CCPR/C/112/D/2117/2011 3.2 The author, who still does not know whether her son died in detention or is still alive, emphasizes that the State party was required to take steps to ensure Hacen Louddi’s right to life, since he was under its responsibility. The fact that the State party is unable to provide accurate and consistent information on what happened to a person who was under its authority indicates that it did not take the necessary steps to protect him during his detention, in violation of article 6 (para. 1) of the Covenant. The author further maintains that when enforced disappearance lasts over an extended period, as in the case of Hacen Louddi, who has now been missing for nearly 20 years, it in itself constitutes a violation of the right to life guaranteed by article 6 (para. 1) of the Covenant. 3 3.3 The author, referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 4 maintains that enforced disappearance in itself constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, because her son’s abduction and disappearance, which prevented him from communicating with his family and the outside world, constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The author emphasizes that enforced disappearance is a complex crime comprising a wide range of human rights violations and cannot be reduced to incommunicado detention alone. She considers that incommunicado detention is a separate violation of article 7 of the Covenant and that the Committee must not address that aspect alone. 5 3.4 Continuing to refer to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 6 the author says that she herself and her family are the victims of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant as a result of the uncertainty surrounding the circumstances in which Hacen Louddi disappeared and his fate, which is a source of profound and continual anguish and suffering. 3.5 The author also asserts that the arrest and incommunicado detention of her son, which has still not been acknowledged by the State party, constitute arbitrary arrest and detention in breach of article 9 (paras. 1–5) of the Covenant. The disappeared person was arrested without a warrant, and he was never notified of the reasons for his arrest or of the charges against him. He was never brought before a judicial authority and was not allowed to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. In addition, no compensation for his arbitrary arrest and detention was paid to the members of his family. 3.6 According to the author, her son was likewise the victim, during his detention, of a violation of his right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, in breach of article 10 (para. 1) of the Covenant. In this regard, the author recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence to the effect that enforced disappearance constitutes a violation of article 10 of the Covenant. 7 3.7 The author considers that, because of his incommunicado detention, her son was not able to enjoy his fundamental rights, in breach of his right to recognition as a person before the law, guaranteed under article 16 of the Covenant. The author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which intentionally removing a person from the protection of 3 4 5 6 7 GE.14-22809 The author refers to the individual opinions of Fabián Omar Salvioli in this regard, in particular in communications No. 1780/2008, Zarzi v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2011, and No. 1588/2007, Benaziza v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 July 2010. See communications No. 449/1991, Mojica v. the Dominican Republic, Views adopted on 15 July 1994, para. 5.7; No. 540/1993, Laureano Atachahua v. Peru, Views adopted on 25 March 1996, para. 8.5; and No. 542/1993, N’Goya v. Zaire, Views adopted on 25 March 1996, para. 5.5. See Benaziza v. Algeria, para. 9.5; communications No. 1196/2003, Boucherf v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006, para. 9.6; No. 1327/2004, Atamna v. Algeria, Views adopted on 10 July 2007, para. 7.6; No. 992/2001, Bousroual v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006, para. 9.8; and No. 950/2000, Sarma v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 16 July 2003, para. 9.3. See Benaziza v. Algeria, para. 9.6; Boucherf v. Algeria, para. 9.7; Atamna v. Algeria, para. 7.7; Bousroual v. Algeria, para. 9.8; and Sarma v. Sri Lanka, para. 9.5. See communication No. 1469/2006, Sharma v. Nepal, Views adopted on 28 October 2008, para. 7.7. 5