CCPR/C/130/D/2843/2016 occasions, the State party has not conducted a comprehensive and thorough investigation into this serious allegation. Furthermore, the State party has not offered any specific explanation in its observations regarding the case of Sadek Rsiwi that would lead to the conclusion that an effective remedy is now available. In addition, Ordinance No. 06-01 continues to be applied despite the Committee’s recommendation that it be brought into line with the Covenant.18 In its concluding observations on the State party’s fourth periodic report, the Committee deplored the fact that there is no effective remedy available for disappeared persons or their families and that no action has been taken to uncover the truth about disappeared persons, to find them and, if they are deceased, to return their remains to their families. 19 In the circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the State party has not fulfilled its obligations under article 2 (2) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with articles 2 (3) and 19, since, in adopting Ordinance No. 06-01, the State party has taken a legislative measure that deprives of effect the right to an effective remedy against human rights violations, in breach of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, and that, moreover, criminalizes all peaceful expression or public discussion regarding the alleged events, in violation of the author’s right to freedom of expression enshrined in article 19 of the Covenant. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence20 according to which the provisions of article 2 cannot be invoked as a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol in conjunction with other provisions of the Covenant, except when the failure by the State party to abide by its obligations under article 2 is the proximate cause of a distinct violation of the Covenant directly affecting the individual claiming to be a victim. The Committee also recalls that a person may not claim to be a victim within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol unless his or her rights have actually been violated and no person may, in theoretical terms and by actio popularis, object to a law or practice that he or she holds to be at variance with the Covenant. 21 In the present case, the Committee considers that the author has not provided sufficient information to explain how Ordinance No. 06-01 has been effectively applied to her from the standpoint of article 19 of the Covenant. Consequently, the Committee considers that these claims have not been sufficiently substantiated and are therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.6 Furthermore, the Committee notes that, due to the changes made to the Algerian legal framework in 2006, the author has been unable to assert her right to an effective remedy to denounce the disappearance of her husband in 1996, as no remedy is available for this purpose. The Committee also notes that the present communication was submitted to it in 2016. It recalls that, according to rule 99 (c) of its rules of procedure, a communication may constitute an abuse of the right of submission when it is submitted five years after the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author. The wording of this provision gives a degree of discretion to the Committee, which is competent to determine when the rule should not be strictly applied. The Committee has already examined cases of enforced disappearance imputed to the State party. For example, the case of Mahmoud Boudjema was brought before the Committee in 2013, although his disappearance had taken place in 1996. 22 The Committee notes that, in the case of Boudjema v. Algeria – as in the present case – the State party did not claim that the communication constituted an abuse of the right of submission. Moreover, the Committee previously noted, in 2007 and 2018, that Ordinance No. 06-01 categorically prohibited the prosecution of members of the defence and security forces, and thus seemed to promote impunity.23 The Committee considers that this climate of impunity, which is reinforced by the legal prohibition on initiating judicial proceedings, has an indisputably negative impact on the ability of victims to assert their right to an effective remedy at both the national and international level. Declaring the present communication inadmissible on the ground of abuse of the right of submission could have the effect of 18 19 20 21 22 23 8 CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, paras. 7, 8 and 13; and CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paras. 6, 8, 12, 14 and 34. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, para. 29. Poliakov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/111/D/2030/2011), para. 7.4. Marchant Reyes et al. v. Chile (CCPR/C/121/D/2627/2015), para. 6.4. Boudjema v. Algeria. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, para. 7; and CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, para. 11. GE.21-03102