CCPR/C/119/D/2259/2013 allegations.17 The Committee therefore finds a violation of article 9 with regard to Brahim El Boathi.18 7.10 The Committee is of the view that the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time constitutes a refusal to recognize him or her as a person before the law, particularly if the efforts of his or her relatives to obtain access to potentially effective remedies have been systematically impeded.19 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has not furnished any convincing explanation concerning the fate or whereabouts of Brahim El Boathi despite the multiple requests addressed to the State party by the author. The Committee finds that Brahim El Boathi’s enforced disappearance more than 23 years ago removed him from the protection of the law and deprived him of his right to be recognized as a person before the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 7.11 The author invokes article 2 (3) of the Covenant, which requires States parties to ensure that individuals have accessible, effective and enforceable remedies for asserting the rights recognized in the Covenant. The Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing complaints of violations of the rights guaranteed under the Covenant. 20 It recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, according to which the failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could, in itself, give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. In the present case, the family of Brahim El Boathi informed the competent authorities, including the public prosecutor of Algiers court, of Mr. El Boathi’s disappearance, but the State party has not initiated an in-depth, thorough and impartial investigation into the disappearance and the author has received only vague and contradictory information. Furthermore, the legal impossibility of applying to a judicial body since the promulgation of Ordinance No. 06-01 on the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation continues to deprive Brahim El Boathi, the author and her family of any access to an effective remedy given that the Ordinance prohibits using the justice system to shed light on the worst offences, including enforced disappearance (see CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, para. 7). The Committee finds that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 6 (1), 7, 9 and 16, with regard to Brahim El Boathi and of article 2 (3) read in conjunction with article 7 with regard to the author and her family. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of articles 6 (1), 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant as well as of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 6 (1), 7, 9 and 16, with regard to Brahim El Boathi. The Committee also finds a violation by the State party of article 7 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), with regard to the author and her family. 9. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This provision requires that States parties make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. In the present case, the State party is obliged to: (a) conduct an in-depth, thorough and impartial investigation into the disappearance of Brahim El Boathi and provide the author and her family with detailed information about the results of its investigation; (b) release Brahim El Boathi immediately if he is still being held incommunicado; (c) in the event that he is deceased, return his remains to his family; (d) prosecute, try and punish those 17 18 19 20 10 See communication No. 2297/2013, Chani v. Algeria, para. 7.5, Views adopted on 11 March 2016. See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.7; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.7; and Djebrouni v. Algeria, para. 8.7. See communication No. 2164/2012, Basnet v. Nepal, Views adopted on 12 July 2016, para. 10.9; communication No. 2038/2011, Tharu et al v. Nepal, Views adopted on 3 July 2015, para. 10.9; and Serna et al v. Colombia, para. 9.5. See communication No. 2132/2012, Kerouane v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 October 2014, para. 7.11. GE.17-07865