CCPR/C/120/D/2170/2012 thorough and independent investigations have been carried out. No one has been summoned or convicted for this act. 10.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that Mr. Neupane’s case was considered twice by the Supreme Court when it dealt with the petitions for writs of habeas corpus brought by Mrs. Neupane and that within those proceedings, all the authorities stated that Mr. Neupane had not been arrested or detained by the security forces. Therefore, his whereabouts could not be established. 10.4 The Committee notes that it has dealt with numerous cases in respect of similar practices in a number of earlier communications, some of them involving the State party. 11 In line with these precedents, the Committee reaffirms its position that the burden of proof cannot rest solely with the author of the communication, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently, the State party alone has access to the relevant information. It is implicit in article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol that 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. In cases where the author has submitted allegations to the State party that are corroborated by credible evidence and where further clarification depends on information that is solely in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider the author’s allegations substantiated, in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanations to the contrary presented by the State party. 10.5 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 represent continuing violation of various rights recognized in that treaty.12 10.6 In the present case, the State party has not challenged the authors’ allegations concerning the arrest and enforced disappearance of Mr. Neupane in May 1999. After being informed of her husband’s arrest, Mrs. Neupane tried to locate him and visited the Kathmandu District Police Office, as well as the three main detention centres in Kathmandu, namely the Central Jail, Nakhu Jail and Charkhal Jail. The authorities denied that Mr. Neupane had been arrested or detained. Despite the testimonies of two witnesses before the Supreme Court, the authorities continue to deny the detention of Mr. Neupane. Therefore, the two writs of habeas corpus petitions filed by Mrs. Neupane on behalf of her husband were quashed. The Committee also observes that although the then Prime Minister stated that Mr. Neupane had been killed, an article in the Mahanagar Daily reported that Mr. Neupane was in fact alive and held in detention by the Riot Control Police in Pokhara. The Committee also notes that Mrs. Neupane received information that Mr. Neupane had been transferred from Pokhara to the District Police Office in Kathmandu to receive medical treatment. The State party has failed to provide the Committee with information of the specific steps taken to carry out a thorough and effective investigation and their results. Mr. Neupane’s whereabouts remain unknown to date and, should he no longer be alive, his mortal remains have not been located and returned to his family. The Committee recalls that, in cases of enforced disappearance, deprivation of liberty followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty, or by concealment of the fate of the disappeared person, 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. 13 In the present case, the State party has produced no evidence to show that it met its obligations to protect the life of Mr. 11 12 13 See communications No. 1422/2005, El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 24 October 2007, para. 6.7; No. 1297/2004, Medjnoune v. Algeria, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 8.3; No. 1804/2008, Il Khwildy v. Libya, Views adopted on 1 November 2012, para. 7.2; Basnet v. Nepal, para. 10.3; Nakarmi v. Nepal, para. 11.4; and Dhakal v. Nepal, para. 11.4. See communications No. 2000/2010, Katwal v. Nepal, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 11.3; No. 2134/2012, Molina Ariasa et al. v. Colombia, Views adopted on 9 July 2015, para. 9.4; Basnet v. Nepal, para. 10.4; Nakarmi v. Nepal, para. 11.5; and Dhakal v. Nepal, para. 11.5. See communications No. 1913/2009, Abushaala v. Libya, Views adopted on 18 March 2013, para. 6.2; Basnet v. Nepal, para. 10.5; Nakarmi v. Nepal, para. 11.6; and Dhakal v. Nepal, para. 11.6. 9