CCPR/C/112/D/2086/2011 than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty and that they must be treated with humanity and respect for their dignity. In view of the allegations concerning the incommunicado detention of Sahraoui Ayache under conditions that caused the death of many persons in a single night, and in the absence of information from the State party in that regard, the Committee finds a violation of article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 27 8.9 With regard to the alleged violation of article 16, the Committee reiterates its established jurisprudence, according to which the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time may constitute a refusal to recognize that person as a person before the law if the victim was in the hands of the State authorities when last seen and if the efforts of their relatives to obtain access to potentially effective remedies, including judicial remedies (Covenant, art. 2, para. 3), have been systematically impeded.28 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has not furnished any explanation concerning the fate of Sahraoui Ayache, despite the repeated requests addressed by the authors to the State party. The Committee concludes that the enforced disappearance of Sahraoui Ayache nearly 20 years ago denied him the protection of the law and deprived him of his right to recognition as a person before the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 8.10 With regard to the alleged violation of article 17, the Committee notes that the State party did not provide any justification or clarification as to the entry of soldiers into Sahraoui Ayache’s home in the early morning without a warrant. The Committee concludes that the entry of State officials into Sahraoui Ayache’s home in such circumstances constitutes unlawful interference in his home, in violation of article 17 of the Covenant.29 8.11 The authors invoke article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, which imposes on States parties the obligation to ensure an effective remedy for all persons whose Covenant rights may have been violated. The Committee attaches importance to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations. It refers to its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, which states that failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. In the present case, although the victim’s family repeatedly contacted the competent authorities, including the State prosecutor of the Court of Constantine, regarding Sahraoui Ayache’s disappearance, all their efforts were in vain, and the State party failed to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the disappearance. Furthermore, the absence of the legal right to undertake judicial proceedings since the promulgation of Ordinance No. 06-01 on the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation continues to deprive Sahraoui Ayache, the authors and their family of any access to an effective remedy, since the Ordinance prohibits the initiation of legal proceedings in order to shed light on the most serious crimes, such as enforced disappearances.30 The payments made to the parents of Sahraoui Ayache (see para. 2.7) do not compensate for the failure to carry out an investigation into his disappearance. The Committee concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 2 (para. 3), read in conjunction with articles 6 (para. 1), 7, 9, 10 (para. 1), 16 and 17 of the Covenant, in 27 28 29 30 GE.14-21909 See general comment No. 21 (1992) on the right of persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity, para. 3; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.8; Zarzi v. Algeria, para. 7.8; and communication No. 1134/2002, Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 17 March 2005, para. 5.2. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.9; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.9; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.9; Zarzi v. Algeria, para. 7.9; Benaziza v. Algeria, para. 9.8; Atamna v. Algeria, para. 7.8; and communication No. 1495/2006, Madaoui v. Algeria, Views adopted on 28 October 2008, para. 7.7. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.10. See CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, para. 7. 15