these bodies replied, the author concludes that domestic remedies were neither adequate nor effective. The author recalls that she waited for 19 months after her hearing with the investigating magistrate for any information on the petition which she had lodged almost five years earlier. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Admissibility considerations 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.5 The author contends that certain elements submitted by the State party confirm the arbitrary nature of Mr. Saker’s detention and the unlawfulness of the warrant against him. His conviction was handed down in secret (no member of his family was informed of the trial or of the judgement of the court) on 29 July 1995 by the Court of Constantine. Further, the State party has not clarified the date, time or place when Mr. Saker was allegedly released from detention. 8.2 The Committee notes that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure, in line with the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol. 8.3 The Committee also notes that the State party maintains that the author has not exhausted available domestic remedies. On this point, the Committee takes note of the author’s claim that her complaint lodged on 20 January 1996 remains under consideration, and that this exempts her from exhausting the civil party remedies highlighted by the State party. The Committee considers that the application of domestic remedies has been unduly prolonged in relation to the complaint introduced on 20 January 1996. It has not been demonstrated by the State party that the other remedies it refers to are or would be effective, in light of the serious and grave nature of the allegation, and the repeated attempts made by the author to elucidate the whereabouts of her husband. Therefore, the Committee considers that the author exhausted domestic remedies in conformity with article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 5.6 The author highlights that the issue of disappearances and prolonged secret detentions in Algeria are of great concern to human rights activists. The author also refers to the Committee’s concluding observations on Algeria during the consideration of the State party’s second periodic report. The Committee had urged the State party to ensure that independent mechanisms be set up to investigate all violations of the right to life and security of the person, and that offenders should be brought to justice. The author submits that no such mechanisms have been put into place and that offenders enjoy complete impunity. Further State party observations and author’s comments 6. On 17 November 2003 the State party reiterated that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies, and submitted further information on the merits. Mr. Saker was taken in for questioning on 12 June 1994 by the police. After being held for three days he was handed over to the military branch of the judicial police for further questioning on 15 June 1994. As soon as that questioning ended, Mr. Saker was released. Finally, the judgement of 29 July 1995 pronounced in absentia sentenced Mr. Saker to death. 8.4 As to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 3, the Committee considers that the author’s allegations have been insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. On the question of the complaints under articles 2, paragraph 3; 6, paragraph 1; 7; 9 and 10, the Committee considers that these allegations have been sufficiently substantiated. The Committee therefore concludes that the communication is admissible under articles 2, paragraph 3; 6, paragraph 1; 7; 9 and 10, of the Covenant and proceeds to their consideration on the merits. 7. By letter of 5 February 2004 the author refutes the State party’s version of events and reiterates her own version. The author also highlights the contents of the letter dated 26 February 1997 from Salim Abdenour (judicial police officer) confirming the date on which Mr. Saker was handed over to the Territorial Centre for further questioning. The author explains that the letter doesn’t specify the date of arrest as this would have clearly shown that the length of detention (33 days) had exceeded the legal maximum of 12 days.10 Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee recalls the definition of enforced disappearance in article 7, paragraph 2 (i), of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Enforced disappearance of persons means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State 10 Article 51, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Procedure Code. 62