CCPR/C/112/D/2083/2011 2.5 Having to contend with the inaction and lack of transparency of the Algerian authorities, as well as with the financial consequences of his son’s disappearance, which seriously affected the transport firm they had been running together, the author resigned himself to completing the formalities required by Ordinance No. 06-01 implementing the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. This requires that, in order to receive compensation, the families of disappeared persons testify that the disappeared have died. Accordingly, on 2 April 2006, the author submitted to the gendarmerie in Constantine a request for information concerning Yahia Kroumi. The request led to the issuance, on 5 June 2006, of a certificate of disappearance “in the extraordinary circumstances caused by the national tragedy”, which enabled the author and his wife to obtain 9,600,000 dinars. 2 The complaint 3.1 The author alleges that his son was a victim of an enforced disappearance attributable to the State party as defined by article 7 (para. 2 (i)) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and by article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, because he disappeared after being arrested by agents of the security forces of the State party acting in an official capacity. 3.2 The author emphasizes that it is probable that his son died in detention, possibly even during the first night, when many of those being held with him died. He considers that his son, who was held in premises unknown, was under the responsibility of the State party, which is required to guarantee the right to life of all detained persons. The fact that the State party is unable to provide any accurate and consistent information on the fate of a person under its authority indicates that it has failed to take the necessary steps to protect that person during detention, in violation of article 6 (para. 1) of the Covenant. The author maintains, moreover, that when an enforced disappearance lasts for a long period, as is the case of that of Yahia Kroumi, who disappeared more than 20 years ago, the disappearance in itself constitutes a violation of the right to life guaranteed by article 6 (para. 1) of the Covenant.3 3.3 The author recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence4 and maintains that enforced disappearance itself constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, because his son’s abduction and disappearance, which prevented him from communicating with his family and the outside world, constitute cruel and inhuman treatment. The author emphasizes that enforced disappearance is a complex crime that comprises a broad array of human rights violations and that it may not be reduced to mere incommunicado detention, as the Committee seems to do in its most recent jurisprudence. The author considers that incommunicado detention is a separate violation of article 7 of the Covenant, but that the Committee should not retain that aspect alone.5 The author recalls moreover that his son was initially detained under appalling conditions which were responsible for the death of many persons. He considers that such conditions constitute inhuman treatment far beyond a 2 3 4 5 4 Yahia Kroumi’s mother died before receiving her share, and the author received only a fraction of the amount due to his wife. The author refers to the individual opinions of Mr. Fabián Omar Salvioli in this respect, in particular in communications No. 1780/2008 Zarzi v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2011, and No. 1588/2007, Benaziza v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 July 2010. Communications No. 449/1991, Mojica v. Dominican Republic, Views adopted on 15 July 1994, para. 5.7; No. 540/1993, Laureano Atachahua v. Peru, Views adopted on 25 March 1996, para. 8.5; and No. 542/1993 N’Goya v. Zaire, Views adopted on 25 March 1996, para. 5.5. Benaziza v. Algeria, para. 9.5; communications No. 1196/2003, Boucherf v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006, para. 9.6; No. 1327/2004, Atamna v. Algeria, Views adopted on 10 July 2007, para. 7.6; No. 992/2001, Bousroual v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006, para. 9.8; and No. 950/2000, Sarma v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 16 July 2003, para. 9.3. GE.14-22365