CCPR/C/121/D/2283/2013 considers that this disappearance constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to Mahmoud Boudjema.10 8.7 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee will not consider separately the claims in relation to the violation of article 10 of the Covenant.11 8.8 The Committee also takes note of the anguish and distress caused to the author by the disappearance of Mahmoud Boudjema. It considers that the facts before it disclose a violation with regard to him of article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant.12 8.9 With regard to the complaint of violation of article 9 (1–4), the Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that Mahmoud Boudjema was arbitrarily arrested without a warrant and was not charged or brought before a court where he would have been able to challenge the legality of his detention. In the absence of any information from the State party in that regard, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations.13 The Committee therefore finds a violation of article 9 (1–4) with regard to Mahmoud Boudjema.14 8.10 The Committee is of the view that the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law constitutes a refusal to recognize him or her as a person before the law, particularly if the efforts of his or her relatives to obtain access to potentially effective remedies have been systematically impeded. 15 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has not furnished any convincing explanation concerning the fate or whereabouts of Mahmoud Boudjema, despite the inquiries made by his wife, and that when Mahmoud Boudjema was last seen he was in the custody of State officials. The Committee finds that Mahmoud Boudjema’s enforced disappearance more than 21 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. 8.11 With regard to the complaint of a violation of article 17, the Committee notes that the State party has not provided any justification or clarification as to the forced entry of soldiers into the family home of Mahmoud Boudjema in the middle of the night and without a warrant. The Committee concludes that the entry of officials into the family home of Mahmoud Boudjema in such circumstances constitutes unlawful interference with their home, in violation of article 17 of the Covenant. 16 8.12 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee will not consider separately the claims in relation to the violation of article 23 (1) of the Covenant. 8.13 The author invokes article 2 (3) 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 complaints of violations of the rights guaranteed under the Covenant. 17 It refers to its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 See Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.5; communication No. 1905/2009, Khirani v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 March 2012 and corrigendum, para. 7.5; Djebrouni v. Algeria, para. 8.5; and communication No. 1295/2004, El Alwani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 11 July 2007, para. 6.5. See Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.6. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.6; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.6; Djebrouni v. Algeria, para. 8.6; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para. 7.5; and communication No. 1422/2005, El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 24 October 2007, para. 6.11. See communication No. 2297/2013, Chani v. Algeria, Views adopted on 11 March 2016, para. 7.5. See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.7; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.7; and Djebrouni v. Algeria, para. 8.7. See communications No. 2164/2012, Basnet v. Nepal, Views adopted on 12 July 2016, para. 10.9; No. 2038/2011, Tharu et al. v. Nepal, Views adopted on 3 July 2015, para. 10.9; and Serna et al. v. Colombia, para. 9.5. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.10. See communication No. 2132/2012, Kerouane v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 October 2014, para. 7.11. GE.17-21416