CCPR/C/112/D/2132/2012 out an investigation into a case of enforced disappearance brought to its attention, as otherwise it would have been in a position to provide a detailed response based on the results of the investigations that it should have conducted. On the merits, then, the authors maintain all the allegations set out in their initial communication. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 The Committee recalls that, before considering any claim contained in a communication, it must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 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. The Committee notes that the disappearance of Adel, Tarek and Mohamed Kerouane was reported to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. However, it recalls that extra-conventional procedures or mechanisms established by the Commission on Human Rights or the Human Rights Council to examine and report publicly on human rights situations in specific countries or territories or on cases of widespread human rights violations worldwide do not generally constitute an international procedure of investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol.14 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the examination of the case of Adel, Tarek and Mohamed Kerouane by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances does not render the communication inadmissible under this provision. 6.2 The Committee notes that, by way of challenge to the admissibility of the communication, the State party merely refers to its background memorandum and additional memorandum, of which it does not provide copies. The Committee recalls that the State party has a duty not only to carry out thorough investigations of alleged violations of human rights brought to the attention of its authorities, particularly enforced disappearances and violations of the right to life, but also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations. 15 The authors repeatedly alerted the competent authorities to the disappearance of their brothers and grandsons, but the State party did not make any thorough and effective investigation into the disappearance of Adel, Tarek and Mohamed Kerouane, despite the fact that these were grave allegations of enforced disappearance. The State party has also failed to provide sufficient evidence that an effective remedy is available, while Ordinance No. 06-01 of 27 February 2006 continues to be applied despite the Committee’s recommendation that it should be brought into line with the Covenant.16 The Committee is of the view 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 public prosecutor.17 The Committee considers that, for the purposes of admissibility of a communication, the author must exhaust only the remedies relevant to the alleged violation; in the present case, effective remedies in respect of enforced disappearance. The Committee therefore concludes that article 5, paragraph 2 (b), 14 15 16 17 GE.14-22477 Communication No. 1874/2009, Mihoubi v. Algeria, Views adopted on 18 October 2013, para. 6.2. Communication No. 1884/2009, Aouali et al. v. Algeria, Views adopted on 18 October 2013, para. 6.4. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, paras. 7, 8 and 13. Communications No. 1779/2008, Mezine v. Algeria, Views adopted on 25 October 2012, para. 7.4; Benaziza v. Algeria, para. 8.3; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 7.4; No. 1905/2009, Khirani v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 March 2012, para. 6.4; and No. 1791/2008, Boudjemai v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2013, para. 7.4. 11