CCPR/C/121/D/2283/2013 aimed at calling into question the very existence of the national State”, resulting in a “national tragedy” that took “a terrible bloody toll” of the people by means of “barbaric terrorism” acting “in contradiction with the true values of Islam and the Muslim traditions of peace, tolerance and solidarity”. The Ordinance and the four implementing decrees are intended to respond to the “Great Fitna” and prevent any repetition of it, through the adoption of political, legal and socioeconomic measures. The implementing Ordinance prescribes legal measures involving the discontinuance of criminal proceedings and the commutation or remission of sentences for any person who has been found guilty of acts of terrorism or who is benefiting from the provisions of the legislation on civil dissent, except for persons who have committed or been accomplices in mass killings, rapes or bombings in public places. The Ordinance also introduces a procedure for filing a judicial declaration of death, which entitles beneficiaries to receive compensation as victims of the “national tragedy”. Social and economic measures have also been put in place, including the provision of employment placement assistance and compensation for all persons considered to be victims of the “national tragedy”. Finally, the Ordinance prescribes political measures, such as a ban on political activity for any person who exploited religion in the past in a way that contributed to the “national tragedy”, and it establishes the inadmissibility of individual or collective proceedings brought against members of any branch of the defence and security forces of Algeria for actions undertaken to protect persons and property, safeguard the nation and preserve its institutions. 5.6 In addition to the establishment of funds to compensate all victims of the “national tragedy”, the sovereign people of Algeria have, according to the State party, agreed to a process of national reconciliation as the only way to heal the wounds inflicted. The State party insists that the proclamation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation reflects a desire to avoid confrontation in the courts, media outpourings and political scoresettling. The State party is therefore of the view that the allegations relating to the period of the national tragedy are covered by the comprehensive domestic settlement mechanism provided for in the Charter. Author’s comments on the State party’s submission 6.1 On 6 August 2015, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations. 6.2 The author emphasizes that the State party’s observations are inappropriate, as they refer to a standard document that is general and vague, and what is more, one that is addressed to another body for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances), and is outdated, as it dates from July 2009. The author emphasizes that the State party’s observations in no way mention the specificities of the case and provide no response regarding the particular circumstances of Mahmoud Boudjema’s disappearance. 6.3 The author considers that the State party’s challenge of the Committee’s competence on the grounds that it would be necessary to consider the cases of enforced disappearance in the period from 1993 to 1998 through a comprehensive, non-individualized approach is devoid of any relevance, as the State party has ratified the Covenant and its Optional Protocol and has thus recognized the competence of the Committee to hear communications by individual victims of violations of the rights set forth in the Covenant. He further stresses that the declaration of the state of emergency as provided for under article 4 of the Covenant in no way affects the prohibition of enforced disappearance or the exercise of the rights stemming from the Optional Protocol. He adds that the maintenance of a state of emergency for nearly two decades, during which the authorities of the State party committed gross and systematic violations of human rights, in itself constitutes a violation of article 4 (3) of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. GE.17-21416 7