CCPR/C/119/D/2259/2013 3.3 Recalling that all domestic remedies, through both the judicial and the administrative authorities, have been exhausted, without any result or any real investigation having been conducted, the author claims that, under article 2 (3), the State party had the obligation to protect her son, Brahim El Boathi, from violations of his rights by government officials. Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 3 the author also claims that the failure to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate violation of the Covenant and that the mere denial of the involvement of the security services cannot represent compliance with article 2 (3). The author alleges that her son was prevented from exercising his right to an effective remedy against State officials and that article 2 (3) of the Covenant has been violated. 3.4 Notwithstanding the decision implying recognition by the authorities that Brahim El Boathi was still alive, the author stresses that the contradictory information received about the status of her son since his arrest in 1994 and his prolonged absence suggest that Brahim El Boathi has lost his life. Incommunicado detention furthermore represents, in the eyes of the author, a high risk of violation of the right to life in that neither detainees nor jailers are monitored in any way. Considering that the Committee’s jurisprudence in the context of enforced disappearances4 has evolved and that it now recognizes the responsibility of the State for violation of the right to life in certain cases where the death of the victim has not been established, the author alleges that the State party has failed in its duty to protect the right to life of her son, and that article 6 of the Covenant has been violated. 3.5 Recalling the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of her son, including the total lack of information on his detention, his imprisonment and his state of health and the absence of communication with his family and the outside world, the author claims that Brahim El Boathi was subjected to a form of inhuman or degrading treatment. She also recalls that prolonged arbitrary detention increases the risk of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Referring to the committee’s jurisprudence, the author further emphasizes that the anguish, uncertainty and distress caused by the disappearance of Brahim El Boathi and the contradictory information received since that time constitute a form of inhuman or degrading treatment for the family. The author alleges that the State party is responsible for a violation of article 7 with regard to Brahim El Boathi and a violation of article 7 read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant with regard to him and his family. 3.6 Recalling that Brahim El Boathi was detained incommunicado without access to defence counsel, without being informed of the grounds for his arrest or the charges against him, that his detention was not entered in the police custody registers and there is no official record of his whereabouts or his fate, the author claims that her son has been deprived of his right to liberty and security and that the investigations have displayed none of the efficiency or effectiveness required. The author alleges that the State party is responsible for a violation of article 9 of the Covenant with regard to Brahim El Boathi. 3.7 In view of the fact that enforced disappearance is often accompanied by violations of the most basic rights of the person deprived of liberty, the author considers that, as a result of the disappearance and the lack of any proper investigation, the State party is responsible for a violation of article 10 of the Covenant with regard to Brahim El Boathi. 3.8 Recalling that the Algerian authorities have never provided clear information on the fate of Brahim El Boathi and kept him detained without admitting it, the author submits that the State party has treated Brahim El Boathi as an object and that his right to recognition as a person before the law and his dignity have been violated. The author alleges that, in removing her son from the protection of the law, the Algerian authorities have denied his right to recognition as a person before the law and are therefore responsible for a violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 3 4 4 See communication No. 1588/2007, Benaziza v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 9.9. In support of that argument, the author cites communication No. 1753/2008, Guezout et al. v. Algeria, Views adopted on 19 July 2012, para. 8.4; communication No. 1905/2009 (and corrigendum), Khirani v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 March 2012, para. 7.4; communication No. 1781/2008, Djebrouni v. Algeria, Views adopted on 31 October 2011, para. 8.4; and communication No. 1780/2008, Aouabdia v. Algeria, Views adopted on 2 March 2011, para. 7.10. GE.17-07865