CCPR/C/128/D/2893/2016 of torture and ill-treatment upon his release from prison as no legal remedy was available to address that issue. 2.14 The authors indicate that the case of Mourad Bendjael was also submitted to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on 12 September 2007. The complaint 3.1 The authors allege that Mourad Bendjael is a victim of enforced disappearance as defined under article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Although no provision of the Covenant expressly mentions enforced disappearance, such practices involve violations of the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the right to liberty and security of person. In the present case, the authors are claiming that the State party has violated article 2 (2) and (3) as well as articles 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17 and 21 of the Covenant. 3.2 The authors consider that Ordinance No. 06-01 constitutes a violation of the general obligation assumed by the State party under article 2 (2) of the Covenant, in that this provision also implies a negative obligation for States parties to refrain from adopting measures that are contrary to the Covenant. They are of the view that, in adopting the Ordinance, in particular article 45, the State party adopted a legislative measure that deprived of effect rights recognized under the Covenant,11 particularly the right to have access to an effective remedy against violations of human rights. Since the promulgation of this ordinance, the authors have been prevented from instituting legal proceedings. They consider that a breach, by act or omission, of the obligation imposed by article 2 (2) of the Covenant may engage the international responsibility of the State party.12 They claim that, despite all their efforts, after the entry into force of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation and its implementing legislation, their complaints remained ineffective. They therefore claim to be victims of this legislative provision that violates article 2 (2) of the Covenant. 3.3 The authors add that the provisions of Ordinance No. 06-01 are contrary to article 2 (3) of the Covenant, since they have the effect of preventing any future criminal proceedings from being brought against the alleged perpetrators of enforced disappearances when these persons are State agents. The Ordinance also prohibits, on pain of imprisonment, the use of the justice system to establish the fate of victims. 13 Despite the many administrative and judicial processes initiated by Malika Bendjael before the adoption of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation, the Algerian authorities have failed to duly conduct an effective and thorough investigation into the disappearance of her son. Moreover, article 2 (3) of the Covenant requires the State party to make reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated,14 yet articles 27 to 39 of Ordinance No. 06-01 provide only for monetary compensation, conditional upon the issuance of a declaration of presumed death following an unsuccessful investigation, with article 38 excluding any other form of reparation. In practice, however, no investigation is carried out into the fate of the disappeared person, or into the perpetrators of the disappearance. The authors recall that the Committee has deemed that the right to an effective remedy must include the right to adequate reparation and the right to the truth and has recommended that the State party should undertake to ensure that disappeared persons and/or their families have access to an effective remedy and that proper follow-up is assured, while ensuring respect for the right to compensation and the fullest possible redress.15 The State party has therefore violated article 2 (3) of the Covenant not only with regard to Malika Bendjael and Mourad Bendjael, but also with regard to Merouane Bendjael, who has no access to an effective judicial procedure through which to obtain reparation for his arbitrary detention and torture. 11 12 13 14 15 GE.20-14556 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). Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31, para. 4. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, paras. 7 and 8. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31, para. 16. CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, para. 12. 5