CCPR/C/128/D/2893/2016 Commission, the Head of Government and the Minister of Justice. 8 The Bendjael family received a statement from the police dated 19 August 2009 asking the family to follow the compensation procedure under the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. 2.10 Malika Bendjael states that she has often been arrested and assaulted while participating in peaceful demonstrations at the request of the association SOS Disparus. Both authors have been taken in for questioning and handled roughly several times during gatherings of families of disappeared persons, including on 8 March 2008 on the occasion of International Women’s Day. 2.11 Despite the authors’ best efforts, no investigation has been opened to examine the significant contradictions between the information contained in official records, the authorities’ statements and the observations of witnesses, particularly those of A.B. and Merouane Bendjael. The authors point out that, following the promulgation of Ordinance No. 06-01 of 27 February 2006 implementing the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation, it is legally impossible for them to have recourse to judicial proceedings. Domestic remedies, which had in any case proved useless and ineffective, are thus now totally unavailable. The Charter stipulates that “reprehensible acts on the part of agents of the State, which have been punished by law whenever they have been proved, cannot be used as a pretext to discredit the security forces as a whole, who were doing their duty for their country with the support of its citizens”. 2.12 The authors argue that, since Ordinance No. 06-01 prohibits recourse to judicial proceedings, on pain of criminal prosecution, the victims are relieved of any obligation to exhaust domestic remedies. Article 45 of the Ordinance in fact prohibits any complaint of disappearance or other offences, stipulating that “no individual or class action may be taken against members of any branch of the defence and security forces of the Republic for actions carried out to protect persons and property, safeguard the nation and preserve the institutions of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria”. By virtue of this provision, any allegation or complaint must be declared inadmissible by the competent legal authority. Furthermore, article 46 of the Ordinance establishes that “any person who, through his or her spoken or written statements or any other act, uses or makes use of the wounds caused by the national tragedy to undermine the institutions of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, weaken the State, impugn the honour of agents who served the State with dignity or tarnish the image of Algeria abroad shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of 3 to 5 years and a fine of 250,000 to 500,000 Algerian dinars. Criminal proceedings shall be automatically initiated by the public prosecutor’s office. In the case of repeat offences, the penalty established in this article shall be doubled.” 2.13 Merouane Bendjael has not been able to bring a complaint before the national courts either to denounce his arbitrary detention or to obtain compensation on the grounds of wrongful detention. He did not institute proceedings when he was released from prison because he was afraid of being sent back there and did not want to take any risks. Furthermore, Act No. 01-08 of 26 June 2001, which subsequently introduced into the Code of Criminal Procedure a procedure for obtaining compensation in such cases, stipulates that such requests must be submitted within six months of the dismissal of proceedings, discharge or final acquittal. Merouane Bendjael was therefore unable to benefit from this provision, which entered into force two years after his acquittal. Because of the torture he had suffered, 9 Merouane Bendjael felt threatened and feared taking any steps that might expose him to renewed threats and to reprisals by the authorities.10 He explains that he did not raise the issue 8 9 10 4 Following these requests, on 9 December 2006 Malika Bendjael received a letter from the Head of Government informing her that her son’s case was being processed by the National Advisory Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. On 27 December 2006, she received a letter from the Office of the President advising her to apply to the court with jurisdiction over her place of residence. She had already taken such steps, to no avail. Merouane Bendjael was thrown to the ground, kicked and hit with an iron bar. He was subjected to repeated electrocutions and waterboarding. Merouane Bendjael invokes the Committee’s jurisprudence, notably Mehalli v. Algeria (CCPR/C/110/D/1900/2009), according to which the requirement to exhaust all domestic remedies is more flexible in situations of threats and fear of reprisals. GE.20-14556