CCPR/C/112/D/2026/2011 to do in its most recent jurisprudence. 3 The author points out that her husband was arrested in a violent manner by security forces without being informed of the reasons for his arrest; he had not had the benefit of consulting a lawyer; and he had been deprived of all contact with the outside world. According to the author, the incommunicado detention of her husband, together with his arrest and the subsequent conduct of the authorities, constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to her husband. 3.4 Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence in this regard,4 the author stresses that the uncertainty surrounding both the circumstances in which her husband disappeared and what has become of him in the many years since that time is a source of deep and constant suffering, anguish and distress, and that this disappearance constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to the author and the members of her family. 3.5 The author adds that the violent circumstances of her own arrest, the authorities’ denial of her husband’s arrest and detention, which she had witnessed at first hand, and the fact of being forced to accept that the certificate of disappearance issued by the Algerian authorities on 17 June 2006 stated that her husband belonged to a terrorist group also constitute a form of inhuman and degrading treatment with regard to the author, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 3.6 The author recalls that her husband’s arrest on 18 May 1996 was conducted without a warrant and that it therefore constitutes an act of arbitrary detention under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. During the two weeks of her detention, the author had been able to speak with her husband, who told her that he still had not been informed of the reasons for his arrest or the charges that had been brought against him, in violation of article 9, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. The author notes that the violation continues to this day, given that no information has ever been transmitted to her family on the matter. According to the author, the incommunicado detention of Rachid Sassene also constitutes a violation of article 9, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Covenant, since he was, in effect, precluded from communicating with a lawyer, was never brought before a judge and had no possibility of challenging the lawfulness of his detention. Finally, the author recalls that no compensation has been awarded for the arbitrary arrest and detention of Rachid Sassene, in violation of article 9, paragraph 5, of the Covenant. 3.7 Referring to the Committee’s general comment No. 21 (1992) on humane treatment of persons deprived of their liberty 5 and to its jurisprudence, 6 the author notes that the enforced disappearance of her husband constitutes a violation of his right to be treated with humanity and with respect during his deprivation of liberty, as set out in article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 3.8 The author also maintains that her husband’s right to recognition as a person before the law has been violated, as has been recognized by the Committee in similar 3 4 5 6 GE.14-24387 Communications No. 1588/2007, Benaziza v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 9.5; 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. Benaziza v. Algeria, para. 9.6; Boucherf v. Algeria, para. 9.7; Atamna v. Algeria, para. 7.7; Bousroual v. Algeria, para. 9.8; Sarma v. Sri Lanka, para. 9.5. General comment No. 21, paras. 3 and 4. Communication No. 1469/2006, Sharma v. Nepal, Views adopted on 28 October 2008, para. 7.7. 5