CCPR/C/128/D/2924/2016 constitutes a breach of the State party’s obligation to provide an effective remedy. Accordingly, the author requests the Committee to find a violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 16. 3.9 Lastly, the author takes the view that the inability of Ahmed Braih’s family members to deal directly with the Algerian authorities, who consistently refer them to the Frente POLISARIO, constitutes discrimination against Saharan refugees and a failure to observe the scope of the State’s obligation under article 2 (1) both ratione loci and ratione personae. As emphasized by the Committee in its general comment No. 15 (1986), to which it refers in paragraph 10 of its general comment No. 31 (2004), the enjoyment of Covenant rights is not limited to citizens of States parties but must also be available to all individuals, regardless of nationality or statelessness, such as asylum seekers, refugees, migrant workers and other persons who may find themselves in the territory or subject to the jurisdiction of the State party. The State party is therefore under an obligation to ensure respect for the rights set forth in the Covenant, and the effective enjoyment thereof, throughout its territory. Through its de facto delegation to a third party, the Frente POLISARIO, of the responsibility for dealing with complaints and appeals lodged by persons within its territory, the State party is in breach of its obligation under article 2 (1) of the Covenant to ensure to all individuals subject to its jurisdiction, without distinction, the right to an effective remedy recognized under article 2 (3). 3.10 The author requests the Committee to find, first, a violation of articles 6 (1), 7, 9 (1)–(4), 10 (1), 16 and 23 (1) of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), in relation to Ahmed Braih. Second, he requests the Committee to find a violation of articles 7 and 23 (1) of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 2 (3), in relation to the author and his family. The author further asks the Committee to request the State party to: (a) release Ahmed Braih if he is still alive; (b) provide the author with an effective remedy by conducting a thorough and prompt investigation into the enforced disappearance of his father and informing him of the results of the investigation; (c) initiate criminal proceedings against those allegedly responsible for the disappearance of Ahmed Braih, bring them to justice and punish those who are found guilty, in accordance with the State party’s international commitments; and (d) adequately compensate the author and Ahmed Braih’s beneficiaries for the violations suffered. Lastly, he asks the Committee to urge the Algerian authorities to ensure that Saharan refugees residing in the Tindouf camps have direct and equal access to the Algerian courts, thus ensuring their right to an effective remedy in respect of any violation of a right protected by the Covenant. Lack of cooperation by the State party 4. On 28 December 2016 and 10 December 2018, the State party was invited to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee notes that it has received no response and regrets that the State party has not cooperated by sharing its observations on the present complaint. In accordance with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives and to transmit to the Committee the information in its possession.7 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of 7 6 Mezine v. Algeria (CCPR/C/106/D/1779/2008), para. 8.3, and Medjnoune v. Algeria (CCPR/C/87/D/1297/2004), para. 8.3. GE.20-14652