CCPR/C/128/D/2924/2016 6.7 The Committee also notes the anguish and distress that the disappearance of Ahmed Braih on two occasions has caused to the author and his family and is of the opinion that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant with regard to these individuals. 19 6.8 As to the claims concerning a violation of article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee notes the author’s allegations that Ahmed Braih was arrested arbitrarily, without a warrant, and was not charged or brought before a judicial authority, which would have enabled him to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. In the absence of any information from the State party in this regard, the Committee is of the opinion that due weight should be given to the author’s allegations.20 The Committee therefore finds a violation of article 9 of the Covenant in respect of Ahmed Braih.21 6.9 The Committee also recalls that the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law constitutes a denial of his or her right to recognition as a person before the law, in particular if the efforts of the victim’s relatives to exercise their right to an effective remedy have been systematically impeded.22 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has not provided any explanation concerning the fate or whereabouts of Ahmed Braih, despite the requests made by his relatives and the fact that he was in the hands of the State party’s authorities when he was last seen. The Committee concludes that the enforced disappearance of Ahmed Braih for more than eight years removed him from the protection of the law and deprived him of his right to recognition as a person before the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 6.10 In view of the foregoing, the Committee will not consider separately the claims relating to the violation of article 23 (1) of the Covenant.23 6.11 The author also invokes article 2 (3) of the Covenant, which requires States parties to ensure that all individuals have accessible, effective and enforceable remedies for asserting the rights recognized in the Covenant. The Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of violations of the rights guaranteed under the Covenant.24 It also recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it states that a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. 6.12 In the present case, the author and his family have repeatedly alerted the competent authorities to the disappearance of Ahmed Braih, but the State party has not inquired into this disappearance and the author has received no information in this regard. In addition, the legal impossibility of applying to a judicial body as a result of the de facto devolution of the State party’s jurisdictional authority to the Frente POLISARIO, and the lack of effective remedies for persons in the Tindouf camps, continue to deprive Ahmed Braih and the author of any access to an effective remedy. 25 The Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9 and 16, of the Covenant in respect of Ahmed Braih, and of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant in respect of the author. 7. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of articles 6, 7, 9 and 16 of the 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GE.20-14652 Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.6; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.6; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.6; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para. 7.5; and El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/91/D/1422/2005), para. 6.11. Chani v. Algeria (CCPR/C/116/D/2297/2013), para. 7.5. See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.7; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.7; and Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.7. Basnet v. Nepal (CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012), para. 10.9; Tharu et al. v. Nepal, para. 10.9; and Serna et al. v. Colombia, para. 9.5. Boudjema v. Algeria (CCPR/C/121/D/2283/2013), para. 8.12, and Bouzeriba v. Algeria (CCPR/C/111/D/1931/2010), para. 8.10. Allioua and Kerouane v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2132/2012), para. 7.11. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paras. 9–10. 9