CCPR/C/128/D/2893/2016 Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 15 March 2018, the authors commented on the State party’s observations on admissibility. They emphasize that these observations are addressed to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and are not a response to the present complaint. The authors further emphasize that the State party’s observations do not deal at all with the admissibility of the communication, the particulars of the case or the remedies sought by the victim’s family, thereby demonstrating the Algerian authorities’ disregard and disdain for the procedure currently before the Committee. They also point out that the State party’s observations, being dated July 2009, are obsolete. 5.2 Recalling that none of the remedies sought have led to a thorough investigation or criminal proceedings and that the Algerian authorities have failed to provide tangible evidence of any real efforts to locate Mourad Bendjael and identify those responsible for his disappearance, the authors conclude that domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the Committee should find the communication admissible. 5.3 Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence according to which the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation cannot be used against persons who submit individual communications, the authors recall that the provisions of the Charter are certainly not a satisfactory response to the cases of disappearance, which should be based on respect for the right to the truth, justice and full redress. State party’s failure to cooperate 6. The Committee recalls that, on 3 April 2017, the State party disputed the admissibility of the communication, referring to the Government’s background memorandum on the handling of disappearances in the light of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. On 12 December 2016, and again on 8 October and 12 December 2018, the State party was invited to submit its observations on the merits of the communication. The Committee notes that it has not received any response and regrets the State party’s failure to cooperate by sharing its observations on the present complaint. In conformity with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives and to transmit to the Committee the information in its possession.18 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that the disappearance was reported to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. However, it recalls that the extra-conventional procedures and mechanisms established by the Human Rights Council, firstly, to examine the human rights situation in specific countries or territories or cases of widespread human rights violations worldwide and, secondly, to report publicly on such matters, do not generally constitute an international procedure of investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol.19 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the examination of Mourad Bendjael’s case by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances does not render the communication inadmissible under this provision. 18 19 8 Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3 and Medjnoune v. Algeria (CCPR/C/87/D/1297/2004), para. 8.3. See, inter alia, Tharu and others v. Nepal (CCPR/C/114/D/2038/2011), para. 9.2; Ammari v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2098/2011), para. 7.2; Zaier v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2026/2011), para. 6.2; Mihoubi v. Algeria (CCPR/C/109/D/1874/2009), para. 6.2; and Al Daquel v. Libya (CCPR/C/111/D/1882/2009), para. 5.2. GE.20-14556