CCPR/C/112/D/2098/2011 State party’s additional observations on admissibility 5.1 On 4 October 2011, the State party transmitted an additional memorandum to the Committee, in which it questioned the intention behind the series of individual communications submitted to the Committee since the beginning of 2009, which in its view actually amounted to an abuse of procedure aimed at bringing before the Committee a broad historical issue involving causes and circumstances of which the Committee is unaware. The State party observes that all these “individual” communications dwell on the general context in which the disappearances occurred. The State party notes that the complaints focus solely on the actions of the security forces and never mention those of the various armed groups that used criminal concealment techniques to incriminate the armed forces. 5.2 The State party indicates that it will not address the merits of these communications until the issue of their admissibility has been settled. It adds that all judicial or quasijudicial bodies have a duty to deal with preliminary questions before considering the merits. According to the State party, the decision in the cases in point to consider questions of admissibility and the merits jointly and simultaneously — aside from the fact that it was not arrived at on the basis of consultation — seriously prejudices the proper consideration of the communications in terms of both their general nature and their intrinsic particularities. Referring to the rules of procedure of the Human Rights Committee, the State party notes that the sections relating to the Committee’s procedure to determine the admissibility of communications are separate from those relating to the consideration of communications on the merits, and that therefore these questions could be considered separately. Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party stresses that the author did not submit any complaints or requests for information through channels that would have allowed consideration of the case by the Algerian judicial authorities. 5.3 Recalling the Committee’s jurisprudence regarding the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies, the State party stresses that mere doubts about the prospect of success or concerns about delays do not exempt the author from the obligation to exhaust these remedies. As to the question of whether the promulgation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation has barred the possibility of appeal in this area, the State party replies that the failure by the author to submit his allegations to examination has prevented the Algerian authorities from taking a position on the scope and limitations of the applicability of the Charter. Moreover, under the Ordinance in question, the only proceedings that are inadmissible are those brought against “members of any branch of the defence and security forces of the Republic” for actions consistent with their duties to the Republic, namely, to protect persons and property, safeguard the nation and preserve its institutions. On the other hand, any allegations concerning actions attributable to the defence or security forces that can be proved to have taken place in any other context are subject to investigation by the appropriate courts. Author’s comments on the State party’s submission 6.1 On 7 March 2012, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility. 6.2 The author emphasizes that the State party has confined itself to submitting general and formulaic observations to contest the admissibility of the communication. He recalls all the steps he has taken, in vain, to secure the conduct of an investigation into his son’s disappearance. He reiterates the argument made in his initial submission that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies and that all the remaining remedies have proved to be unavailable or ineffective, particularly since the promulgation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. He adds that filing a complaint and suing for damages, as provided for in articles 72 and 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not constitute an 8 GE.14-24393