CCPR/C/128/D/2924/2016 international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that the disappearance was reported to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. However, it recalls that extra-conventional procedures or mechanisms established by the Human Rights Council, and whose mandates are to examine and report publicly on human rights situations in specific countries or territories, or cases of widespread human rights violations worldwide, do not generally constitute an international procedure of investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. 8 Accordingly, the Committee finds that the examination of the case of Ahmed Braih by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances does not render the communication inadmissible under this provision. 5.3 Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee recalls that the State party has a duty not only to carry out thorough investigations of alleged violations of human rights brought to the attention of its authorities, particularly violations of the right to life, but also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations. 9 Ahmed Braih’s family has repeatedly alerted the competent authorities of the State party to his enforced disappearance, but these authorities have not carried out any investigation in this regard. Furthermore, the State party has not offered any evidence showing that an effective remedy has yet been made available. The Committee is also concerned to note that the State party has not provided any information or observations on the admissibility or merits of the communication.10 5.4 In this connection, the Committee recalls that, in its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Algeria, it expressed concern about the de facto devolution of authority, especially jurisdictional authority, to the Frente POLISARIO, as such a situation was inconsistent with the State party’s obligation to respect and guarantee all Covenant rights for all persons within its territory. The Committee also expressed concern about the situation of victims of violations of Covenant provisions in the Tindouf camps, as such victims did not have access to an effective remedy in the State party’s courts. 11 In the circumstances, the Committee finds that, in the present case, there are no obstacles to its consideration of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 5.5 The Committee further notes the author’s allegations that 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). Recalling its jurisprudence according to which the provisions of article 2 lay down general obligations for States parties and cannot, in and of themselves, give rise to a separate claim under the Optional Protocol, and can be invoked only in conjunction with other substantive articles of the Covenant,12 the Committee finds the author’s claim under article 2 (1) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), to be inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 5.6 The Committee finds that the author has sufficiently substantiated his remaining allegations for the purposes of admissibility, and thus proceeds to examine the merits of his claims under articles 2 (3), 6 (1), 7, 9, 10 (1), 16 and 23 (1) of the Covenant. Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8 9 10 11 12 GE.20-14652 See, inter alia, Y. v. Canada (CCPR/C/116/D/2314/2013), Mandić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/115/D/2064/2011), Tharu et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/114/D/2038/2011), Ammari v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2098/2011) and Zaier v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2026/2011). Boudjemai v. Algeria (CCPR/C/107/D/1791/2008), para. 7.4. Belamrania v. Algeria (CCPR/C/118/D/2157/2012), para. 4; Khelifati v. Algeria (CCPR/C/120/D/2267/2013), para. 4. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, para. 9. See, for example, H.E.A.K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2343/2014), para. 7.4; Castañeda v. Mexico (CCPR/C/108/D/2202/2012), para. 6.8; Ch.H.O. v. Canada (CCPR/C/118/D/2195/2012), para. 9.4; Peirano Basso v. Uruguay (CCPR/C/100/D/1887/2009), para. 9.4; and A.P. v. Ukraine (CCPR/C/105/D/1834/2008), para. 8.5. 7