CCPR/C/114/D/2038/2011 citizenship card or any other type of identity document. Moreover, the way in which the authors’ eight relatives were taken from their homes was part of the general modus operandi of the Royal Nepalese Army’s search operations in Bardiya District between December 2001 and January 2003.10 Against this background, the authors contend that their relatives’ arbitrary detention and subsequent disappearance by the authorities placed them in a situation that posed a grave threat to life and constituted a violation of article 6 of the Covenant. 3.3 The authors further claim that the enforced disappearance of their relatives and the degree of suffering involved in being held without contact with the outside world amount to a violation of article 7. 3.4 The authors claim that the State party violated article 9 of the Covenant. Their relatives were taken by the Royal Nepalese Army, without an arrest warrant or a sufficient explanation of the reasons for their arrest. Later, the Army denied that they had been arrested or subsequently detained. Neither were the authors’ relatives ever brought before a judge or any other official authorized by law to exercise judicial power, nor could they bring proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. 3.5 The authors claim that the State party has violated and continues to violate the rights of their relatives under article 10 of the Covenant due to its inherent failure to treat their relatives, who remain subject to enforced disappearance, with humanity and to respect their dignity. 3.6 The authors maintain that the enforced disappearance of their relatives and the failure by the authorities to conduct an effective investigation concerning their whereabouts and fate places their relatives outside the protection of the law, preventing them from enjoying their human rights and freedoms in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 3.7 The authors submit that article 23 (1) of the Covenant requires the maintenance of personal relations and direct and regular contact between a child and his or her parents and that, therefore, the enforced disappearance of the authors’ relatives constitutes a violation of this provision, since it resulted in a complete rupture of the relationship between parents and children. 3.8 The authors argue that Dhaniram (17-18 years old), Soniram, Kamala (16-18 years old), Lauti (17-20 years old) and Chillu were under the age of 18 and that the State party was therefore obliged to provide them special protection as minors. Accordingly, their arrest and subsequent disappearance also constituted a violation of article 24 (1) of the Covenant. The authors point out that, as established in article 37 (b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child should be in conformity with the law and be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest period of time.11 3.9 Although the authors promptly reported the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and enforced disappearance of their relatives to the authorities and filed several complaints, including writs of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court, no ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been carried out and the fate and the whereabouts of their eight relatives remain unknown to date. Should their relatives be dead, their remains have not been located, exhumed, identified and returned to the families. Moreover, no one has yet been convicted for their arbitrary deprivation of liberty and enforced disappearance. Accordingly, the State party has violated and is continuing to violate their relatives’ rights 10 11 See “Conflict-related disappearances in Bardiya District”, sects. VI.ii.i and VI.vii.ii. See Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 10 (2007) on children’s rights in juvenile justice, paras. 59-61 and 82-84. 7