CCPR/C/119/D/2259/2013 6.4 The Committee notes that the author claims a violation of article 2 (2) of the Covenant in respect of her rights and of those of Brahim El Boathi. The Committee recalls that the provisions of article 2 of the Covenant lay down general obligations for States parties, which cannot by themselves give rise to a claim in a communication.7 This part of the communication is therefore inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee considers that the allegations which raise issues under articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 16, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, have been sufficiently substantiated and there is no obstacle to their admissibility. The Committee therefore proceeds to consider the communication on the merits with regard to the alleged violations of articles 6, 7, 9, 10, 16 and 2 (3) 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 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes that the State party has merely referred to its collective and general comments, which it has previously transmitted to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the Committee in relation to other communications, in order to confirm its position that such cases have already been settled through the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. The Committee refers to its jurisprudence and recalls that the State party may not invoke the provisions of the Charter against persons who invoke provisions of the Covenant or who have submitted, or may submit, communications to the Committee. The Covenant requires the State party to show concern for the fate of each individual and to treat each person with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.8 In the present case, Ordinance No. 06-01 — without the amendments recommended by the Committee — promotes impunity and therefore cannot, as it currently stands, be considered compatible with the Covenant.9 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not replied to the author’s allegations 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. 10 In conformity with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party has the 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 the information available to it. 11 In the absence of any explanation from the State party in this respect, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, provided they have been sufficiently substantiated. 7.4 The Committee recalls that, while the Covenant does not explicitly use the term “enforced disappearance” in any of its articles, enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts that represents continuing violation of various rights recognized in that treaty.12 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 See communication No. 2019/2010, Poplavny v. Belarus, View adopted on 5 November 2015, Appendix I, para. 6; communication No. 2030/2011, Poliakov v. Belarus, Views adopted on 17 July 2014, para. 7.4; communication No. 2202/2012, Castañeda v. Mexico, Views adopted on 18 July 2013, para. 6.8; communication No. 1834/2008, A.P. v. Ukraine, decision adopted on 23 July 2012, para. 8.5; and communication No. 1887/2009, Peirano Basso v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 19 October 2010, para. 9.4. See Sassene v. Algeria, para. 7.2; and Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.2. See Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.2. See, inter alia, Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.3; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; communication No. 1640/2007, El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 7.4; and Djebrouni v. Algeria, para. 8.3. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; and communication No. 1297/2004, Medjnoune v. Algeria, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 8.3. See communication No. 2000/2010, Katwal v. Nepal, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 11.3; and communication No. 2134/2012, Serna et al v. Colombia, Views adopted on 9 July 2015, para. 9.4. GE.17-07865