State party. 5.3 It remains for the Committee to determine whether violations of the Covenant have occurred subsequent to its entry into force. The authors have invoked article 2 of the Covenant and claim a violation of their right to a remedy. In this context, the Committee recalls its prior jurisprudence that article 2 of the Covenant constitutes a general undertaking by States and cannot be invoked, in isolation, by individuals under the Optional Protocol (H. G. B. and S. P. v. Trinidad and Tobago, communication No. 268/1987, para. 6.2, declared inadmissible on 3 November 1989). To the extent that the authors invoke article 2 in conjunction with other articles of the Covenant, the Committee observes that article 2, paragraph 3 (a) of the Covenant stipulates that each State party undertakes "to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy . .." (emphasis added). Thus, under article 2, the right to a remedy arises only after a violation of a Covenant right has been established. However, the events of disappearance and death, which could have constituted violations of several articles of the Covenant, and in respect of which remedies could have been invoked, occurred prior to the entry into force of the Covenant and of the Optional Protocol for Argentina. Therefore, the matter cannot be considered by the Committee, as this aspect of the communication is inadmissible ratione temporis. 5.4 The Committee finds it necessary to remind the State party that it is under an obligation, in respect of violations occurring or continuing after the entry into force of the Covenant, to investigate alleged violations thoroughly and to provide remedies where applicable, for victims or their dependants. 5.5 To the extent that the authors claim that the enactment of law No. 23,521 frustrated their right to see certain government officials prosecuted, the Committee refers to its prior jurisprudence that the Covenant does not provide a right for an individual to require that the State criminally prosecute another person (H. C. M. A. v. The Netherlands, communication No. 213/1986, para. 11.6, declared inadmissible on 30 March 1989). Accordingly, this part of the communication is inadmissible ratione materiae as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. 5.5 As to the question of compensation, the Committee notes that the authors, in reply to the Working Group's questions, explained that this was not the remedy that they sought. 6. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides : (a) The communications are inadmissible ; (b) This decision shall be communicated to the authors through their counsel, and, for information, to the State party. APPENDIX Individual opinion submitted by Mr. Bertil Wennergren pursuant to rule 92, paragraph 3 of the Committee's rules of procedure, concerning the Committee's decision to declare communications Nos. 343, 344 and 345/1988, R. A. V. N. et al. v. Argentina, inadmissible 23