CCPR/C/112/D/2026/2011 the absence of satisfactory explanations from the State party, the Committee finds a violation of article 9 with regard to Rachid Sassene. 18 7.8 The Committee reiterates that persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty and that they must be treated with humanity and respect for their dignity. In view of Rachid Sassene’s incommunicado detention and in the absence of information from the State party in that regard, the Committee finds a violation of article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 19 7.9 The Committee reiterates its established jurisprudence, 20 according to which the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time may constitute a refusal to recognize him or her as a person before the law if the victim was in the hands of the State authorities when last seen and if the efforts of his or her relatives to obtain access to potentially effective remedies, including judicial remedies (art. 2, para. 3, of the Covenant) have been systematically impeded. In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has not furnished any explanation concerning the fate or whereabouts of Rachid Sassene despite the multiple requests addressed to the State party by the author. The Committee finds that Rachid Sassene’s enforced disappearance more than 18 years ago removed him from the protection of the law and deprived him of his right to be recognized as a person before the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 7.10 The Committee notes that the State party provided no explanation or justification for the fact that policemen conducted a search without a warrant in the home of Rachid Sassene’s family, nor for the fact that they looted and ransacked the family’s home in the course of that unlawful search. The Committee finds that the conduct of the State officials and their entry into the Sassene home constitute unlawful interference with the family’s home, in violation of article 17 of the Covenant. 21 7.11 The Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing complaints of violations of the rights guaranteed under the Covenant. It refers to its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, according to which the failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could, in itself, give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. In the present case, the family of Rachid Sassene informed the competent authorities, including the Public Prosecutor, of Mr. Sassene’s disappearance, but the State party has failed to undertake a thorough and effective investigation into his disappearance, and the author has received only vague and contradictory information on the matter. Furthermore, the absence of the legal right to undertake judicial proceedings following the promulgation of Ordinance No. 06-01 implementing the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation continues to deprive Rachid Sassene, as well as the author and her family, of any access to an effective remedy, since the Ordinance prohibits the initiation of legal proceedings to shed light on the most serious of crimes, including enforced disappearance. 22 The Committee finds that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 2 (para. 3), read in conjunction with articles 6 (para. 1), 18 19 20 21 22 10 See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.7; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.7; and Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.7. See general comment No. 21, para. 3; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.8; communications No. 1780/2008, Zarzi v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2011, para. 7.8; and No. 1134/2002, Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 17 March 2005, para. 5.2. Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.9; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.9; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.9; Zarzi v. Algeria, para. 7.9; Benaziza v. Algeria, para. 9.8; Atamna v. Algeria, para. 7.8; and Madoui v. Algeria, para. 7.7. Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.10. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, para. 7. GE.14-24387