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. therefore, to address the question of the exhaustion of domestic remedies. 6.5 The author argues that the search for her missing daughter has had an adverse effect on her physical and mental health and her family life, which amounts to a violation of her rights under the Covenant, notably article 7. The State party considers these claims to be of a general nature and that domestic remedies have not been exhausted in this regard. The Committee notes that the author has not demonstrated that she has availed herself of such remedies. The Committee therefore finds this part of the communication inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The author claims that her daughter’s detention in October 1974 and her subsequent disappearance violate several provisions of the Covenant. The State party argues that the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione temporis, since the events upon which it is based occurred or commenced prior to the entry into force for Chile of the Optional Protocol. The State party also recalls that upon ratifying the Optional Protocol it made a declaration to the effect that the Committee’s competence applied only in respect of acts occurring after the entry into force for Chile of the Optional Protocol or, in any event, acts which began after 11 March 1990. 7. Consequently, the Human Rights Committee decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 1 and 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol; 6.3 The Committee notes that the facts complained of by the author in connection with her daughter’s disappearance occurred prior to the entry into force not only of the Optional Protocol but also of the Covenant. The Committee recalls the definition of enforced disappearance contained 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 or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. In the present case, the original acts of arrest, detention or abduction, as well as the refusal to give information about the deprivation of freedom―both key elements of the offence or violation―occurred before the entry into force of the Covenant for the State party. (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author of the communication. APPENDIX Individual, Dissenting, Opinion of Committee members Ms. Christine Chanet, Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah, Mr. Michael O’Flaherty, Ms. Elisabeth Palm and Mr. Hipólito Solari-Yrigoyen In order to shed new light on the question of enforced disappearances, the Human Rights Committee bases itself (para. 6.3) on the definition given in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a definition that differs from the one contained in the draft international convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances. According to the Committee, this definition includes two fundamental elements of the violation: the initial act of arrest, detention or abduction, and a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom. 6.4 Furthermore, upon the submission of the communication, the State party, far from refusing to acknowledge the detention, admitted and assumed responsibility for it. In addition, the author makes no reference to any action of the State party after 28 August 1992 (the date on which the Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party) that would constitute a confirmation of the enforced disappearance. Accordingly, the Committee considers that even if the Chilean courts, like the Committee, regard enforced disappearance as a continuing offence, the State party’s declaration ratione temporis is also relevant in the present case. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee finds that the communication is inadmissible ratione temporis under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee does not deem it necessary, By endorsing these criteria, which pertain to another international treaty, the Committee overlooks the fact that it must apply the Covenant, the whole Covenant and nothing but the Covenant. Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant provides that “everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law”. Furthermore, article 16 of the Covenant stipulates that “everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”. In the present case, the acts of arrest, detention or abduction were committed without the State, which does not contest them, being in a position, consistent with article 16, to determine the actual situation of the disappeared person. 6