CCPR/C/119/D/2184/2012 not judicial organs capable of affording a judicial remedy.12 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the remedies identified by the State party have been ineffective and that there are no obstacles to the examination of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 10.4 The Committee takes note of the State party’s observations that the author’s allegations are manifestly ill-founded. The Committee observes, however, that for the purposes of admissibility, the author has sufficiently substantiated her allegations with plausible arguments in support thereof. As all admissibility requirements have been met, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its examination of the merits. Consideration of the merits 11.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 11.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that her husband was victim of enforced disappearance; that, on 23 September 2003, her husband was arrested and taken to the Bhairab Nath Barracks by plain-clothed security personnel who identified themselves as members of the Royal Nepalese Army; that although she reported promptly the arrest and disappearance to the authorities and filed two first information reports and a writ of mandamus, no prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been carried out by the authorities; and that testimonies indicated that her husband had been kept incommunicado at the Bhairab Nath Barracks and died while in custody as a result of the torture inflicted on him. However, his exact fate and whereabouts remain unknown to date and no one has been summoned or convicted for these acts. 11.3 The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the author’s allegations concerning the circumstances in which the alleged arrest, detention, enforced disappearance, torture and arbitrary deprivation of life of her husband took place are not supported by any direct and circumstantial evidence and are only based on mere suspicion; and that for this reason the Supreme Court of Nepal quashed her writ to mandamus on 26 August 2010. 11.4 The Committee reaffirms, however, its position that the burden of proof cannot rest solely on 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. 13 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. 11.5 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.14 11.6 In the present case, the Committee observes that the State party has not challenged the author’s allegations that, in September 2003, the author approached the Bhairab Nath Barracks and the Lagankhel Barracks of the Royal Nepalese Army in Kathmandu inquiring as to her husband’s whereabouts and fate, as well as the Nepal Police Headquarters in Naxal and the District Police Office in Hanuman Dhoka, Kathmandu. However, the 12 13 14 See communication No. 2038/2011, Tharu et al. v. Nepal, Views adopted on 3 July 2015, para. 9.3. See communications No. 1422/2005, El Hassy v. the 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; and No. 1804/2008, Il Khwildy v. Libya, Views adopted on 1 November 2012, para. 7.2. See communications No. 2000/2010, Katwal v. Nepal, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 11.3; and No. 2134/2012, Sernas et al. v. Colombia, Views adopted on 9 July 2015, para. 9.4. 9