CCPR/C/112/D/2026/2011 burden of proof should not rest solely on the author of a communication, especially given that the author and the State party do not always have the same degree of access to evidence and that often only the State party is in possession of the necessary information. In conformity with article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, 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. 14 In the absence of any explanation from the State party in this respect, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, provided they have been sufficiently substantiated. 7.4 The Committee notes that the author and her husband were arrested by police officers on 18 May 1996. It further notes that, according to the author, they were held for two weeks in the same prison, and that she has had no news of her husband since her own release on 3 June 1996. The author adds that, in view of the number of years that have passed and the authorities’ vague and contradictory assertions regarding her husband’s death, it is highly probable that he died in custody. The Committee notes that the State party has not provided any evidence to clarify the conflicting information it provided to the author concerning the fate of Rachid Sassene, nor to confirm the date or the circumstances of his possible death. It recalls that, in cases of enforced disappearance, the deprivation of liberty, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that 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. 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 Rachid Sassene. The Committee therefore finds that the State party has failed in its duty to protect Rachid Sassene’s life, in violation of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 15 7.5 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) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which recommends that States parties should take measures to prohibit incommunicado detention. It notes that Rachid Sassene was arrested by security forces on 18 May 1996 and was subsequently detained for at least two weeks, but that no information whatsoever was provided concerning his fate thereafter. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the State party, the Committee considers that this disappearance constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to Rachid Sassene. 16 7.6 The Committee takes note of the anguish and distress caused to the author by her husband’s disappearance and by the circumstances of her own arrest and considers that she is the victim of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 17 7.7 With regard to the alleged violation of article 9, the Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that Rachid Sassene was arrested without a warrant, was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, was not formally charged and was not brought before a judicial authority, which would have enabled him to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. In 14 15 16 17 GE.14-24387 See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; and communication No. 1297/2004, Medjnoune v. Algeria, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 8.3. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.4; and Boudemai v. Algeria, para. 8.4. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.5; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.5; and communication No. 1295/2004, El Alwani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 11 July 2007, para. 6.5. See 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; and communication No. 1422/2005, El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 24 October 2007, para. 6.11. 9