CCPR/C/128/D/2893/2016 8.10 With regard to the alleged violation of article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee takes note of the authors’ allegations that Mourad Bendjael and Merouane Bendjael were arbitrarily arrested, without a warrant, and were neither formally charged nor brought before a judicial authority, which would have enabled them to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. In the absence of any information from the State party on this subject, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations.35 The Committee therefore finds a violation of article 9 of the Covenant with regard to Mourad Bendjael and Merouane Bendjael.36 8.11 The Committee also takes note of Malika Bendjael’s allegation that her lack of access to the State party’s judicial authorities constitutes a violation of article 14 of the Covenant. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 32, in which it states, inter alia, 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 contained in the first sentence of article 14 (1) of the Covenant. In the present case, the Committee notes that all of the procedures that Malika Bendjael initiated with the judicial authorities proved unsuccessful. It refers to its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Algeria, in which it expressed concern about 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.37 This right includes the right of access to a court, as provided for in article 14 (1) of the Covenant. The Committee therefore finds that the State party has failed in its duty to provide Malika Bendjael with access to a court, in violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 8.12 The Committee recalls 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 his or her relatives to obtain access to effective remedies have been systematically impeded.38 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has not furnished any explanation concerning the fate or whereabouts of Mourad Bendjael, despite the inquiries made by his relatives and the fact that he was last seen in the custody of the authorities. The Committee finds that Mourad Bendjael’s enforced disappearance more than 25 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. 8.13 With regard to the alleged violation of article 17 of the Covenant, the Committee notes that the State party has not provided any justification or clarification as to why military security forces forcibly entered the family home of Mourad Bendjael in the middle of the night without a warrant. The Committee concludes that the entry of officials into the family home of Mourad Bendjael in these circumstances constituted unlawful interference with their home, in violation of article 17 of the Covenant.39 8.14 The authors also invoke a violation of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9, 16 and 17 of the Covenant, which requires States parties to ensure that individuals have accessible, effective and enforceable remedies for asserting the rights recognized in the Covenant. The Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of violations of the rights guaranteed under the Covenant.40 It refers to 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 a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. 8.15 In the present case, although Malika Bendjael repeatedly alerted the competent authorities to her son’s disappearance, the State party failed to conduct a thorough and 35 36 37 38 39 40 12 Chani v. Algeria (CCPR/C/116/D/2297/2013), para. 7.5. See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.7; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.7; and Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.7. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paras. 11–14. Basnet v. Nepal (CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012), para. 10.9; Tharu and others v. Nepal, para. 10.9; and Serna et al. v. Colombia, para. 9.5. Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.10 and Boudjema v. Algeria (CCPR/C/121/D/2283/2013), para. 8.11. Allioua and Kerouane v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2132/2012), para. 7.11. GE.20-14556