Case study Algeria Maamar Ouaghlissi was working at the national railways company in Algeria on 27 September 1994, when he was approached by three plain clothes officers, claiming to be from the security services (Al-Amn). The officers, who provided no explanation or warrant, asked Mr Ouaghlissi to follow them in his vehicle, accompanied by two officers. This is the last time that he was seen. Immediately following his disappearance, his family sought information from the police headquarters, gendarmerie brigades and various barracks in the city, all of which denied holding Mr Ouaghlissi in custody. In the same year, Mr Ouaghlissi’s father lodged a complaint with the prosecution service, but an investigation was never initiated. Despite all the efforts made by the family to know his fate, it was only after eight months that Mr Ouaghlissi’s wife learned, via a released prisoner, that he was being detained at the barracks of Mansura, which was run by the Intelligence and Security Department. Whilst the barracks denied that they were holding Mr Ouaghlissi, up until 1996 his wife and relatives continued to receive reports from released prisoners that he was being held there. In 1998, another complaint was lodged with the prosecution service, yet still no investigation was launched. In May 2000, Farida Khirani was provided with an official report from the gendarmerie stating that “the investigations carried out have not been able to determine the whereabouts of the person concerned.” No details of the nature of the investigations or the authority involved were given. In 2006, as a result of her efforts to obtain an official certificate of disappearance from the gendarmerie so that she could receive welfare support for her family, Mr Ouaghlissi’s wife was given an “official certificate attesting to a disappearance under the circumstances arising from the national tragedy”, although no investigation had been carried out by the gendarmerie that issued the certificate. The family eventually filed a case with the Human Rights Committee, which, in 2012, found that grave human rights violations had been committed by the Algerian government, who had violated article 2 (3) of the ICCPR (in conjunction with article 6 (1); article 7; article 9; and article 10). HRCt held that the Algerian government was under an obligation to provide Mr Ouaghlissi’s wife with an effective remedy, including by (i) conducting a thorough and effective investigation into the disappearance of Mr Ouaghlissi; (ii) providing his wife with detailed information about the results of the investigation; (iii) freeing Mr Ouaghlissi immediately if he was still being detained incommunicado; (iv) if he was dead, handing over his remains to his family; (v) prosecuting, trying and punishing those responsible for the violations committed; and (vi) providing adequate compensation for his family for the violations suffered and for Mr Ouaghlissi if he were alive. To date, however, the Algerian government has not complied with the HRCt’s decision. Indeed, since the Barrios Altos case against Peru in 2001, the IACtHR has declared that amnesty provisions, statutes of limitations and other measures designed to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious and non-derogable human rights norms, including ED, are prohibited.343 Amnesties, pardons and statutes of limitations International law provides safeguards to ensure that amnesties and prescriptions are not unlawfully used for purposes of obtaining impunity of perpetrators of ED.341 When legal measures such as amnesties are used for illegitimate purposes of obtaining impunity, it is considered a “fraudulent administration of justice” by doctrine and jurisprudence.342 Amnesties and similar measures that prevent the investigation, prosecution and punishment of perpetrators of ED have been declared incompatible with 341 ICJ, Guidelines on Enforced Disappearances, p. 208. 342 Ibid. 343 IACtHR, Barrios Altos v. Peru, Merits, Judgment of 14 March 2001, Series C, No. 75; La Cantuta v Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of 29 November 2006, Series C, No. 162. In subsequent judgments, the IACtHR reiterated that domestic amnesty laws are contrary to international law and the jurisprudence of the IACtHR is without effect (IACtHR, Gelman v Uruguay, Merits and Reparations, Judgment of 24 February 2011, paras. 250-303.) 49