CCPR/C/112/D/2083/2011 security forces. He concludes that Ordinance No. 06-01 has indeed put an end to any possibility of bringing civil or criminal proceedings for crimes committed by the security forces during the civil war and that the Algerian courts are obliged to declare any such claim inadmissible. 6.7 With regard to the State party’s argument that it is entitled to request that the admissibility of the communication be considered separately from the merits, the author refers to rule 97, paragraph 2, of the rules of procedure, which permits the working group or the Special Rapporteur to decide, because of the exceptional nature of the case, to request a written reply that relates only to the question of admissibility. This prerogative does not lie with either the author of the communication or the State party but is the sole prerogative of the working group or the Special Rapporteur. The author considers that the State party was required to submit explanations or observations concerning both the admissibility and the merits of the communication. 6.8 Lastly, the author notes that, since the State party has not submitted any observations on the merits of the communication, the Committee must base its decision on the existing information, and the author’s allegations must be taken as proven, given that the State party has not refuted them. 15 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 The Committee recalls that the decision by the Special Rapporteur to examine the admissibility and the merits jointly (see para. 1.2 above) does not preclude their being considered separately by the Committee. Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 As required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee must ascertain that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes that, in the State party’s view, the author and his family have not exhausted domestic remedies, since they did not bring the matter before the investigating judge and sue for damages in criminal proceedings under articles 72 and 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, the author has written letters to political and administrative authorities and has petitioned representatives of the prosecution service (public prosecutors), but has not, strictly speaking, initiated legal action and seen it through to its conclusion by availing himself of all available remedies of appeal and judicial review. The Committee also takes note of the author’s argument that several complaints were lodged with the public prosecutor of the court of Constantine, but that at no time did those authorities conduct an investigation into the alleged violations. Lastly, the Committee notes that, according to the author, article 46 of Ordinance No. 06-01 provides for the punishment of any person who files a complaint pertaining to actions covered by article 45 thereof. 7.4 The Committee recalls that the State party has a duty not only to carry out thorough investigations of alleged violations of human rights, particularly enforced disappearances or 15 GE.14-22365 The author cites the decision of the Committee against Torture in communication No. 207/2002, Dragan Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro, adopted on 24 November 2004, para. 5.3; and communication No. 1640/2007 of the Human Rights Committee, El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 4. 11