CCPR/C/128/D/2893/2016 In these circumstances, the Committee finds that it is not precluded from considering Merouane Bendjael’s claims under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.7 The Committee notes that the authors have also claimed a violation of article 2 (2) and (3) of the Covenant in their regard. Recalling its jurisprudence according to which the provisions of article 2 lay down general obligations for States parties and cannot, by themselves, give rise to a separate claim under the Optional Protocol because they can be invoked only in conjunction with other substantive articles of the Covenant, the Committee considers the authors’ claims under article 2 (2) and (3) of the Covenant to be inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.26 7.8 The Committee notes that the authors have also claimed a violation of article 21 of the Covenant. However, it considers that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate their claim and notes that they do not appear to have taken any action before the domestic courts regarding the alleged attacks on their freedom to demonstrate. Consequently, this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 and article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.9 On the other hand, the Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated the claims under article 2 (3), article 6 (1) and articles 7, 9, 10, 14, 16 and 17 of the Covenant, for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes that the State party has merely referred to its collective and general observations, which it has previously transmitted to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the Committee in connection with other communications, in order to confirm its position that such cases have already been settled through the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. The Committee refers to its jurisprudence and its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Algeria and recalls that the State party may not invoke the provisions of the Charter against persons who invoke provisions of the Covenant or who have submitted, or may submit, communications to the Committee. The Covenant demands that the State party concern itself with the fate of every individual and treat every individual with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. In the present case, without the amendments recommended by the Committee, Ordinance No. 06-01 promotes impunity and cannot therefore, as it currently stands, be considered compatible with the provisions of the Covenant.27 8.3 The Committee also notes that the State party has not replied to the authors’ allegations concerning the merits of the case and recalls its jurisprudence according to which the burden of proof should not rest solely on the author of a communication, especially given that the author and the State party do not always have the same degree of access to evidence and that often only the State party holds the necessary information. 28 In conformity with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party has a duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives and to transmit to the Committee the information in its possession. 29 In the absence of any explanations from the State party in this respect, due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations, provided they have been sufficiently substantiated. 26 27 28 29 10 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. Zaier v. Algeria, para. 7.2; and Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.2. See, inter alia, Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.3; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/99/D/1640/2007), para. 7.4; and Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.3. Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3 and Medjnoune v. Algeria, para. 8.3. GE.20-14556