CCPR/C/112/D/2132/2012 of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication. 6.3 The Committee finds that the authors have sufficiently substantiated their allegations insofar as they raise issues under articles 6 (para. 1), 7, 9, 10 (para. 1), 16 and 23 (para. 1), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (para. 3) of the Covenant, and of articles 10 (para. 2) and 24 (para. 1) in respect of Tarek Kerouane and Mohamed Kerouane. The Committee notes, however, that the authors did not apply to the State party authorities for compensation for the arbitrary or unlawful detention of their grandsons and brothers, and that the claim under article 9 (para. 5) is not admissible. The Committee therefore proceeds to consider the communication on the merits in respect of the alleged violations of articles 2 (para. 3), 6 (para. 1), 7, 9, 10 (paras. 1 and 2 (b)), 16, 23 (para. 1) and 24 (para. 1) of the Covenant. Consideration on the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The State party submitted collective and general observations in response to the authors’ serious allegations, and has been content to argue that communications incriminating public officials, or persons acting on behalf of public authorities, in cases of enforced disappearance between 1993 and 1998 should be considered within the broader context of the sociopolitical and security conditions that prevailed in the country during a period when the Government was struggling with terrorism. The Committee notes that the Covenant demands that the State party concern itself with the fate of every individual and treat every individual with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. The Committee refers to its jurisprudence 18 and recalls that the State party may not invoke the provisions of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation against persons who invoke provisions of the Covenant or who have submitted or may submit communications to the Committee. Ordinance No. 06-01, without the amendments recommended by the Committee, appears to promote impunity and therefore cannot, as it currently stands, be considered compatible with the provisions of the Covenant. 19 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not replied to the authors’ claims concerning the merits of the case and recalls its jurisprudence, according to which the burden of proof should not rest solely on the author of a communication, especially given that the author and the State party do not always have the same degree of access to evidence and that often only the State party is in possession of the necessary information. 20 In conformity with article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, the State party has a duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives and to provide the Committee with whatever information is available to it.21 In the absence of any explanations from the State party in this respect, due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations, provided they have been sufficiently substantiated. 7.4 The Committee notes that, according to the authors, their brothers and grandsons disappeared after their arrest, on 12 April 1994 (Adel Kerouane), 20 May 1994 (Tarek Kerouane) and 22 February 1996 (Mohamed Kerouane), and that the authorities, in addition to never admitting that they arrested them, have not conducted any effective investigation 18 19 20 21 12 Aouali et al. v. Algeria, para. 7.2. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, para. 7 (a). Aouali et al. v. Algeria, para. 7.3. See also International Court of Justice, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), judgment of 30 November 2010, para. 54. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; Medjnoune v. Algeria, para. 8.3; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.3. GE.14-22477