CCPR/C/114/D/2038/2011 indicate that it has fulfilled its obligation to protect their lives. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the State party has failed in its duty to protect the lives of the authors’ relatives, in violation of article 6 of the Covenant. 10.6 The Committee takes note of the authors’ allegations that the detention and subsequent enforced disappearance of their relatives amount per se to treatment contrary to article 7. 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 on article 7, which recommends that States parties should make provision to ban incommunicado detention. In the present case, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the State party, the Committee finds that the enforced disappearance of the authors’ relatives constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 10.7 The Committee also takes note of the anguish and stress caused to the authors by the disappearance of their relatives. In particular, the authors and their families have never received sufficient explanation concerning the circumstances surrounding their alleged deaths, nor have they received their remains. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the State party, the Committee considers that these facts reveal a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with respect to the authors. 10.8 The Committee takes note of the authors’ allegations under article 9 that their relatives were detained without an arrest warrant, that they were never brought before a judge or any other official authorized by law to exercise judicial power, and that they could not take proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. In the absence of a State party’s response in this regard, the Committee considers that the detention of the authors’ relatives constitutes a violation of their rights under article 9 of the Covenant. 10.9 With regard to the alleged violation of article 16, the Committee considers that the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law constitutes a denial of the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law if the victim was in the hands of the State authorities when last seen and if the efforts of his or her relatives to obtain access to potentially effective remedies, including judicial remedies (see art. 2 (3) of the Covenant), have been systematically impeded. In the present case, the Committee notes that, shortly after the arrest of the authors’ relatives, the authorities gave contradictory information about their arrest. Later, they failed to provide sufficient information concerning the fate or whereabouts of the authors�� relatives, despite numerous requests. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the enforced disappearance of the authors’ relatives denied them the protection of the law and deprived them of their right to recognition as persons before the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 10.10 The authors invoke article 2 (3) of the Covenant, which imposes on States parties the obligation to ensure an effective remedy for all persons whose rights under the Covenant have been violated. The Committee attaches importance to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations. It refers to its general comment No. 31, which provides, inter alia, that a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could, in and of itself, give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. In the present case, the Committee observes that, shortly after the detention of the authors’ relatives, the authors approached different police offices and Army barracks seeking information, and later filed writs of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court and complained to the National Human Rights Commission. Despite the authors’ efforts, no thorough and effective investigation has been concluded by the State party to elucidate the circumstances surrounding their relatives’ detention and alleged deaths, and no criminal investigation has even been started to bring the perpetrators to justice. The State party has failed to explain the effectiveness and adequacy of investigations carried out by the Ministry of Home Affairs Disappearances Committee and 13