Bousroual v. Algeria
Judicial Protection | Effective Remedy | Duty to Investigate | Burden of Proof | Admissibility | Evidence
The Committee held that the burden of proof cannot rest solely on the applicant of the communication. This is due to the fact that the applicant and the state party do not always have equal access to the evidence and that frequently the state party alone has access to the relevant information.
March 30, 2006
Article 2(3) [ICCPR], Article 6(1) [ICCPR], Article 7 [ICCPR], Article 9(1) [ICCPR], Article 9(3) [ICCPR], Article 9(4) [ICCPR]
Articles not violated / not dealt with
Article 10 [ICCPR], Article 14(3) [ICCPR]
Facts of the Case
Mr. Salah Saker was removed from his home by state agents on 29 May 1994. The arrest was made in the absence of a warrant. The victim’s family claim that he was held incommunicado for 33 days by the judicial police before being transferred to the Territorial Centre of Military Area No. 5 on 3 July 1994. On 10 December 1998, the National Observatory for Human Rights informed the victim’s wife that, according to information received from the security services, Mr. Saker had been kidnapped by a non-identified armed group while in the custody of the Territorial Centre, and that the authorities did not have any other information as to his whereabouts.