CCPR/C/112/D/2132/2012 Authors’ comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 In their comments dated 3 May 2013 the authors argue that the State party’s adoption of domestic legislative and administrative measures to support the victims of the “national tragedy” cannot be invoked at the admissibility stage to prohibit individuals subject to its jurisdiction from using the procedure provided for under the Optional Protocol. In this case, the legislative measures adopted themselves amount to a violation of the rights enshrined in the Covenant, as the Committee has previously observed. 12 5.2 The authors recall that the declaration of a state of emergency by Algeria on 9 February 1992 does not in any way affect the right of individuals to submit individual communications to the Committee. The authors thus consider that the State party’s observations on the appropriateness of the communication do not constitute grounds for inadmissibility. 5.3 The authors claim that they have exhausted all available remedies and that the remedies mentioned by the State party, including the possibility of bringing the matter before the investigating judge and suing for damages in criminal proceedings under articles 72 and 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are completely ineffective. 5.4 The authors also refer to article 45 of Ordinance No. 06-01, pursuant to which no proceedings may be instituted individually or collectively against any member of the defence and security forces. Anyone submitting such an allegation or complaint is liable to a penalty of 3 to 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 250,000 to 500,000 Algerian dinars. Citing the Human Rights Committee, the authors further state that Ordinance No. 06-01 promotes impunity, violates the right to an effective remedy and is not compatible with the provisions of the Covenant. 13 In the authors’ view, the State party has therefore not convincingly demonstrated how suing for damages would have enabled the competent courts to receive and investigate complaints, as that would involve violating article 45 of the Ordinance, or how the author of a complaint could have been guaranteed immunity from prosecution under article 46 of the Ordinance. The authors’ conclusion, on reading these provisions, is that any complaint regarding the violations suffered by the authors and their brothers and grandsons would be not only declared inadmissible but also treated as a criminal offence. The authors note that the State party fails to provide an example of any case which, despite the existence of this Ordinance, has led to the effective prosecution of the perpetrators of human rights violations in a similar case. The authors conclude that the remedies mentioned by the State party are futile. 5.5 With respect to the merits of the communication, the authors note that the State party has simply listed a number of scenarios according to which the victims of the “national tragedy” might have disappeared. Such general observations do not dispute the allegations made in the present communication. 5.6 The authors invite the Committee to consider their allegations sufficiently substantiated, given that they are unable to provide additional information in support of their communication, as only the State party has exact information about the fate of these individuals. 5.7 In their view, the absence of any response by the State party on the merits of the communication further constitutes tacit acceptance of the accuracy of the facts alleged by the authors. The State party’s silence constitutes a recognition of failure in its duty to carry 12 13 10 CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, paras. 7, 8 and 13; communications No. 1588/2007, Benaziza v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 9.2; and No. 1196/2003, Boucherf v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006, para. 11; and concluding observations of the Committee against Torture on the third periodic report of Algeria, adopted on 13 May 2008 (CAT/C/DZA/CO/3), paras. 11, 13 and 17. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, paras. 7, 8 and 13. GE.14-22477