CCPR/C/118/D/2157/2012 and execution of Mohammed Belamrania. 16 In the absence of any rebuttal by the State party, the Committee will attach due weight to the author’s allegations and finds that the State party denied Mohammed Belamrania the right to life in particularly serious circumstances, in view of the fact that he was clearly the victim of a summary execution by members of the State party’s regular army, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 6.6 The Committee notes the author’s additional allegations to the effect that Mohammed Belamrania was subjected to severe ill-treatment prior to his execution, the signs of which were apparent after his death, and that he was undoubtedly in acute psychological distress and emotional anguish prior to his execution. The State party has not adduced any information to contradict these allegations. The Committee finds a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to Mohammed Belamrania. 6.7 The author also invokes article 2 (3) of the Covenant, whereby all States parties have the obligation to ensure that any person whose rights under the Covenant are violated has an effective remedy. The Committee attaches importance to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms to consider complaints of rights violations. It recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, which stipulates that a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could, in and of itself, give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. 6.8 In the present case, the victim’s family requested the public prosecutor’s office of El Milia to open an investigation a few days after the victim’s burial in order to clarify the circumstances of his death. Instead of an immediate inquiry, and despite the fact that quite obviously this was a case not of enforced disappearance but of an extrajudicial execution carried out by members of the Algerian army, a missing person’s report was issued to the family by the National Gendarmerie stating that the victim had disappeared. After the authorities had issued this report, Hamama Laouar, the victim’s widow, appealed to the Director of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Defence on 3 July 2007 to have it acknowledged that Mohammed Belamrania had been the victim of extrajudicial execution by soldiers and not of enforced disappearance, and to request that an investigation be opened into the crime perpetrated against her husband. The Committee notes, however, that no investigation has been carried out by the competent judicial authorities, despite the fact that they could not be unaware of the events, and that those responsible have not been prosecuted even though the alleged suspects were part of regular forces stationed in the region (Fifth Airborne Battalion of the Algerian People’s National Army) and thus easily identifiable. The Committee concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 2 (3) read in conjunction with articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant with regard to Mohammed Belamrania. 7. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the information before it discloses violations by the State party of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant, with regard to Mohammed Belamrania. 8. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This provision requires that States parties provide full compensation to persons whose Covenant rights have been violated. In the present case, the State party is required to: (a) conduct a thorough and rigorous investigation into the alleged summary execution of Mohammed Belamrania; (b) provide his family with detailed information on the results of the investigation; (c) prosecute, try and punish those responsible for the violations; (d) provide the victim’s family with appropriate compensation and redress. Order No. 06-01 notwithstanding, the State party should also ensure that it does not prevent the victims of offences such as torture, extrajudicial killing and enforced disappearance from exercising their right to an effective 16 GE.17-04240 See, for example, communications No. 888/1999, Telitsin v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 29 March 2004, paras. 7.5 and 7.6; and No. 1832/2008, Al Khazmi v. Libya, Views adopted on 18 July 2013, para. 8.2. 9