CCPR/C/112/D/2083/2011 and arbitrary interference with the home of the author, in violation of article 17 of the Covenant.10 3.9 Lastly, the author emphasizes that his son was prevented from exercising his right to an effective remedy against his detention and the alleged violations of articles 7, 9, 10 (para. 1), 16 and 17 of the Covenant, in violation of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. The author also contends that until the truth about the fate of the disappeared person has been established, the State party has the obligation by virtue of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 6, paragraph 1, to conduct a thorough investigation into the enforced disappearance, to inform the person’s family and friends of the progress and results of the investigation and to prosecute those responsible for the disappearance. The author and his family for their part have used all the avenues available to them to find out what had happened to the disappeared person, but the case was never pursued by the State party. The author considers that the absence of any investigation and the lack of due diligence by the State party in respect of the allegations of illegal detention and enforced disappearance also constitute a violation of article 2, paragraph 3, in respect of himself and his family. 3.10 The author asserts that all domestic remedies have proved unavailable, useless or ineffective and that the conditions of article 5 (para. 2 (b)) of the Optional Protocol have therefore been met. After many unsuccessful approaches to the security forces to try to obtain information on what had happened to his son, the author informed the judicial authorities several times of his disappearance and asked, in vain, for an investigation to be opened. His official complaints were all shelved. 3.11 Lastly, the author underlines that, since February 2006, the date of the promulgation of Ordinance No. 06-01 implementing the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation, it has been prohibited to prosecute members of the Algerian defence and security forces. The author recalls that the Committee has declared that the Ordinance seems to promote impunity and infringe the right to an effective remedy. 11 The author maintains that he was thus unable to assert his right to an effective remedy. 3.12 The author asks the Committee to order the State party: (a) to release Yahia Kroumi if he is still alive; (b) to conduct a prompt, thorough and effective investigation into his disappearance; (c) to report to the author and his family on the results of the investigation; (d) to prosecute, try and punish the persons responsible for Yahia Kroumi’s disappearance, in conformity with the State party’s international commitments; and (e) to provide appropriate reparation to Yahia Kroumi’s beneficiaries, including compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition, for the grave moral and material harm which they have suffered since his disappearance. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 4 October 2011, the State party submitted a “background memorandum on the inadmissibility of communications submitted to the Human Rights Committee in connection with the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation” in which it contested the admissibility of the communication. It is of the view that this communication, which incriminates public officials or other persons acting on behalf of public authorities in cases of enforced disappearance during the period in question — from 10 11 6 The author cites communication No. 687/1996, Rojas García v. Colombia, Views adopted on 3 April 2001, in which the Committee considered that the raid by hooded police officers in the middle of the night, entering through the roof of the house, constituted arbitrary interference with the home of the Rojas García family. The author refers to the Committee’s concluding observations on the third periodic report of Algeria, adopted on 1 November 2007 (CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3/CRP.1), para. 7. GE.14-22365