CCPR/C/112/D/2026/2011 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the examination of Rachid Sassene’s case by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances does not render it inadmissible under this provision. 6.3 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 enforced disappearances, but also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations. 11 The author repeatedly informed the competent authorities of her husband’s disappearance, but the State party did not conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the matter. The State party has also failed to provide sufficient evidence that an effective and available remedy has been provided, while Ordinance No. 06-01 continues to be applied despite the Committee’s recommendation that it should be brought into line with the Covenant. 12 The Committee therefore concludes that article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the communication. 6.4 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated her allegations insofar as they raise issues under articles 6 (para. 1), 7, 9, 10 (para. 1), 16 and 17, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (para. 3) of the Covenant. The Committee notes, however, that the author has not applied to the State party authorities for compensation for the arbitrary or unlawful detention of her husband and that the claim of a violation of article 9 (para. 5) is not admissible. The Committee therefore proceeds to consider the communication on the merits in respect of the alleged violations of articles 2 (para. 3), 6 (para. 1), 7, 9, 10 (para. 1), 16 and 17. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The State party has merely drawn attention to its collective and general comments, which it has previously transmitted to the Committee in relation to other communications, in order to confirm its position that such cases have already been settled in implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. The Committee refers to its jurisprudence and recalls that 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. The Covenant requires the State party to show concern for the fate of each individual and to treat each person with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. In the present case, Ordinance No. 06-01 — without the amendments recommended by the Committee — promotes impunity and therefore cannot, as it currently stands, be considered compatible with the Covenant. 7.3 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, 13 according to which the 11 12 13 8 1781/2008, Berzig v. Algeria, Views adopted on 31 October 2011, para. 7.2; and Laureano Atachahua v. Peru, para. 7.1. See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 7.4; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 7.4; No. 1905/2009, Khirani v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 March 2012, para. 6.4; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 7.4. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on the third periodic report of Algeria, adopted on 1 November 2007 (CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3), paras. 7, 8 and 13. See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para. 7.4; and Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.3. See also International Court of Justice, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), judgment of 30 November 2010, para. 54. GE.14-24387