CCPR/C/130/D/2777/2016 elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law. 45 The Committee also recalls its general comment No. 35 (2014), in which the Committee prohibits arbitrary and unlawful deprivations of liberty, i.e., deprivation of liberty that is not imposed on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. The two prohibitions overlap, in that arrests or detentions may be in violation of the applicable law but not arbitrary, or legally permitted but arbitrary, or both arbitrary and unlawful. Arrest or detention that lacks any legal basis is also arbitrary.46 Article 9 also requires compliance with domestic rules that define when authorization to continue detention must be obtained from a judge or other officer,47 where individuals may be detained,48 when the detained person must be brought to court49 and legal limits on the duration of detention.50 Persons deprived of their liberty must be assisted in obtaining access to effective remedies to vindicate their rights, including initial and periodic judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention, and to prevent conditions of detention incompatible with the Covenant.51 7.11 In the present case, the Committee notes, based on the information provided, that the author’s alleged arrest on 28 November and detention between 28 November and 5 December 2002 were both arbitrary and unlawful, as he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, he was not brought promptly before a judge and he did not receive any remedies for the rights violated. Moreover, the author’s arrest of 28 November 2002 and his subsequent detention until 5 December 2002 were not recorded, in violation of international guidelines on safeguards for detained persons. Regarding his arrest on 20 March 2006 and his detention during the period between 20 and 28 March 2006, the Committee also notes that, even if the arrest and detention were conducted pursuant to the 1970 Some Public (Crime and Punishment) Act of Nepal, the author’s right to know the reason for his arrest and the charges against him at the outset of his detention and his right to promptly consult a legal practitioner of choice should have been guaranteed. The Committee also notes that the court decisions regarding compensation for the torture of the author during his detention between 20 and 28 March 2006 do not make any reference to the arbitrariness of his arrest and detention; it is thus not clear whether national courts examined those claims and took them into consideration in determining the compensation for the author. In the absence of a response from the State party in this regard, the Committee considers that the arrest and detention of the author and the absence of any official record of either arrest and detention constitute a violation of his rights under article 9 (1), (2), (3) and (5) of the Covenant. 7.12 With regard to article 17 of the Covenant, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 16 (1988), which affirms that the right under article 17 is required to be guaranteed against all such interferences and attacks, whether they emanate from State authorities or from natural or legal persons, and that searches of a person’s home should be restricted to a search for necessary evidence and should not be allowed to amount to harassment. 52 The Committee notes that the police searched the author’s house on 29 November 2002 without presenting a warrant and that the author’s wife and 14-year-old daughter were subjected to verbal and sexual harassment and death threats from the police officers, who attacked their honour and reputation. In the absence of any explanation from the State party in this respect, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations.53 The Committee concludes that the entry of the police officers into the home of the author and his family in such circumstances 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 14 See, inter alia, Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon, para. 5.1; and Van Alphen v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/39/D/305/1988), para. 5.8. General comment No. 35 (2014), para. 11. Gridin v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/69/D/770/1997 and Corr.1), para. 8.1. Umarov v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/100/D/1449/2006), para. 8.4. Gómez Casafranca v. Peru (CCPR/C/78/D/981/2001), para. 7.2. Israil v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/103/D/2024/2011), para. 9.2. Fijalkowska v. Poland (CCPR/C/84/D/1061/2002), paras. 8.3–8.4; A. v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/66/D/754/1997), para. 7.3; and general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 15. General comment No. 16 (1998), para. 8. Giri v. Nepal, para. 7.4; El Awani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/90/D/1295/2004), para. 6.5; and Khirani v. Algeria (CCPR/C/104/D/1905/2009 and Corr.1), para. 7.3. See also Faraoun v. Algeria, para. 7.12; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.10; and Peiris v. Sri Lanka, paras. 7.6–7.7.