CCPR/C/112/D/2083/2011 violations of the right to life, brought to the attention of its authorities, but also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations. 16 Although the family of Yahia Kroumi repeatedly contacted the competent authorities concerning his disappearance, the State party failed to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the events, despite the fact that a serious allegation of enforced disappearance was involved. The State party has also failed to provide sufficient information indicating that an effective remedy is available, while Ordinance 06-01 continues to be applied despite the Committee’s recommendation that it should be brought into line with the Covenant. 17 The Committee considers that to sue for damages for offences as serious as those alleged in the present case cannot be considered a substitute for charges that should be brought by the public prosecutor. 18 The Committee therefore concludes that article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the communication. 7.5 The Committee considers that, for a communication to be deemed admissible, the author must have exhausted only the remedies relevant to the alleged violation – in the present case, remedies with respect to enforced disappearance. 7.6 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his allegations insofar as they raise issues under articles 6 (para. 1), 7, 9, 10 (para. 1), 16 and 17, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (para. 3) of the Covenant. The Committee finds, however, that the author did not make any request for compensation to the State party’s authorities for the arbitrary or illegal detention of his son and that the alleged violation of article 9, paragraph 5, is thus not admissible. The Committee therefore proceeds to consider the communication on the merits in respect of the alleged violations of articles 2 (para. 3), 6 (para. 1), 7, 9, 10 (para. 1), 16 and 17. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the written information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The State party has submitted collective and general observations in response to serious allegations by the author, and has been content to argue that communications incriminating public officials, or persons acting on behalf of public authorities, in cases of enforced disappearances between 1993 and 1998 should be considered within the broader context of the sociopolitical situation and security conditions that prevailed in the country during a period when the Government was struggling to combat terrorism. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence,19 according to which the State party may not invoke the provisions of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation 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. Ordinance No. 06-01, without the amendments recommended by the Committee, contributes to impunity and therefore cannot, as it currently stands, be considered compatible with the provisions of the Covenant. 16 17 18 19 12 See, inter alia, communications No. 1779/2008, Mezine v. Algeria, Views adopted on 25 October 2012, para. 7.4; No. 1781/2008, Berzig v. Algeria, Views adopted on 31 October 2011, para. 7.4; No. 1905/2009, Khirani v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 March 2012, para. 6.4; and No. 1791/2008, Boudjemai v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2013, para. 7.4. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, paras. 7, 8 and 13. Mezine v. Algeria, para. 7.4; Benaziza v. Algeria, para. 8.3; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 7.4; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 6.4; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 7.4. See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.2; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.2; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.2. GE.14-22365