CCPR/C/112/D/2046/2011 Tripoli, dressed in plain clothes and armed, stormed the family home, breaking doors and windows; that they beat the author, who was elderly and ill; that they looted the premises, taking all the valuables, then removed all those family members present and set fire to the house. The author notes that the family was devastated by the loss of their common living space, repository of family history and means of subsistence. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in which it was not considered necessary to draw up a list of prohibited acts or to establish sharp distinctions between the different kinds of punishment or treatment; since the distinctions depend on the nature, purpose and severity of the treatment applied. The Committee also considers that the prohibition in article 7 relates not only to acts that cause physical pain but also to acts that cause mental suffering to the victim.9 6.5 The Committee notes that, in this case, it was the authorities of the State party that destroyed the family home; that, during this operation, the author, who was elderly and vulnerable, was beaten and her youngest son, Fredj Saleh Hmeed, was also beaten and arrested without a warrant; and that this deliberate destruction appears to have been carried out without a warrant. Under the circumstances, the Committee considers this act of destruction to amount to reprisals and intimidation, causing severe mental anguish to the author and her family and constituting a separate violation of article 7 of the Covenant with respect to Fredj Saleh Hmeed, Al Sadek Saleh Hmeed, Al Mahdi Saleh Hmeed, Ali Saleh Hmeed, Adel Saleh Hmeed and the author.10 6.6 With regard to the alleged violation of article 17 of the Covenant, the Committee notes once again the author’s claims that, on 15 February 2007, security officers, dressed in plain clothes, armed and without a warrant, stormed the house, breaking doors and windows, and that they looted the premises, taking all the valuables, then set fire to the house. The Committee notes that the State party has made no comment on these claims and that due weight must therefore be given to the author’s allegations, provided that they have been sufficiently substantiated.11 The Committee concludes that the entry of State officials into the home of the author and her family in such circumstances, as well as the destruction of the house, constitute unlawful interference with their privacy, family and home, in violation of article 17 of the Covenant, with regard to the author and the family members who lived there.12 6.7 In the light of the above, the Committee will not consider the claims based on the violation of article 23, paragraph 1, of the Covenant separately. Lack of an effective remedy 6.8 The author also invokes article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, pursuant to which States parties are obliged to ensure an effective remedy for any person whose rights, as recognized in the Covenant, are violated. The Committee attaches importance to States parties’ establishing appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations. It recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, which states that a State party’s failure to investigate alleged violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. 9 10 11 12 GE.14-22374 General comment No. 20 (1992), paras. 4 and 5. See communication No. 1884/2009, Aouali et al. v. Algeria, Views adopted on 18 October 2013, paras. 7.7 et seq. See communication No. 1905/2009, Khirani v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 March 2012, para. 7.3. See communications Nos. 1779/2008, Mezine v. Algeria, Views adopted on 25 October 2012, para. 8.10; and Aouali et al. v. Algeria, para. 7.12. 9