CCPR/C/130/D/2843/2016 encouraging the State party to continue to impede the right to an effective remedy for victims of violations of the right to life. The Committee also recalls that enforced disappearance is a continuous offence and that, consequently, the obligation to investigate is itself continuous, which, in the present case, is negated by the law and its effects. The Committee does not, therefore, consider that, in the special circumstances of the case, the present communication would constitute an abuse of the right of submission. 7.7 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated her claims for the purposes of admissibility and proceeds with its consideration of the merits of the claims made under articles 2 (3), 6 (1), 7, 9, 10 (1), 16 and 23 (1) of the Covenant. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted to it, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes that the State party has merely referred to its collective and general comments, which it had previously transmitted to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and to the Committee in relation to other communications, in order to confirm its position that such cases have already been settled through the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. The Committee refers to its jurisprudence and to its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Algeria and recalls that the State party may not invoke the provisions of the Charter 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. As the amendments recommended by the Committee have not been introduced, Ordinance No. 06-01 contributes, in the present case, to impunity and therefore cannot, as it currently stands, be considered compatible with the provisions of the Covenant.24 8.3 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, according to which the burden of proof should not rest solely on the author of a communication, especially given 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. 25 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. 26 In the absence of any explanation from the State party in this respect, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, provided that they have been sufficiently substantiated. 8.4 The Committee recalls that, while the Covenant does not explicitly use the term “enforced disappearance” in any of its articles, enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts that represents a continuing violation of various rights recognized in that treaty, such as the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to liberty and security of person.27 8.5 The Committee notes that Sadek Rsiwi was last seen by the author on 18 March 1996, while he was in detention in Ghardaïa military district. It notes that the State party has produced no evidence to help determine Sadek Rsiwi’s fate and has never even confirmed 24 25 26 27 GE.21-03102 Zaier v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2026/2011), para. 7.2; and Ammari v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2098/2011), para. 8.2. See, inter alia, Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.3; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/99/D/1640/2007), para. 7.4; Berzig v. Algeria (CCPR/C/103/D/1781/2008), para. 8.3; and Bolakhe et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/123/D/2658/2015), para. 7.4. Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; and Medjnoune v. Algeria, para. 8.3. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 2; Katwal v. Nepal (CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010), para. 11.3; Serna et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012), para. 9.4; and El Boathi v. Algeria, para. 7.4. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36 (2019), para. 58. 9