Views: Communication No. 2259/2013 (CCPR/C/119/D/2259/2013). State party: Algeria

Key paragraph(s) can be found below the document.

Paragraph 7.5: “in cases of enforced disappearance, the deprivation of liberty, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate of the disappeared person, in effect removes that person from the protection of the law and places his or her life at serious and constant risk, for which the State is accountable” (breach of Article 6(1))

Paragraph 7.6: “The Committee acknowledges the degree of suffering caused by being detained without contact with the outside world for an indefinite period. It recalls its general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in which it recommends that States parties take steps to prohibit incommunicado detention. It notes, in the present case, that the author and Brahim El Boathi’s family have never received any information on his fate or place of detention. The Committee therefore finds that Brahim El Boathi, who disappeared on 17 January 1994 and was still considered to be alive on 2 May 2000, was held incommunicado for at least that length of time by the Algerian authorities. In the absence of any explanation from the State party, the Committee considers that this disappearance constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to Brahim El Boathi.” (breach of Article 7)

Paragraph 7.8: “The Committee also takes note of the anguish and distress caused to the author and her family by the disappearance of Brahim El Boathi. It considers that the facts before it disclose a violation with regard to them of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant.”
Paragraph 7.9: “With regard to the alleged violation of article 9, the Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that Brahim El Boathi was arbitrarily arrested, without a warrant, and was not formally charged or brought before a judicial authority before which he could have challenged the lawfulness of his detention. In the absence of any information from the State party in that regard, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations.”