CCPR/C/128/D/2819/2016 domestic remedies. Article 45 of the Ordinance prohibits any complaint of disappearance or other offences, stipulating that “no individual or class action may be taken against members of any branch of the defence and security forces of the Republic for actions carried out to protect persons and property, safeguard the nation and preserve the institutions of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria”. Pursuant to this provision, any allegation or complaint must be declared inadmissible by the competent judicial authority. Furthermore, article 46 of the Ordinance establishes that: Anyone who, through his or her spoken or written statements or any other act, uses or makes use of the wounds caused by the national tragedy to undermine the institutions of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, weaken the State, impugn the honour of its agents who served it with dignity or tarnish the image of Algeria abroad shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of 3 to 5 years and a fine of 250,000 to 500,000 Algerian dinars. Criminal proceedings shall be automatically initiated by the public prosecutor’s office. The penalty established in the present article shall be doubled for repeat offences. The complaint 3.1 The author alleges that her son was the victim of a disappearance caused by the actions of the police and therefore attributable to the State party, pursuant to the definition of enforced disappearance set forth in article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. The author argues that, although no provision of the Covenant expressly mentions enforced disappearance, the practice involves violations of the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to liberty and security of person. In the present case, the author is claiming that the State party has violated articles 2 (2) and (3), 6, 7, 9, 10, 14 and 16 of the Covenant. 3.2 The author considers that Ordinance No. 06-01 constitutes a violation of the State party’s general obligation under article 2 (2) of the Covenant, in that the said article also entails a negative obligation for States parties to refrain from adopting measures that are contrary to the Covenant. In adopting the Ordinance, in particular article 45 thereof, the State party adopted a legislative measure that prevents the enjoyment of rights recognized under the Covenant, particularly the right to have access to an effective remedy against violations of human rights.11 Since the Ordinance was promulgated, the author has been unable to take legal action. She considers that any failure, by act or omission, to meet the obligation established by article 2 (2) of the Covenant may engage the international responsibility of the State party.12 She affirms that, despite all the steps she has taken since the entry into force of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation and its implementing legislation, her complaints have not been addressed. She therefore considers herself to be a victim of this legislative provision that violates article 2 (2) of the Covenant. 3.3 The author adds that the provisions of Ordinance No. 06-01 are contrary to article 2 (3) of the Covenant because they prevent the criminal prosecution of suspected perpetrators of enforced disappearance in cases where those individuals are agents of the State. The effect of this Ordinance is to grant amnesty for crimes committed in the past decade, including the most serious crimes such as enforced disappearance. The Ordinance also prohibits, on pain of imprisonment, the use of the justice system to shed light on the fate of victims. 13 It is clear that the Algerian authorities, including the judicial authorities, are refusing to establish the responsibility of the security forces, including the officers who perpetrated the enforced disappearance of Abdelhakim Houari. This refusal hinders the effectiveness of the remedies sought by his family. 11 12 13 4 See, inter alia, the concurring individual opinion of Fabián Salvioli in the case of Djebbar and Chihoub v. Algeria (CCPR/C/103/D/1811/2008). Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 4. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, paras. 7–8. GE.20-12768