CCPR/C/112/D/2132/2012 violation persists as long as the missing person is unaccounted for. 7 The authors submit that Algeria is required to take steps to halt the violation of article 7. 3.6 The authors claim that there is nothing to indicate that the brothers’ arrest and subsequent deprivation of liberty was based on a procedure established in law and no arrest warrant or other authorization seems to have been produced at the time of arrest. The criminal charges against Adel and Tarek Kerouane, of which the family was notified more than a year after their disappearance, have not been substantiated by any evidence. The Indictments Chamber stated that “the suspects are at large” when they had actually been arrested by State officials. The duration of the Kerouane brothers’ detention, and the places where they are being held, have not been specified. This therefore constitutes arbitrary deprivation of liberty under article 9, paragraph 1. Equally, given the circumstances of the brothers’ arrest and detention, in all probability they were never informed of the criminal charges against them, which leads to the conclusion that article 9, paragraph 2, was also violated. There is no real evidence that they were brought before a judge within a reasonable time while in detention. The fact that Tarek and Adel Kerouane were declared to be at large when they had previously been arrested by officials of the State shows that the authorities not only wish to deny what happened to them, but also to remove them from the protection of the law. As to Mohamed, the authorities quite simply deny that he was ever arrested and detained, which tends to show that the coercive actions against him had no justification in law. The Kerouane brothers were held incommunicado, their family having never been able to contact them since their arrest, in violation of article 9, paragraph 3. They had no material possibility of legal action to challenge the legality of their detention or apply to a judge for their release, and no way even of seeking the assistance of a third party to defend them: article 9, paragraph 4, has also been violated. In violation of article 9, paragraph 5, no compensation has been awarded to the brothers’ family for their unlawful arrest and detention. Moreover, the State party has not conducted any prompt, impartial, thorough and effective investigation into the disappearance, and those responsible for the offence have not been brought to justice, in violation of the positive obligations under article 2, paragraph 3, read in conjunction with article 9 of the Covenant. The authors ask the Committee to find a violation of all paragraphs of article 9 and to require the State party to pay compensation to the authors in lieu of the victims. 3.7 To the extent that it has been established that Adel, Tarek and Mohamed Kerouane are victims of enforced disappearance, the authors submit that their right to be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, as guaranteed under article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, has been violated. 3.8 Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 8 the authors also claim that, having been held incommunicado for an indefinite period and subjected to enforced disappearance, Adel, Tarek and Mohamed Kerouane were removed from the protection of the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 3.9 The enforced disappearance of the Kerouane brothers has seriously distressed the authors and the rest of their family. Their family life has been completely destroyed. Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 9 the authors submit that, by its actions and omissions, the Algerian State has failed in its duty of protection towards the family, in violation of article 23, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 7 8 9 8 Varnava et al. v. Turkey, [GC], Nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 148, ECHR 2009. Communication No. 1327/2004, Atamna v. Algeria, Views adopted on 10 July 2007, para. 7.9. Communication No. 962/2001, Mulezi v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Views adopted on 8 July 2004, para. 5.4. GE.14-22477