CCPR/C/121/D/2283/2013 Committee’s general comment No. 16 (1988) on the right to privacy and its jurisprudence,2 argues that the circumstances of Mahmoud Boudjema’s arrest, which was conducted with brutality and without a warrant, constitute a violation of article 17 attributable to the State party, in respect of both himself and his father. 3.9 Recalling that article 23 (1) of the Covenant provides for the right to protection of the family, the author argues that the disappearance of Mahmoud Boudjema, which deprived his family of a father and husband, constitutes a violation of that article, in respect of both the family and his father. 3.10 Lastly, the author recalls that article 2 (3) guarantees access to effective remedies for any person claiming a violation of any of his rights protected by the Covenant. He maintains that Mahmoud Boudjema, a victim of enforced disappearance, is de facto unable to exercise any remedy. Based on the jurisprudence of the Committee, he further recalls the obligation of the State party to conduct inquiries into alleged violations of human rights, to prosecute the presumed perpetrators and punish them, and he considers that the lack of response on the part of the Algerian authorities to the requests of the victim’s wife constitutes a breach of the State party’s obligations under article 2 of the Covenant. Lastly, he maintains that Ordinance No. 06-01, and specifically its article 45, constitutes a violation of the State party’s obligation to ensure an effective remedy. Accordingly, he asked the Committee to recognize that a violation has occurred of article 2 (3) read alone and in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 16 of the Covenant. 3.11 The author requests that the Committee find: (a) a violation of articles 2 (3), 6 (1), 7, 9 (1–4), 10 (1), 16, 17 and 23 (1) in respect of Mahmoud Boudjema; and (b) a violation of articles 2 (3), 7, 17 and 23 (1) in respect of himself. He also asks the Committee to request the State party: (a) to release Mahmoud Boudjema if he is still alive; (b) to provide him with an effective remedy, including by conducting a thorough and effective investigation into the father’s enforced disappearance; (c) to inform him and his family about the results of the investigation and provide appropriate compensation to the victim, the author and his family for the violations they have suffered; and (d) to provide reparation to Mahmoud Boudjema or his beneficiaries for the violations they have suffered. Lastly, he requests the Committee to call upon the State party: (a) to initiate criminal proceedings against those presumed to be responsible for the disappearance of Mahmoud Boudjema, to try them and punish them, notwithstanding the Ordinance implementing the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation; and (b) to take appropriate measures to ensure that such violations do not recur. Further submissions and requests from the authors 4. On 21 November 2013, the author’s counsel informed the Committee that Abdelkader Boudjema had on 13 November 2013 been summoned to the community gendarmerie brigade office covering his place of residence, the village of Emir Abdelkader. The gendarmes reportedly asked about the circumstances of his father’s disappearance, without issuing him any record or documentation. The author claims to have received a threat of criminal prosecution under article 46 of Ordinance No. 06-01. Accordingly, the author’s counsel has requested the Committee to remind the State party to refrain from harassing or taking criminal measures against the author or members of his family. On 22 November 2013, in its correspondence with the State party, the Committee pointed to rule 92 of its rules of procedure and reiterated its request to refrain from invoking domestic legislation, and specifically Ordinance No. 06-01, against the author and members of his family. State party’s observations 5.1 On 4 May 2015, the State party contested the admissibility of all the communications concerning the period from 1993 to 1998, submitting a copy of its background memorandum. 2 GE.17-21416 See communication No. 687/1996, Rojas García v. Colombia, Views adopted on 3 April 2001, para. 10.3. 5