CCPR/C/120/D/2170/2012 together with a group of representatives of families of disappeared individuals, founded the Families of Victims of State Disappearance Association, an organization that campaigns publicly for the disclosure of information about the fate and whereabouts of victims of enforced disappearance. As the Association became well known, the police and members of the Royal Nepal Army regularly visited and searched her house. 2.14 Furthermore, on 31 March 2005, Nisha Neupane was arrested by members of the Royal Nepal Army and detained in Kasara barracks, Chitwan district, for 30 days. She was then transferred to the First Rifle Battalion, in Bharatpur, Chitwan, where she was held for 15 days. She was then handed over for custody to the District Police Office, Chitwan, and later taken to the district prison in Chitwan, where she was held for four months. Finally, she was taken to the Central Jail in Kathmandu in August 2005, where she was held for six months under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act. The authors claim that during her detention, Ms. Neupane was regularly interrogated, ill-treated and even tortured. She was handcuffed and her legs were tied together all the time. 6 2.15 The authors submit that they did not file a first information report application with the police with regard to Mr. Neupane’s disappearance, as such a report can only be lodged when it is related to a crime listed in Schedule 1 to the 1992 State Cases Act. Since enforced disappearance was not codified in the Act, it was impossible for relatives of victims of enforced disappearance to file a first information report. The complaint 3.1 The authors claim that Mr. Neupane was a victim of enforced disappearance and that the State party has violated his rights under articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 16, separately and read in conjunction with 2 (3), of the Covenant, and their rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3). 3.2 Mr. Neupane was arbitrarily arrested on 21 May 1999 and, despite the efforts made by the authors, his fate and whereabouts remain unknown. Mr. Neupane allegedly was last seen under the control of State agents. However, the Nepalese authorities have systematically denied that he had been arrested and was being detained. While in August 1999, the then Prime Minister announced that Mr. Neupane had been killed, a newspaper article reported that he and five other individuals disappeared by the security forces in 1999 were still alive and being held by the police in Pokhara. None of this information has been confirmed. In view of the foregoing, the authors claim that the burden of proof rests with the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation, establishing and disclosing with certainty the fate and whereabouts of Mr. Neupane. In the light of the failure of the authorities to demonstrate the contrary, the authors submit that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Neupane and his subsequent enforced disappearance constitute a violation by the State party of article 6 of the Covenant. 3.3 Mr. Neupane was arbitrarily deprived of his liberty by the Nepalese authorities and no charges have been brought against him. His fate and whereabouts have been concealed for more than 13 years, and his family has been denied access to him. The incommunicado detention constitutes, on its own, a form of inhuman and degrading treatment. The authors also indicate that the article in the Mahanagar Daily reported that Mr. Neupane and five other individuals were subjected to torture while being held by the police in Pokhara. In this regard, the burden of proof that would clarify Mr. Neupane’s treatment while in detention lies with the State, and its failure to do so constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 3.4 It is alleged that Mr. Neupane was detained in the context of increasing numbers of arrests of suspected Maoists and was last seen alive in the hands of the police at Nepal Police Headquarters in Naxal, Kathmandu. These elements indicate that Mr. Neupane was deprived of his liberty by agents of the State. Mr. Neupane’s deprivation of liberty was not justified on legal grounds and was not entered in an official register or record. He was not charged with a crime, nor was he brought before a judge or any other official authorized by law to exercise judicial authority. He was unable to effectively challenge the legality of his 6 4 Ms. Neupane’s name was listed in report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (see E/CN.4/2006/56 and Corr.1, annex IV).