CCPR/C/128/D/2893/2016 7.3 The Committee notes that the authors consider themselves to have exhausted all available remedies in respect of the disappearance of Mourad Bendjael. It notes that, by way of disputing the admissibility of the communication, the State party has simply referred to the background memorandum on the handling of disappearances in the light of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, in 2018, it reiterated its concern that, despite repeated requests, the State party continued to refer systematically to a general document (the “aide-memoire”) without providing specific information in response to the claims made by the authors of communications. Consequently, the Committee called on the State party, as a matter of urgency, to cooperate in good faith under the individual communications procedure by ceasing to refer to the aide-memoire and by responding individually, with specific details, to the claims made by authors of communications.20 7.4 The Committee also recalls that the State party has not only a duty to carry out thorough investigations of alleged violations of human rights brought to the attention of its authorities, particularly violations of the right to life, but also a duty to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations.21 Mourad Bendjael’s family has repeatedly alerted the competent authorities of the State party to his enforced disappearance but the authorities have failed to conduct an effective and thorough investigation in his regard. Moreover, the State party has provided no evidence giving grounds to conclude that an effective remedy is currently available. In addition, Ordinance No. 06-01 continues to be applied even though the Committee has emphasized the need to bring it into line with the principles of the Covenant. 22 In this connection, the Committee further recalls that in its concluding observations of 2018 on the State party’s fourth periodic report, it expressed regret about, in particular, the fact that there is no effective remedy available for disappeared persons or their families and that no action has been taken to uncover the truth about disappeared persons, to find them and, if they are deceased, to return their remains to their families. 23 In these circumstances, the Committee finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 The Committee further notes that Merouane Bendjael himself claims to have been a victim of arbitrary detention, in the course of which he was subjected to acts of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and to have had no access to an effective remedy to obtain compensation after his acquittal. In this regard he cites Act No. 01-08, which amended the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2001, and explains that he did not institute proceedings in the domestic courts to denounce his arbitrary detention and the acts of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to which he was subjected because he was afraid of reprisals and because no remedy was available for this purpose. 7.6 Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies by Merouane Bendjael, the Committee recalls that, as stated previously, the State party has not only a duty to carry out thorough investigations of alleged violations of human rights brought to the attention of its authorities, particularly violations of the right to life, but also a duty to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations. 24 In this regard, the Committee recalls that in its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Algeria, it expressed concern that so few of the officers who committed acts of torture and ill-treatment had been prosecuted and punished and that cases of arbitrary detention seemed not to have been investigated or prosecuted.25 The State party has failed to demonstrate that an effective remedy is available for persons finding themselves in situations such as Merouane Bendjael’s. 20 21 22 23 24 25 GE.20-14556 CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paras. 7 and 8. Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 7.4; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 7.4; Berzig v. Algeria (CCPR/C/103/D/1781/2008), para. 7.4; and Khirani v. Algeria (CCPR/C/104/D/1905/2009 and Corr.1), para. 6.4. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, paras. 7, 8 and 13 and CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paras. 6, 8, 12, 14 and 34. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, para. 29. Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 7.4; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 7.4; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 7.4; and Khirani v. Algeria, para. 6.4. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paras. 33 and 35. 9