CCPR/C/118/D/2157/2012 3.7 The author requests the Committee to urge the State party to: provide him with an effective remedy, in particular by conducting a thorough investigation into the summary execution of Mohammed Belamrania; inform the family of the results of the investigation and provide appropriate compensation for the violations suffered by the victim, the author and the family; bring criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators of Mohammed Belamrania’s summary execution, try them and punish them, if necessary, without invoking the Order on the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation in order to renege on its obligations; and keep the Committee apprised of the measures taken in response to its Views and take the necessary measures to ensure that similar violations do not reoccur in future. State party’s failure to cooperate 4. On 29 August 2012, 25 November 2013, 17 June 2014 and 20 November 2014, the State party was requested to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee notes that this information has not been received. It regrets the State party’s refusal to provide any information on the admissibility and/or merits of the author’s claims. It recalls that in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party concerned is required to submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and indicating the measures, if any, that have been taken by the State to remedy the situation. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 5.3 Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee recalls that the State party has a duty not only to carry out thorough investigations of alleged violations of human rights brought to the attention of its authorities, particularly violations of the right to life, but also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations.13 Although Mohammed Belamrania’s family has brought his summary execution to the attention of the competent authorities on many occasions, the State party has not undertaken any thorough and rigorous investigation into the serious allegation of the extrajudicial execution of the author’s father. Moreover, the State party has failed to demonstrate that an effective remedy is available given that Order No. 06-01 of 27 February 2006 is still applied despite the Committee’s recommendations that it should be brought into line with the Covenant. 14 The Committee is also concerned that, in spite of three reminders having been addressed to the State party, no information or observations on the admissibility or merits of the communication have been received. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 5.4 The Committee considers that the author’s allegations have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and proceeds with its consideration on the merits in respect of the claims made on behalf of Mohammed Belamrania under articles 2 (3), 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. 13 14 GE.17-04240 See, for example, communication 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. 7