CCPR/C/122/D/2398/2014 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. 12 In conformity with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party has the 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 the information available to it. 13 In the absence of any explanations from the State party in this respect, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, provided they have been sufficiently substantiated. 7.4 The Committee recalls that, while the Covenant does not explicitly use the term “enforced disappearance” in any of its articles, enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts that represents continuing violation of various rights recognized in the treaty.14 7.5 The Committee notes that Mohamed Millis was last seen on 9 September 1993, following his arrest by A.G. and A.B. when they were entering Birkhadem police station. It notes that two individuals, in addition to the author, witnessed the arrest of Mohamed Millis. The Committee notes that the State party has produced no evidence to establish what happened to Mohamed Millis and has never even confirmed his detention. The Committee recalls that, in cases of enforced disappearance, the deprivation of liberty, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate of the disappeared person, effectively removes the person from the protection of the law and places his or her life at serious and constant risk, for which the State is accountable. 15 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has produced no evidence to indicate that it fulfilled its obligation to protect the life of Mohamed Millis. The Committee therefore finds that the State party has failed in its duty to protect Mohamed Millis’s life, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 7.6 The Committee recognizes the degree of suffering involved in being held indefinitely without contact with the outside world. It recalls its general comment No. 20 on article 7 (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 has never received any information on the fate or place of detention of Mohamed Millis. The Committee therefore considers that it is possible that Mohamed Millis, who disappeared on 9 September 1993, is still being held incommunicado 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 Mohamed Millis.16 7.7 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee will not consider separately the claims in relation to the violation of article 10 of the Covenant. 17 7.8 The Committee also takes note of the anguish and distress caused to the author by the disappearance of Mohamed Millis. It considers that the facts before it disclose a 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 See, inter alia, Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.3; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/99/D/1640/2007), para. 7.4; and Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.3. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; and Medjnoune v. Algeria (CCPR/C/87/D/1297/2004), para. 8.3. See Katwal v. Nepal (CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010), para. 11.3; Serna et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/104/D/2134/2012), para. 9.4; and El Boathi v. Algeria, para. 7.4. See also general comment No. 6 on article 6 (Right to life), para. 4: “States parties should also take specific and effective measures to prevent the disappearance of individuals, something which unfortunately has become all too frequent and leads too often to arbitrary deprivation of life. Furthermore, States should establish effective facilities and procedures to investigate thoroughly cases of missing and disappeared persons in circumstances which may involve a violation of the right to life.” See Louddi v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2117/2011), para. 7.4; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.4; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.4. See Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Khirani v. Algeria, 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. See Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.6. GE.18-10582