CCPR/C/112/D/2086/2011 The State party observes that all these “individual” communications fail to make reference to the general context in which the disappearances occurred. The State party notes that the complaints focus solely on the actions of the security forces, without ever mentioning those of all the armed groups that used criminal techniques of concealment in order to incriminate the armed forces. 5.2 The State party indicates that it will not address the merits of these communications until the issue of their admissibility has been settled. It adds that all judicial or quasijudicial bodies have a duty to deal with preliminary questions before considering the merits. It considers that the decision in the case in point to consider the questions of admissibility and the merits jointly and simultaneously — aside from the fact that it was not arrived at on the basis of consultation — seriously prejudices the proper consideration of the communications in terms of both their general nature and their intrinsic particularities. Referring to the rules of procedure of the Human Rights Committee, the State party notes that the sections relating to the Committee’s procedure for determining the admissibility of communications are separate from those relating to the consideration of communications on the merits, and that, therefore, these questions could be considered separately. Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party stresses that the complaints and requests for information made by the authors were not submitted through channels that would have allowed for the case to be considered by the Algerian judicial authorities. 5.3 Recalling the Committee’s jurisprudence regarding the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies, the State party reiterates that mere doubts about the prospect of success or concerns about delays do not exempt the authors from the obligation to exhaust these remedies. As to the question of whether the promulgation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation has barred the possibility of appeal in this area, the State party replies that the failure by the authors to submit their allegations to examination has prevented the Algerian authorities from taking a position on the scope and limitations of the applicability of the Charter. Moreover, under the Ordinance in question, the only proceedings that are inadmissible are those brought against “members of any branch of the defence and security forces of the Republic” for actions consistent with their core duties towards the Republic, namely, to protect persons and property, safeguard the nation and preserve its institutions. On the other hand, any allegations concerning actions attributable to the defence or security forces that can be proved to have taken place in any other context are subject to investigation by the appropriate courts. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 6.1 On 12 March 2012 the authors submitted comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and provided additional arguments on the merits. 6.2 The authors point out that the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to consider individual communications. This competence is of a general nature and its exercise by the Committee is not subject to the discretion of the State party. In particular, it is not for the State party to determine whether it is appropriate for the Committee to take up a specific case. That is for the Committee to decide when it considers the communication. The authors consider that the State party’s adoption of a comprehensive domestic settlement mechanism cannot be applied in respect of the Human Rights Committee or constitute grounds for declaring the communication inadmissible. In the present case, the legislative measures adopted amount to a violation of the rights enshrined in the Covenant, as the Committee has previously observed.14 14 10 The authors refer to the Human Rights Committee’s concluding observations on the third periodic report of Algeria (CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3), paras. 7, 8 and 13. The authors also refer to Boucherf v. Algeria, para. 11, and to the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture on the third GE.14-21909