CCPR/C/121/D/2283/2013 7.2 The Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement for purposes of article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. The Committee notes that the disappearance was reported to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. However, it recalls that extraconventional procedures or mechanisms established by the Human Rights Council to examine and report publicly on human rights situations in specific countries or territories or on cases of widespread human rights violations worldwide do not generally constitute an international procedure of investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol.3 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the examination of Mahmoud Boudjema’s case by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances does not render the communication inadmissible under this provision. 7.3 The Committee notes that the author alleges that remedies have been exhausted. It notes that, by way of disputing the admissibility of the communication, the State party has simply referred to its background memorandum on the treatment of disappearances in the light of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. The Committee notes that the author’s mother repeatedly alerted the competent authorities, both judicial and administrative, to the disappearance of her husband, and that she was left facing silence on the part of the authorities. The Committee notes that the Taher court issued a decision concerning the case of Mahmoud Boudjema on 18 June 2005, but that the decision was a dismissal issued without justification or the possibility of appeal owing to its late notification. For its part, the State party has failed to provide any specific explanation in its comments responding to the case of Mahmoud Boudjema which would make it possible to conclude that an effective remedy is currently available. In addition, Ordinance No. 06-01 continues to be applied, despite the fact that the Committee recommended that it should be brought into line with the Covenant (see CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, paras. 7, 8 and 13). The Committee therefore concludes that article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication. 7.4 The Committee notes that the author alleges violations that raise issues under articles 2 (3), 6 (1), 7, 9 (1–4), 10 (1) and 16 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), as well as under articles 17 and 23 (1). The Committee considers that these claims are sufficiently substantiated and that there are no obstacles to their admissibility. The Committee therefore proceeds to consider the communication on the merits in respect of the alleged violations of articles 6 (1), 7, 9 (1–4), 10 (1), 16, 17, 23 (1) and 2 (3) of the Covenant. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes that the State party has merely referred to its collective and general comments, which it has previously transmitted to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the Committee in relation to other communications, in order to confirm its position that such cases have already been settled through the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. The Committee refers to its jurisprudence and recalls that the State party may not invoke the provisions of the Charter against persons who invoke provisions of the Covenant or who have submitted, or may submit, communications to the Committee. The Covenant demands that the State party concern itself with the fate of every individual and treat every individual with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 4 Given that the amendments recommended by the 3 4 8 See, inter alia, communications No. 2098/2011, Ammari v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 October 2014; No. 2026/2011, Sassene v. Algeria, Views adopted on 29 October 2014; No. 1791/2008, Boudjemai v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2013, para. 7.2; No. 1779/2008 (and Rev.1), Mezine v. Algeria, Views adopted on 25 October 2012, para. 7.2; and No. 1781/2008, Djebrouni v. Algeria, Views adopted on 31 October 2011, para. 7.2. See Sassene v. Algeria, para. 7.2; and Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.2. GE.17-21416