CCPR/C/128/D/2819/2016 the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives and to provide the Committee with whatever information is available to it.15 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 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. 7.2 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 cases of widespread human rights violations worldwide, do not generally constitute a procedure of international investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol.16 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the examination of Abdelhakim Houari’s case by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances does not render the communication inadmissible under this provision. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that she has exhausted all the available domestic remedies. It notes that the State party contested the admissibility of the communication simply by referring to the 2009 background memorandum of the Algerian Government on handling the issue of disappearances in the light of the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, in 2018, it expressed its concern that, despite repeated requests, the State party continued to refer systematically to a general document (the “aide-memoire”), without responding specifically to the claims made by authors of communications. The Committee therefore called on the State party, as a matter of urgency, to cooperate with it in good faith under the individual communications procedure by ceasing to refer to the “aide-memoire” and by responding individually and with specifics to the claims made by authors of communications.17 7.4 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.18 Although Abdelhakim Houari’s family has brought his enforced disappearance to the attention of the competent authorities on many occasions, the State party has not undertaken any thorough and effective investigation into this serious allegation and has even claimed, contrary to all evidence, that he died in the maquis. The State party has not offered any specific explanation in its observations regarding the case of Abdelhakim Houari that would lead to the conclusion that an effective remedy is now available. Moreover, Ordinance No. 06-01 continues to be applied despite the Committee’s recommendation that it should be brought into line with the Covenant. 19 In its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of the State party, the Committee deplored “in particular the fact that there is no effective remedy available for disappeared persons or their families and that no action has been taken to uncover the truth about disappeared persons, to find them and, if they are deceased, to return their remains to their families”. 20 In the 15 16 17 18 19 20 GE.20-12768 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. See, inter alia, Tharu et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/114/D/2038/2011), para. 9.2; Ammari v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2098/2011), para. 7.2; and Zaier v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2026/2011), para. 6.2. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paras. 7–8. Boudjemai v. Algeria (CCPR/C/107/D/1791/2008), para. 7.4. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, paras. 7–8 and 13, and CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paras. 6, 8, 12, 14 and 34. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, para. 29. 7