CCPR/C/126/D/2356/2014 6. Unlike in the cases of the well-established jurisprudence of the Committee on incommunicado detention, usually for a prolonged or indeterminate periods of time, 1 and/or in which the relatives were informed that their family members had lost their lives, without being provided with information on the exact circumstances of the deaths and what had happened to them in the preceding periods etc.,2 the case at hand differs significantly, both as regards the duration and circumstances of the alleged suffering of Ms. Nazhmutdinova and the fate of her husband. 7. Considering all of the above, I am not persuaded that the State party’s failure to comply with its obligations towards Mr. Ismanov led to a violation of Ms. Nazhmutdinova’s rights under article 7. Such a finding would, in my view, unjustifiably lower the threshold for establishing inhuman treatment and would potentially open the floodgate to similar claims in numerous other cases. This is why, in the circumstances of the present case, I disagree with the Committee’s conclusion that the anguish and mental stress caused to Ms. Nazhmutdinova, compounded by the inability or refusal of the State party to effectively investigate the claims of torture against her husband, amount to a violation of her rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 1 2 Quinteros v. Uruguay (CCPR/C/19/D/107/1981), para. 14. Sharma v. Nepal (CCPR/C/94/D/1469/2006), paras. 7.6 and 7.9; and Khadzhiyev v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/122/D/2252/2013), para. 7.6. 11