CCPR/C/112/D/2086/2011 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 The Committee recalls that the decision by the Special Rapporteur to examine the admissibility and the merits jointly (see para. 1.2 above) does not preclude their being considered separately by the Committee. Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 As required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee must ascertain that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes that, in the State party’s view, the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies, since they did not bring the matter before the investigating judge and sue for damages in criminal proceedings under articles 72 and 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, the authors have written letters to political and administrative authorities and have petitioned representatives of the prosecution service (State prosecutors) but have not initiated legal action and seen it through to its conclusion by availing themselves of all available remedies. The Committee notes the authors’ argument that several complaints were lodged with the prosecution service of the Court of Constantine but that the authorities did not at any time conduct an investigation into the alleged violations. Lastly, the Committee notes that, according to the authors, article 46 of Ordinance No. 06-01 penalizes any person who files a complaint pertaining to actions covered by article 45 thereof. 7.4 The Committee recalls that the State party has a duty not only to carry out thorough investigations into alleged violations of human rights brought to the attention of its authorities, particularly when the allegations concern enforced disappearances or violations of the right to life, but also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations.17 Although Sahraoui Ayache’s family repeatedly contacted the competent authorities concerning his disappearance, the State party failed to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the disappearance despite the fact that serious allegations of enforced disappearance were involved. The State party has also failed to provide sufficient information indicating that an effective and available remedy has been provided, while Ordinance No. 06-01 continues to be applied, notwithstanding the Committee’s recommendation that it should be brought into conformity with the Covenant. 18 The Committee considers that to sue for damages for offences as serious as those alleged in the present case cannot be considered a substitute for the charges that should be brought by the State prosecutor.19 The Committee therefore concludes that article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the communication. 17 18 19 12 and communication No. 1640/2007 of the Human Rights Committee, El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 4. See, inter alia, communication No. 1779/2008, Mezine v. Algeria, Views adopted on 25 October 2012, para. 7.4, communication No. 1781/2008, Berzig v. Algeria, Views adopted on 31 October 2011, para. 7.4, communication No. 1905/2009, Khirani v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 March 2012, para. 6.4, and communication No. 1791/2008, Boudjemai v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2013, para. 7.4. See CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, paras. 7, 8 and 13. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 7.4; Benaziza v. Algeria, para. 8.3; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 7.4; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 6.4; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 7.4. GE.14-21909