CCPR/C/112/D/2098/2011 appropriate remedy, since it is the responsibility of the authorities to investigate allegations of serious human rights violations, such as — in the case in point — the enforced disappearance of his son, of which they were informed by the author on numerous occasions. 6.3 The author also recalls that the implementation of the provisions of the aforementioned Charter cannot render the present communication inadmissible. He refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, in which it is pointed out that the State party should not invoke the provisions of the Charter against persons who invoke provisions of the Covenant or who have submitted or may submit communications to the Committee. 6 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 The Committee recalls that the decision by the Special Rapporteur to examine the admissibility and the merits jointly (see paragraph 1.2 above) does not preclude the two issues being considered separately by the Committee. Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 As required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee recalls that extra-conventional procedures or mechanisms established by the Human Rights Council to examine and report publicly on human rights situations in specific countries or territories or on cases of widespread human rights violations worldwide do not generally constitute an international procedure of investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol. 7 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the examination of Toufik Ammari’s case by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances does not render the communication inadmissible under this provision. 7.3 The Committee recalls that the State party has a duty not only to carry out thorough investigations of alleged violations of human rights, particularly enforced disappearances, brought to the attention of its authorities, but also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations. 8 Although the author repeatedly contacted the competent authorities concerning his son’s disappearance, the State party failed to conduct a thorough and effective investigation. The State party has also failed to provide sufficient information indicating that an effective remedy is available, while Ordinance No. 06-01 continues to be applied despite the Committee’s recommendation that it should be brought into line with the Covenant.9 The Committee therefore concludes that article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication. 6 7 8 9 GE.14-24393 Communication No. 1588/2007, Benaziza v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 9.2. See, inter alia, communications No. 1791/2008, Boudjemai v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2013, para. 7.2; No. 1779/2008, Mezine v. Algeria, Views adopted on 25 October 2012, para. 7.2; No. 1781/2008, Berzig v. Algeria, Views adopted on 31 October 2011, para. 7.2; and Laureano Atachahua v. Peru, para. 7.1. See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 7.4; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 7.4; communication No. 1905/2009, Khirani v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 March 2012, para. 6.4; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 7.4. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on the third periodic report of Algeria, adopted on 1 November 2007 (CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3), paras. 7, 8 and 13. 9