CCPR/C/122/D/2398/2014 can be proved to have taken place in any other context are subject to investigation by the appropriate courts. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The Committee recalls that the joinder of admissibility and merits, in conformity with the decision of the Special Rapporteur (see paragraph 1.2 above), does not preclude the two matters being considered separately. 6.2 As required under article 5 (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 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 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 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol.6 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the examination of the case of Mohamed Millis by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances does not render it inadmissible under this provision. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Committee notes that, in challenging the admissibility of the communication, the State party has simply referred to its background memorandum on dealing with the issue of disappearances in the light of the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation and that it provided, on 27 October 2011, an additional note on the inadmissibility of communications submitted to the Human Rights Committee in connection with the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. 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 enforced disappearances or violations of the right to life, but also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations. 7 The Committee notes that, on 23 July 2008, the public prosecutor at the Court of Bir Mourad Raïs issued an official statement instructing Arab Millis to follow the procedure for compensation established under the 2005 Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation and that, on 8 February 2009, the wali of Bir Mourad Raïs daira invited the author to adopt the same approach. The Committee notes, however, that the official statement did not provide any answer in respect of Mohamed Millis. It also notes that, in two letters dated 27 February 2008 and 6 July 2008, the author was summoned by the Birkhadem criminal police division to “assist with inquiries” and, despite being summoned, he was never informed that any serious and thorough investigation had been conducted. It therefore gives credence to the facts described by the author which indicate that no thorough and effective investigation has been carried out into the disappearance of Mohamed Millis. Furthermore, the State party has not offered any specific explanation in its observations regarding the case of Mohamed Millis that would lead to the conclusion that an effective remedy is now available. In addition, Ordinance No. 06-01 on the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation continues to be applied despite the Committee’s 6 7 8 See, inter alia, Y. v. Canada (CCPR/C/116/D/2314/2013); Mandić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/115/D/2064/2011); Tharu v. Nepal (CCPR/C/114/D/2038/2011); Ammari v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2098/2011); and Zair v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2026/2011). See, inter alia, Zair v. Algeria, para. 6.3; Ammari v. Algeria, para. 7.3; Mezine v. Algeria (CCPR/C/106/D/1779/2008), para. 7.4; Berzig v. Algeria (CCPR/C/103/D/1781/2008), para. 7.4; Khirani v. Algeria (CCPR/C/104/D/1905/2009), para. 6.4; and Boudjemai v. Algeria (CCPR/C/107/D/1791/2008), para. 7.4. GE.18-10582