CCPR/C/112/D/2086/2011 7.5 The Committee considers that, for a communication to be deemed admissible, the authors must have exhausted only the remedies relevant to the alleged violation; in the present case, remedies with respect to enforced disappearance. 7.6 The Committee considers that the authors have substantiated their allegations sufficiently insofar as they raise issues under articles 6 (para. 1), 7, 9, 10 (para. 1), 16 and 17, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (para. 3) of the Covenant. The Committee observes, however, that the authors did not submit a claim for compensation to the authorities of the State party for the arbitrary or unlawful detention of their son and brother and that the claim of a violation of article 9 (para. 5) is therefore inadmissible. Consequently, the Committee will proceed to consider the communication on its merits in respect of the claimed violations of articles 2 (para. 3), 6 (para. 1), 7, 9, 10 (para. 1), 16 and 17. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The State party has submitted collective and general observations in response to serious allegations by the author, and has been content to argue that communications incriminating public officials, or persons acting on behalf of public authorities, in cases of enforced disappearances between 1993 and 1998, should be considered within the broader context of the sociopolitical situation and security conditions that prevailed in the country during a period when the Government was struggling to combat terrorism. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence,20 according to which the State party may not invoke the provisions of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation against persons who invoke provisions of the Covenant or who have submitted or may submit communications to the Committee. The Covenant demands that the State party concern itself with the fate of every individual and treat every individual with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Ordinance No. 06-01, without the amendments recommended by the Committee, contributes to impunity in the present case and therefore cannot, as it currently stands, be considered compatible with the provisions of the Covenant. 8.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not replied to the authors’ claims concerning the merits of the case and recalls its jurisprudence, according to which the burden of proof should not rest solely on the author of a communication, especially given that the author and the State party do not always have the same degree of access to evidence and that often the State party alone has the necessary information.21 It is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, that the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives and to provide the Committee with the information available to it.22 In the absence of any explanations from the State party in this respect, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, provided they have been sufficiently substantiated. 20 21 22 GE.14-21909 See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.2; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.2; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.2. See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para.7; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.3; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.3. See also International Court of Justice, case concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Judgment of 30 November 2010, para. 54. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; communication No. 1297/2004, Medjnoune v. Algeria, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 8.3; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.3. 13