CCPR/C/119/D/2259/2013 his disappearance, the author concludes that domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the Committee should find the communication admissible. 5.4 Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence whereby the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation cannot be used against persons who submit individual communications, the author recalls that the provisions of the Charter are certainly not a satisfactory response to the problem of disappearances, which should be based on respect for the right to the truth, justice and full redress. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that the disappearance was reported to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. However, it recalls that extra-conventional procedures or mechanisms established by 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 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol.5 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the examination of Brahim El Boathi’s case by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances does not render the communication inadmissible under this provision. 6.3 The Committee notes that, by way of disputing the admissibility of the communication, the State party has simply referred to its background memorandum on the treatment of disappearances in the light of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. 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 or violations of the right to life, but also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations. 6 The author notified the competent authorities, both judicial and administrative, of her son’s disappearance on multiple occasions. The Committee takes note that the National Advisory Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights investigated the case of Brahim El Boathi. However, the author has disputed the results of the investigation and, given the total lack of information provided by the State party, the Committee accepts her arguments. The Committee also takes note of the fact that Cheraga court ordered a police investigation. Nevertheless, since the investigation was carried out by the Oued Koriche police, of which A.Z., the officer who allegedly arrested and executed Brahim El Boathi, was a member, the Committee cannot consider the procedure to be impartial. It thus appears from the facts as described by the author that the State party has not conducted an in-depth, thorough and impartial investigation of the disappearance. Moreover, the State party has not offered any specific explanation in its observations regarding the case of Brahim El Boathi that would lead to the conclusion that an effective remedy is available. In addition, Ordinance No. 06-01 continues to be applied despite the Committee’s recommendation that it be brought into line with the Covenant (see CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, paras. 7, 8 and 13). The Committee therefore concludes that article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication. 5 6 GE.17-07865 See, inter alia, communication No. 2098/2011, Ammari v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 October 2014; communication No. 2026/2011, Sassene v. Algeria, Views adopted on 29 October 2014; communication No. 1791/2008, Boudjemai v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2013, para. 7.2; communication No. 1779/2008 (and Rev.1), Mezine v. Algeria, Views adopted on 25 October 2012, para. 7.2; and Djebrouni v. Algeria, para. 7.2. See, inter alia, Sassene v. Algeria, para. 6.3; Ammari v. Algeria, para. 7.3; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 7.4; Djebrouni v. Algeria, para. 7.4; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 6.4; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 7.4. 7