CCPR/C/112/D/2083/2011 4.8 The State party asks the Committee to note how similar the facts and situations described by the author are to those described by the authors of the previous communications concerned by the memorandum of 3 March 2009 and to take account of the sociopolitical and security context in which they occurred. It also asks the Committee to find that the author has failed to exhaust all domestic remedies; to recognize that the authorities of the State party have established a comprehensive domestic mechanism for processing and settling the cases referred to in these communications through measures aimed at achieving peace and national reconciliation that are consistent with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and subsequent covenants and conventions; to find the communication inadmissible; and to request that the author seek an alternative remedy. Additional observations by the State party on admissibility 5.1 On 4 October 2011, the State party also transmitted an additional memorandum to the Committee, in which it questioned the intention behind the series of individual communications to the Committee since the beginning of 2009, which, it considered, constituted rather an abuse of procedure aimed at bringing before the Committee a broad historical issue whose causes and circumstances lie outside the Committee’s purview. The State party observes that all these “individual” communications dwell on the general context in which the disappearances occurred, focusing solely on the actions of the security forces, without ever mentioning those of the various armed groups that used criminal concealment techniques to incriminate the armed forces. 5.2 The State party indicates that it will not address the merits of the aforementioned communications until the issue of their admissibility has been settled. It adds that all judicial or quasi-judicial bodies have the obligation to deal with preliminary questions before considering the merits. It considers that the decision in the case in point to consider the questions of admissibility and the merits jointly and simultaneously — aside from the fact that it was not arrived at on the basis of consultation — seriously prejudices the proper consideration of the communications in terms of both their general nature and their intrinsic particularities. Referring to the rules of procedure of the Human Rights Committee, the State party notes that the sections relating to the Committee’s procedure to determine the admissibility of communications are separate from those relating to the consideration of communications on the merits and that therefore these questions could be considered separately. Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party stresses that the author did not submit any complaints or requests for information through channels that would have allowed consideration of the case by the Algerian judicial authorities. 5.3 Recalling the Committee’s jurisprudence regarding the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies, the State party reiterates that mere doubts about the prospect of success or concerns about delays do not exempt the author from the obligation to exhaust these remedies. As to the question of whether the promulgation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation has barred the possibility of appeal in this area, the State party replies that the failure by the author to submit his allegations to examination has prevented the Algerian authorities from taking a position on the scope and limitations of the applicability of the Charter. Moreover, under the Ordinance in question, the only proceedings that are inadmissible are those brought against “members of any branch of Algeria’s defence and security forces” for actions consistent with their core duties to the Republic, namely, to protect persons and property, safeguard the nation and preserve its institutions. On the other hand, any allegations concerning actions attributable to the defence or security forces that can be proved to have taken place in any other context are subject to investigation by the appropriate courts. 5.4 On 12 January 2012, the State party, referring to its “background memorandum on the inadmissibility of individual communications submitted to the Human Rights GE.14-22365 9