the present case and provide no response with regard to the particular circumstances of Sadek Rsiwi’s disappearance. 5.2 According to the author, the State party’s response calls into question its obligation to cooperate in good faith with the Committee, a duty which arises – as the Committee reiterated in paragraph 15 of its general comment No. 33 (2008) – from an application of the principle of good faith to the observance of all treaty obligations. The author recalls that, in its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Algeria, the Committee recommended that the State party cooperate with the Committee 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.10 The Committee also expressed its concern about the State party’s practice of systematically referring to the “aide-memoire”, which does not offer a substantive response to the claims made by authors concerning events related to the period from 1993 to 1998 and, in some instances, outside that period.11 5.3 According to the Committee’s established jurisprudence, 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. 12 The author considers that neither the State party’s adoption of the Charter nor its adoption of a “comprehensive domestic settlement mechanism” constitute measures that adequately fulfil its treaty obligations to investigate, prosecute and provide reparation, and that such measures cannot be validly invoked before the Committee or constitute grounds for the inadmissibility of a communication. 5.4 In its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Algeria, the Committee reiterated its deep concern – already expressed several times in the past, in particular in its Views – with regard to article 45 of Ordinance No. 06-01, as that article precluded any kind of effective remedy for victims of violations of the Covenant’s provisions committed by law enforcement personnel, including the armed forces and security services, and fostered impunity. Thus, the Committee once again voiced its concern at the numerous and serious violations that had been reported but had not yet been prosecuted or punished.13 5.5 The author considers that the State party’s challenge to the Committee’s competence on the grounds that it would be necessary to consider the cases of enforced disappearance dating from 1993 to 1998 through a comprehensive, non-individualized approach is devoid of any relevance, as the State party has ratified the Covenant and its Optional Protocol and has thus recognized the competence of the Committee to receive communications by individual victims of violations of the rights set forth in the Covenant. She further stresses that the declaration of the state of emergency, as provided for under article 4 of the Covenant, has no effect on the prohibition of enforced disappearance or on the exercise of the rights stemming from the Optional Protocol. She adds that it is implicit in article 4 (2) of the 9 10 11 12 13 6 See, inter alia, El Boathi v. Algeria (CCPR/C/119/D/2259/2013), para. 4.3 ff.; and Boudjema v. Algeria (CCPR/C/121/D/2283/2013), para. 5.3 ff. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, para. 8. Ibid., para. 7. Fedsi v. Algeria (CCPR/C/111/D/1964/2010), para. 7.2. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, para. 11. GE.21-03102