CCPR/C/134/D/2721/2016

GE.22-08411(E)

Human Rights Committee

Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4)

of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication

No. 2721/2016**, ***

Communication submitted by:

M’Rabih Ahmed Mahmoud Adda (represented

by counsel, Rachid Mesli of the Alkarama

Foundation)

Alleged victim:

The author

State party:

Algeria

Date of communication:

12 June 2015 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rule 92 of the

Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to

the State party on 1 February 2016 (not issued in

document form)

Date of adoption of Views:

4 March 2022

Subject matter:

Torture and unlawful detention

Procedural issues:

Failure to exhaust domestic remedies;

substantiation of claims

Substantive issues:

Right to an effective remedy; cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment; liberty and

security of person; human dignity

Articles of the Covenant:

2 (3), 7, 9 (1–4), 10 (1), 19 (2), 21 and 22

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

2, 3 and 5 (2)

1.

The author of the communication is M’Rabih Ahmed Mahmoud Adda, who was born

on 25 May 19791 in one of the Sahrawi refugee camps in Tindouf. He claims that the State

party has violated his rights under articles 7, 9 (1–4), 10 (1), 19 (2), 21 and 22 of the Covenant.

Both the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 12

December 1989. The author is represented by counsel from the Alkarama Foundation.

* Third reissue for technical reasons (13 June 2023).

** Adopted by the Committee at its 134th session (28 February–25 March 2022).

*** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:

Tania María Abdo Rocholl, Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Yadh Ben Achour, Arif Bulkan,

Mahjoub El Haiba, Furuya Shuichi, Carlos Gómez Martínez, Marcia V.J. Kran, Duncan Laki

Muhumuza, Photini Pazartzis, Hernán Quezada Cabrera, Vasilka Sancin, José Manuel Santos Pais,

Soh Changrok, Kobauyah Tchamdja Kpatcha, Hélène Tigroudja, Imeru Tamerat Yigezu and Gentian

Zyberi.

1 The author’s birth was registered on 5 July 1979, which is the date appearing on his identity card.

United Nations

CCPR/C/134/D/2721/2016*

International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights

Distr.: General

2 June 2022

English

Original: French

CCPR/C/134/D/2721/2016

2

GE.22-08411

The facts as submitted by the author

2.1

The author resided in the Tindouf camps in Algeria. He completed his secondary

education in M’sila, in the centre of the country, and in Libya. He returned to the camps in

1998 and underwent military training in an Algerian army barracks before being assigned to

a military unit of the Frente Popular para la Liberación de Saguía el-Hamra y de Río de Oro

(Frente POLISARIO),2 which he decided to leave in 2006. Since 2010, the author has made

a living trading in fuel smuggled between the Tindouf camps and Mauritania.

2.2

On 5 March 2011, after the events that occurred in the Arab world at the start of that

year, the author and several young activists challenging the authority and practices of the

Frente POLISARIO founded the 5 March movement to peacefully protest against abuses of

the human rights of refugees living in the Tindouf camps. According to the author, since its

inception, this movement has organized numerous sit-ins, calling, in particular, for the

departure of the Frente POLISARIO’s leaders.

2.3

As a result of his activism, and after attempting to deliver a letter to the Personal

Envoy of the Secretary General for Western Sahara during one of his visits to the camps, the

author was arrested for the first time on 26 March 2013. He was detained for three days by

the security services of the Frente POLISARIO and was subjected to torture and ill-treatment,

as well as threats intended to make him cease his political activities. He was released on the

third day but continued to engage in peaceful protest activities challenging the actions of the

Frente POLISARIO throughout 2014.

2.4

The author also claims to have been one of the founders of the Assomoud3 association

established to demand the right to freedom of expression and movement, as well as dignified

living conditions, for the Tindouf refugees. With this association, he took part in an open sit-

in outside the offices of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

(UNHCR) in Rabouni in January 2014. For this reason, he was arrested a second time on 25

July 2014 when he was back in Tindouf. The author was at the home of one of his relatives,

located in the Ennahda district of Tindouf, when, at around 2 p.m., four Algerian security

officers in civilian attire entered the dwelling.

2.5

After forcing their way into the house, the officers immediately covered the author’s

head and handcuffed him behind his back, while beating him with a stick. He was given no

explanation for the arrest and no warrant was shown to him. At 7 p.m., after a severe beating,

the author was taken to the entrance of the Rabouni camp and handed over to officers of the

Frente POLISARIO, among whom he was able to recognize M.L. and A.O.A.S., who

immediately took him to the Errachid detention centre, known by the inhabitants of the camps

as a place in which torture was routinely practised.4

2.6

Upon arrival at the detention centre, the author was taken to an office for interrogation

by the intelligence services of the Frente POLISARIO attached to the State Secretariat for

Documentation and Security headed by B.A.M. During the interrogation, the officers asked

him questions about his political activities and opinions and his reasons for having organized

a sit-in protest. In response to the answers he gave, the officers began to insult and threaten

him, then ordered him to read out a preprepared statement on camera, which he flatly refused

to do.

2.7

In view of his resistance, the officers began to beat him, having first covered his face

and removed all his clothes. He was then bound, strung and tortured until he lost

consciousness. The officers then sprayed him with cold water to wake him up before

2 The author provides numerous additional details on the history and goals of the Frente POLISARIO.

He notes that the Frente POLISARIO, with active and direct support from Algeria, is calling for the

establishment of an independent Sahrawi State and has unilaterally proclaimed the foundation of the

“Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic”, which is not recognized by the United Nations.

3 A term that may be translated as “resistance”.

4 See Fondation Danielle Mitterand – France Libertés, Mission internationale d’enquête sur les

conditions de détention des prisonniers de guerre marocains détenus à Tindouf (Algérie),

(International mission of inquiry into conditions of detention for Moroccan prisoners of war held in

Tindouf, Algeria), July 2003, available at the following address:

https://www.arso.org/flrapport_tindouf.pdf.

CCPR/C/134/D/2721/2016

GE.22-08411

3

beginning another round of torture. The author was subjected to this treatment for eight days,

during which he was also deprived of food and sleep.

2.8

On the ninth day, the Director of Internal Security of the Frente POLISARIO, S.O.B.,

visited the author and ordered him once again to record statements prepared in advance by

the security service in which he acknowledged his errors and admitted that he was in the pay

of Morocco, failing which he would either be tried as a traitor or sent into exile. The author

stated that he was willing to submit to the courts provided that he received a fair and public

trial. The Director then told him that he would die in prison anyway.

2.9

On the thirteenth day of his detention, the author’s family was finally informed of his

arrest and deprivation of liberty. His father was given authorization to visit him at the

Errachid detention centre, and, prior to the visit, the Frente POLISARIO officers allowed the

author to wash and change his clothes in order to hide any signs of the torture he had suffered.

Three days later, his mother and other family members also visited him, and they were able

to see the deplorable state that he was in.

2.10

Subsequently, the author went on a two-week hunger strike to protest against his

continued detention and ill-treatment. The head warden of the detention centre then came to

see him and again offered to release him on condition that he made a video recorded

confession in which he stated that he had never been detained by the Frente POLISARIO.

On the sixtieth day of his detention, after another visit from his mother. and under pressure

from his family, the author finally agreed to make the confession. He was taken to one of the

POLISARIO Front’s intelligence offices, where the Director, a cameraman and a journalist

were waiting for him. A screen displaying a preprepared text that he was required to read out

was placed in front of him. The author still does not know whether this video has been

released by the Frente POLISARIO.

2.11

After his release, the author tried to contact a number of non-governmental

organizations to inform them of what he had just been through, but he had to give up on these

efforts because of the surveillance and the persistent threats of rearrest to which he was

subject. One of his relatives, who was an officer of the Frente POLISARIO, informed him

that he was in imminent danger of rearrest and advised him to leave the camps. The author

then fled to Mauritania, where he has family connections. He subsequently moved to the city

of Dakhla in Western Sahara. He is still affected by serious sequelae of the torture and ill-

treatment he endured during his detention: his physical and mental health have deteriorated,

causing him ongoing pain and suffering.

2.12

The author maintains that domestic remedies are effectively unavailable in the State

party because persons living in the refugee camps that are de facto placed under the authority

of the Frente POLISARIO cannot bring an appeal before the Algerian courts. The Frente

POLISARIO has its own internal police, judicial and prison system, which is recognized by

the Algerian authorities. The author recalls that it was the Algerian authorities themselves

that arrested him and handed him over to the Frente POLISARIO prior to his second spell in

detention, and, moreover, that, for fear of serious reprisals, he was forced to flee the State

party, where he faced real risks to his safety. He would not, therefore, be safe from rearrest

if he tried to return to the refugee camps situated in the State party. Furthermore, in Algerian

legal practice, plaintiffs are required to be present in person if they wish to file a criminal

complaint and civil claim for damages, and are likely to be called to testify, as a civil party,

in a hearing before the examining magistrate if their complaint is upheld. Referring to the

Committee’s decision in Traoré v. Côte d’Ivoire, 5 the author states that it is de facto

impossible for him to pursue his complaint at the national level.

The complaint

3.1

Firstly, the author asserts that, although the State party allows the Frente POLISARIO

to administer the Tindouf refugee camps, it retains sovereignty and is thus still under an

obligation to uphold human rights within its territory. The violations committed by the Frente

5 CCPR/C/103/D/1759/2008, para. 6.4.

CCPR/C/134/D/2721/2016

4

GE.22-08411

POLISARIO must therefore be imputed to the State party in application of article 2 (1) of the

Covenant.

3.2

The author claims violations by the State party of article 7; article 9 (1–4); article 10

(1); article 19 (2); article 21; and article 22 of the Covenant.

3.3

The author recalls the absolute and non-derogable nature of the right not to be

subjected to acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The acts

of torture and ill-treatment to which he was subjected took place within the territory of the

State party, whose officers handed him over directly to the Frente POLISARIO intelligence

service, and undoubtedly fall under the responsibility of the Algerian authorities, who acted

by tacit consent. The author recalls that incommunicado detention automatically creates an

environment conducive to the practice of torture insofar as the person concerned is removed

from the protection of the law. According to the Committee’s jurisprudence, such practice

may in itself constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The impossibility of

communicating with the outside world, which is inherent in incommunicado detention,

causes the detainee immense psychological suffering that is serious enough to fall within the

scope of article 7 of the Covenant. In this case, the author was held incommunicado for 13

days. He therefore claims to be a victim of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant.

3.4

The author further recalls that the right to liberty and security of person, as recognized

under article 9 of the Covenant, entails the prohibition of arbitrary arrest and detention and

requires the State party to provide a number of procedural safeguards. In application of article

9, he claims that he is a victim of violations attributable to the State party of: (a) paragraph

1, in that the Algerian intelligence officers who arrested him on 25 July 2014 did not specify

the grounds for his arrest and did not show an arrest warrant; (b) paragraph 2, in that the

officers who arrested him did so without communicating the reasons for his arrest or showing

a warrant and that he never received an official notification following his arrest; (c) paragraph

3, in that he was not brought before a competent judge following his arrest, and was neither

tried nor released, and that his detention exceeded the maximum period of 12 days in police

custody permitted under the Code of Criminal Procedure for terrorism-related offences; and

(d) paragraph 4, in that he was removed from the protection of the law and was thus never

able to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.

3.5

The author then recalls the fundamental and universal character of the principle that

all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for the

inherent dignity of the human person set out in article 10 (1) of the Covenant. Since he was

subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant,

he was also a victim of a violation of article 10 (1), since cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment is, by its very nature, incompatible with respect for the inherent dignity of the

human person.

3.6

Lastly, the author considers that his detention – which was linked to the fact that, in

March 2013, he delivered a letter to the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General for Western

Sahara, that he organized peaceful sit-ins outside the offices of UNHCR in Rabouni, and that

he was one of the founders of the Assomoud association, which has drawn attention to the

living conditions of refugees in the Tindouf camps – constitutes a violation of his rights under

articles 19 (2), 21 and 22 of the Covenant.

State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.1

The State party submitted observations on admissibility on 1 April 2016, arguing that

the communication should be declared inadmissible in view of the lack of credibility to be

accorded to the foundation representing the author and the political motivations underpinning

his petition. It argues that almost all of the founding members of the Alkarama Foundation

have come into conflict with the law – in a number of countries, notably in Europe – for

having supported and encouraged terrorist activities, and that, on 28 January 2014, after the

United States of America expressed reservations, the organization was refused observer

status before the Economic and Social Council.

4.2

Following an investigation into the allegations contained in the present

communication, it was established that the document giving the Alkarama Foundation power

of attorney to act on behalf of the author could not be authenticated since it appeared to have

CCPR/C/134/D/2721/2016

GE.22-08411

5

been executed in the Non-Self-Governing Territory of Western Sahara illegally occupied by

the Kingdom of Morocco since 1975 where the author has apparently found refuge.

Consequently, the author cannot be heard before the courts even if his identity is proven. In

taking refuge in this occupied part of Western Sahara, the author is expressing a political

opinion favourable to the occupier and against the Frente POLISARIO, which is leading the

struggle for the liberation of the Sahrawi people. In making the allegations, the author is

simply reproducing the occupier’s propaganda regarding the human rights situation in the

Tindouf camps in Algeria. However, none of the organizations of the United Nations system,

no non-governmental organization, none of the members of the European Parliament or the

United States Congress and no international press publication have ever reported practices

contrary to human dignity occurring there.

4.3

On 15 July 2021, the State Party reiterated its comments regarding the lack of

credibility to be accorded to the Alkarama Foundation and the deeply political motivations

underpinning this petition. With regard to the substance of the communication, it stated that,

in July 2014, the author, together with a group of young Sahrawis, had organized a sit-in

outside the offices of UNHCR in Rabouni, claiming: (a) access to work and health cover; (b)

the right to obtain both a refugee card and an Algerian passport; (c) the right of young

Sahrawis to engage freely in commercial activities; and (d) access to high-level

responsibilities within the Frente POLISARIO. During this same period, on 19 July 2014,

Laâyoune TV, a Moroccan television channel, broadcast a video recording in which members

of the aforementioned group revealed their faces and announced the formation of the

Assomoud association in opposition to the Frente POLISARIO, whose practices and policies

were considered by the association’s activists to be contrary to the interests of the Sahrawi

people.

4.4

After the video was broadcast, the author, who was a military officer by profession,

was arrested on 6 August 2014 and handed over on the same day to the Sahrawi security

services, which had made an official request for his surrender. At the time of his arrest, the

author was in possession of a letter drawn up by a foreign intelligence service that had been

retrieved from his computer. The letter referred to his arrest before it had even taken place,

the aim being to make people believe or give credence to the assertion, should it be made,

that the letter had been written inside Errachid prison where he was allegedly being subjected

to all forms of ill-treatment.

4.5

When asked for further details, the Sahrawi authority indicated that, at the time of the

events, the author was in the ranks of the Saharawi People’s Liberation Army. He was

arrested in accordance with in-force military regulations after committing offences. During

the period of his incarceration, he was regularly visited by family members, including his

father and uncle, who were willing to give evidence to refute the false accusations of torture

that he alleged.

4.6

Lastly, it is important to note that it is clear that the author appointed the “lawyer”

Rachid Mesli to represent him while he was residing in the occupied Saharan city of Dakhla.

Rachid Mesli, who is not a member of any professional body in Switzerland, is one of the

leaders of the subversive Rachad pseudo-movement, which was classified as a terrorist

organization on 18 May 2021 – a fact clearly showing that he is acting on the instructions of

foreign intelligence services. Furthermore, the arguments formulated by the non-

governmental organization Alkarama Foundation are extremely biased and predicated

entirely on the theses of the other party to the Western Sahara conflict, namely Morocco,

which is illegally occupying the Non-Self-Governing Territory of Western Sahara in

violation of international law.

Author’s comments on the State party’s observations

5.1

The author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility

on 19 September 2016. He responded to the State party’s personal attacks on his lawyer and

asked the Committee to disregard them. As to the question of his identity, the author states

that the members of his family are well known in the Tindouf camps and that they have never

received notification of or been summoned or questioned in connection with any

investigation concerning him. Furthermore, the author’s name is mentioned as one of the

founders of the 5 March movement in a publicly available report issued by Human Rights

CCPR/C/134/D/2721/2016

6

GE.22-08411

Watch. 6 Lastly, the place in which a power of attorney is executed does not constitute

grounds for its rejection or lack of validity.

5.2

On 15 November 2021, the author noted with regret that, instead of responding with

legal arguments, the State party persisted in seeking to politicize the complaint and discredit

the Alkarama Foundation and its director, Rachid Mesli. Secondly, the author points out that

the State party acknowledged that he had indeed been arrested on 25 July 2014 by the

Algerian security services. In this connection, he specifies that he was conscripted by the

Frente POLISARIO at the age of 15 years old and that, like most Sahrawi children residing

in the camps, he underwent military training and was even forced, despite his age, to

participate in operations.

5.3

The author goes on to deny the State party’s assertion that he had been calling for

access to positions of responsibility within the Frente POLISARIO, noting that – as,

moreover, the State party had rightly pointed out – the Assomoud association is opposed to

the Frente POLISARIO. Lastly, he specifies that he is currently living in Mauritania with

part of his family and that he has no allegiance to any party in the current conflict between

the State party and Morocco.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

6.1

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights

Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the

communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

6.2

The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 5 (2) (a) of the

Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of

international investigation or settlement.

6.3

The Committee takes note of the arguments of the State party, which is challenging

the validity of the power of attorney submitted by counsel on the grounds that it was executed

in the territory of Western Sahara, which it considers to be non-self-governing. In this

connection, the Committee recalls that it is only required to ascertain whether the author has

clearly given his or her legal representative a power of attorney, and that its rules of procedure

do not make the validity of a power of attorney conditional on the place where it was executed.

Consequently, the Committee considers that the Alkarama Foundation has the authority to

act on behalf of the author in the present case and is therefore entitled to submit the

communication.

6.4

Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee recalls that the State

party has a duty not only to carry out thorough investigations into alleged violations of human

rights brought to the attention of its authorities, particularly violations of the right to life, but

also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations.7 In the

present case, the Committee notes that other than undertaking a two-week hunger strike to

protest against his continued detention and ill-treatment – a fact that has not been disputed

by the State party – the author took no action to bring his complaints to the attention of the

relevant authorities, fearing reprisals. However, the Committee takes the view that the

authorities must have known why the author began this hunger strike. Even so, they failed to

institute any investigation in connection with it. Furthermore, the State party has failed to

provide any evidence to demonstrate either that an effective remedy was available at the time

of the events or that an investigation has been initiated.

6.5

The Committee has already expressed concern about the de facto devolution of

authority – especially jurisdictional authority – to the Frente POLISARIO and the fact that

this situation is inconsistent with the State party’s obligation to respect and guarantee all

Covenant rights for all persons within its territory. 8 The Committee has also already

6 Human Rights Watch, Off the Radar: Human Rights in the Tindouf Refugee Camps, October 2014,

pages 42 and 60.

7 Boudjemai v. Algeria (CCPR/C/107/D/1791/2008), para. 7.4.

8 Braih v. Algeria (CCPR/C/128/D/2924/2016), para. 5.4.

CCPR/C/134/D/2721/2016

GE.22-08411

7

underscored the fact that, in this context, victims of violations of the rights recognized under

the Covenant who are living in the Tindouf camps do not have access to an effective remedy

in the State party’s courts.9 The Committee therefore considers that, in the present case, and

in the absence of sufficient information from the State party concerning the remedies

available, there is no impediment to its consideration of the communication under article 5

(2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.10

6.6

The Committee notes that the author has also claimed a violation of articles 19 (2), 21

and 22 of the Covenant. However, it considers that the author has not sufficiently

substantiated these allegations and that these claims are therefore inadmissible under article

2 of the Optional Protocol.

6.7

Lastly, and although the author does not raise this point in his complaint, the

Committee notes his claim to the effect that domestic remedies vis-à-vis the State party are

not effectively available insofar as persons living in the refugee camps that are de facto placed

under the authority of the Frente POLISARIO cannot bring an appeal before the Algerian

courts. The Committee takes the view that the author is in effect invoking a violation of article

2 (3) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 7. Moreover, the Committee is of the

view that the author has sufficiently substantiated his other allegations for the purposes of

admissibility and therefore proceeds to consider the merits of the claims made under articles

2 (3), 7, 9 and 10 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3).

Consideration on the merits

7.1

The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the

information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional

Protocol.

7.2

The Committee notes that the State party has not responded to the author’s claims

concerning the merits of the case and recalls its jurisprudence according to which the burden

of proof should not lie solely with 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 is in possession of the necessary information.11 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

provide the Committee with whatever information is available to it.12 In the absence of any

explanations from the State party in this respect, due weight must be given to the author’s

allegations, provided that they have been sufficiently substantiated.

7.3

As to the incommunicado detention to which the author claims to have been subjected,

the Committee recognizes the degree of suffering involved in deprivation of liberty without

contact with the outside world for an indefinite period of time. It recalls its general comment

No. 20 (1992), in which it recommends that States parties adopt provisions to prohibit

incommunicado detention. It notes in this case that the author was arrested on 25 July 2014

in the presence of witnesses, by officers of the Algerian security services, and that his family

was not informed of his arrest and detention until 13 days later. The State party considers 6

August 2014 to be the official date of his arrest. The Committee therefore considers that the

author was held incommunicado by the Algerian authorities from 25 July to 6 August 2014.

Furthermore, the author’s statements concerning the circumstances of his arrest and the

observations that members of his family who visited him made about the deplorable state in

which they found him give grounds to assume that he was indeed subjected to treatment

contrary to article 7 of the Covenant: he claims to have been beaten repeatedly and then

bound, strung and tortured until he lost consciousness. The State party has provided no

evidence giving cause to refute the author’s allegations. In the absence of any such

information, the Committee concludes that the treatment to which the author was subjected

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 See, inter alia, Ammari v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2098/2011), para. 8.3; Mezine v. Algeria

(CCPR/C/106/D/1779/2008), para. 8.3; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

(CCPR/C/99/D/1640/2007), para. 7.4; and Berzig v. Algeria (CCPR/C/103/D/1781/2008), para. 8.3.

12 Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; and Medjnoune v. Algeria (CCPR/C/87/D/1297/2004), para. 8.3.

CCPR/C/134/D/2721/2016

8

GE.22-08411

and the conditions of his prolonged incommunicado detention constitute a violation of article

7 of the Covenant.13

7.4

In view of the foregoing, the Committee will not consider separately the claims

relating to the violation of article 10 of the Covenant.14

7.5

As to the alleged violation of article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee notes the

author’s allegations that he was arrested arbitrarily without a warrant, was not charged and

was not brought before a judicial authority through which he would have been able to

challenge the lawfulness of his detention. The State party does not accept 25 July 2014 as the

date of the author’s arrest, admitting only that he was arrested on 6 August 2014 . It has also

failed to provide any further information regarding the circumstances of the author’s arrest.

Accordingly, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s

allegations15 and finds a violation of article 9 of the Covenant.16

7.6

Lastly, the Committee notes that, although the author has not expressly invoked a

violation of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7 and 9, of the Covenant, he refers

to the obligation imposed on States parties by virtue of this provision to ensure that all persons

have access to effective and enforceable remedies for asserting the rights recognized in the

Covenant. 17 The Committee reiterates the importance of States parties establishing

appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for considering complaints of violations

of Covenant rights, 18 particularly when they involve allegations of ill-treatment (and

incommunicado detention). It refers to its general comment No. 31 (2004), in which it states

that a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give

rise to a separate breach of the Covenant.

7.7

In the present case, the author went on a two-week hunger strike to protest against his

detention and the torture and ill-treatment to which he was subjected, without the State party

initiating an investigation into his allegations. In addition, the legal impossibility of applying

to a judicial body as a result of the de facto devolution of the State party’s jurisdictional

authority to the Frente POLISARIO, and the lack of effective remedies for persons in the

Tindouf camps, continue to deprive the author of all access to an effective remedy.19 The

Committee therefore concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 2 (3), read

in conjunction with articles 7 and 9, of the Covenant.20

8.

The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is

of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of articles 7

and 9 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3).

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. It is required to make full

reparation to persons whose Covenant rights have been violated. In the present case, the State

party is required to: (a) conduct a prompt investigation into the author’s allegations that is

effective, thorough, impartial, independent and transparent and provide him with detailed

information about the results of the investigation; (b) prosecute, try and punish those

responsible for the violations that have been committed; and (c) provide the author with

adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to ensure that similar

violations do not occur in the future.

13 See, inter alia, Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Khirani et al. v. Algeria

(CCPR/C/104/D/1905/2009 and CCPR/C/104/D/1905/2009/Corr.1), para. 7.5; Berzig v. Algeria, para.

8.5; and El Alwani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/90/D/1295/2004), para. 6.5.

14 Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.6.

15 Chani v. Algeria (CCPR/C/116/D/2297/2013), para. 7.5.

16 See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.7; Khirani et al. v. Algeria, para. 7.7; and Berzig v. Algeria,

para. 8.7.

17 Cherguit v. Algeria (CCPR/C/128/D/2828/2016), para. 7.13; and Souaiene and Souaiene v. Algeria

(CCPR/C/128/D/3082/2017), para. 8.12.

18 Allioua and Kerouane v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2132/2012), para. 7.11.

19 Braih v. Algeria, para. 6. 12; and Saadoun v. Algeria (CCPR/C/107/D/1806/2008), para. 8.8.

20 Braih v. Algeria, para. 6.12.

CCPR/C/134/D/2721/2016

GE.22-08411

9

10.

Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party

has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a

violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has

undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the

rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when

it is determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State

party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the present

Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely

disseminated in the official languages of the State party.