CCPR/C/128/D/2819/2016 8.10 The author also invokes article 14 of the Covenant, alleging a lack of access to the judicial authorities of the State party. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 32, in which it states that a situation in which an individual’s attempts to access the competent courts or tribunals are systematically frustrated de jure or de facto runs counter to the guarantee set forth in the first sentence of article 14 (1) of the Covenant. It notes that, in this instance, all attempts by the author to bring the case before the judicial authorities have proved fruitless. It refers to its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Algeria, in which it expressed its concern with regard to articles 45 and 46 of Ordinance No. 06-01, which infringe the right of any person to have access to an effective remedy against violations of human rights.32 This right also encompasses the right to have access to a court, which is enshrined in article 14 (1) of the Covenant. The Committee therefore finds that the State party has failed in its duty to ensure that the author has access to a court, in violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 8.11 The Committee is of the view that the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law constitutes a denial of the right to recognition as a person before the law, particularly if the efforts of the victim’s relatives to exercise their right to an effective remedy have been consistently impeded.33 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has not provided any explanation as to the fate or whereabouts of Abdelhakim Houari, despite the enquiries made by his relatives and the fact that, when he was last seen, Abdelhakim Houari was in the hands of the State authorities. The Committee finds that Abdelhakim Houari’s enforced disappearance more than 24 years ago removed him from the protection of the law and deprived him of his right to recognition as a person before the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 8.12 The author also invokes – in conjunction with article 7 – article 2 (3) of the Covenant, which requires States parties to ensure that individuals have accessible, effective and enforceable remedies for asserting the rights enshrined in the Covenant. The Committee recalls the importance that it attaches to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of violations of the rights enshrined in the Covenant.34 It recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it states that failure by a State party to investigate alleged violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. 8.13 In the present case, the author reported her son’s disappearance to the competent authorities several times, yet the State party failed to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into his disappearance and the author was not provided with any credible information regarding her son’s fate. Furthermore, the legal impossibility of applying to a judicial body since the promulgation of Ordinance No. 06-01 continues to deprive Abdelhakim Houari and the author of any access to an effective remedy, given that the Ordinance prohibits the use of the justice system to shed light on the most serious crimes, such as enforced disappearance. 35 The Committee finds that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant, with regard to Abdelhakim Houari, and of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7 of the Covenant, with regard to the author. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it discloses violations by the State party of articles 6, 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant, as well as of article 2 (3) read in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9 and 16, with regard to Abdelhakim Houari. It also finds a violation by the State party of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and of article 14 of the Covenant, with regard to the author. 10. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. It is required to make full 32 33 34 35 10 CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paras. 11–14. Basnet v. Nepal (CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012), para. 10.9; Tharu et al. v. Nepal, para. 10.9; Serna et al. v. Colombia, para. 9.5. Allioua and Kerouane v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2132/2012), para. 7.11. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, para. 7. GE.20-12768