2.3 The author did not receive a satisfactory reply from the Director of Public Prosecutions and, on 29 October 1994, wrote to the President of the Republic, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of the Interior, the Security Officer of the President of the Republic (Délégué à la Sécurité auprès du Président de la République), and the Head of Military Area No. 5. grounds on which her husband was arrested and detained. The author understood the letter as informing her of her husband’s death. 2.8 Lastly, the author states, on the one hand, that she has not been informed of either her husband’s fate or his whereabouts and, on the other, that he underwent prolonged incommunicado detention; these allegations could raise issues under article 7 of the Covenant. 2.4 As none of these persons replied, the author lodged a complaint with the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Tribunal of Constantine on 20 January 1996 against the security services of Constantine for the arbitrary arrest and detention of Mr. Saker. She requested that the persons responsible be brought to justice, pursuant to article 113, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Procedure Code. By letter of 25 January 1996, the author alerted the Ombudsman of the Republic (Médiateur de la République). She also requested information about her husband from the Director General of National Security on 28 January 1996. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that Mr. Saker is a victim of a violation of articles 2, paragraph 3; 6, paragraph 1; 9, paragraphs 1, 3 and 4; 10, paragraph 1; and 14, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, in view of his alleged arbitrary arrest and detention; because the Algerian authorities did not conduct a thorough and in-depth investigation; nor instigate any proceedings, despite the author’s numerous requests. The author’s husband was not promptly brought before a judge, nor was he granted contact with his family, nor was he granted rights associated with detention (in particular access to a lawyer, the right to be informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest, and trial without undue delay). The author also claims that the authorities failed to protect Mr. Saker’s right to life. 2.5 As none of these bodies replied, the author wrote to the President of the National Observatory for Human Rights (Observatoire National des Droits de l’Homme) on 27 September 1996 to inform him of the difficulties which she was facing in obtaining information about her husband. She also requested legal aid and assistance. 3.2 The author claims to have exhausted all domestic remedies: remedies before judicial authorities, before independent administrative bodies responsible for human rights (the Ombudsman and the National Observatory for Human Rights), as well as the highest State authorities. She argues that her request for an investigation into the arrest, detention and disappearance of her husband was not acceded to. She claims that the judicial remedies which she initiated are manifestly unavailable and ineffective as, to her knowledge, no steps have been taken against the security services (police or Territorial Centre), which in her view are responsible for the arrest and disappearance of her husband. The author claims that the scarce responses and information she has received from the authorities aim to further delay the legal proceedings. 2.6 On 27 February 1997 the author received a letter from the judicial Police section of the Security of Constantine (Service de la Police judiciaire de la Sûreté de la Wilaya de Constantine), forwarding a copy of Decision No. 16536/96 of the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Tribunal of Constantine dated 4 September 1996. This decision relates to the complaint which the author had lodged a year earlier; it informed her that her husband was wanted and had been arrested by the judicial police section of the Security of Constantine, then transferred to the Territorial Centre for Research and Investigation (Centre Territorial de Recherches et d’Investigation, the “Territorial Centre”) of Military Area No. 5 on 3 July 1994, as evidenced by a receipt of handover No. 848 of 10 July 1994. The author highlights that this decision does not indicate the reasons for her husband’s arrest, nor does it clarify what steps, if any, were taken pursuant to her complaint of 20 January 1996, such as investigating the actions of the Territorial Centre. The State party’s submission on the admissibility and merits of the communication and author’s comments 4.1 By note verbale of 31 January 2002, the State party contests the admissibility of the communication for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Of the various bodies seized by the author, only the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Tribunal of Constantine has the power to open a preliminary inquiry and to refer the case to the competent judicial authority, namely the investigating magistrate (juge d’instruction). The author, in having done so, has availed herself of only 2.7 On 10 December 1998 the National Observatory for Human Rights informed the author that, according to information received from the security services, Mr. Saker had been kidnapped by a non-identified armed group while in the custody of the Territorial Centre, and that the authorities did not have any other information as to his whereabouts. The letter from the Observatory does not clarify the 60