CCPR/C/130/D/2843/2016 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, in effect removes that person from the protection of the law and places his or her life at serious and constant risk for which the State is accountable. 28 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has produced no evidence to indicate that it has fulfilled its obligation to protect the life of Sadek Rsiwi. The Committee therefore finds that the State party has failed in its duty to protect the life of Sadek Rsiwi, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 8.6 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 (1992), in which it recommends that States parties should make provision to ban incommunicado detention. It notes that, in the present case, since seeing her husband twice in Ghardaïa military district on 17 and 18 March 1996, the author has not received any information whatsoever on his fate or place of detention, despite her various attempts to visit him at his initial place of detention, from which he was allegedly transferred, and despite several successive requests to the State authorities. The Committee therefore considers that it is possible that Sadek Rsiwi, who disappeared on 18 March 1996, 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 in respect of Sadek Rsiwi.29 8.7 In view of the above, the Committee will not consider separately the claims based on the violation of article 10 of the Covenant.30 8.8 The Committee also takes note of the anguish and distress caused to the author and her family for over 24 years by the disappearance of Sadek Rsiwi. It considers that the facts before it disclose a violation, in respect of the author, of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant.31 8.9 With regard to the alleged violation of article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that Sadek Rsiwi was arbitrarily arrested, without a warrant, and was not formally charged or brought before a judicial authority, which would have enabled him to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. In the absence of any information from the State party in this regard, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations.32 The Committee therefore finds a violation of article 9 of the Covenant in respect of Sadek Rsiwi.33 8.10 The Committee is of the view that the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law constitutes a refusal to recognize him or her as a person before the law, particularly if the efforts of his or her relatives to obtain access to potentially effective remedies have been systematically impeded.34 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has not provided any convincing explanation concerning the fate or whereabouts of Sadek Rsiwi, despite the requests from his relatives and the fact that, when he was last seen, Sadek Rsiwi was in the hands of the authorities of the State party. The Committee finds that the enforced disappearance of Sadek Rsiwi over 24 years ago removed 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 10 Louddi v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2117/2011), para. 7.4; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.4; Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.4; and Sharma v. Nepal (CCPR/C/122/D/2265/2013), para. 10.6. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36, para. 58. Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Khirani v. Algeria (CCPR/C/104/D/1905/2009 and Corr.1), 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. Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.6. Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.6; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.6; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.6; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para. 7.5; El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/91/D/1422/2005), para. 6.11; and Sankara et al. v. Burkina Faso (CCPR/C/86/D/1159/2003), para 12.2. Chani v. Algeria (CCPR/C/116/D/2297/2013), para. 7.5. See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.7; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.7; and Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.7. Basnet v. Nepal (CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012), para. 10.9; Tharu et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/114/D/2038/2011), para. 10.9; and Serna et al. v. Colombia, para. 9.5. GE.21-03102