CCPR/C/130/D/2777/2016 the office during that time. The Committee further notes that the author submits a medical certificate to prove that he was injured on 20 December 2002 and that he could not be examined by a doctor earlier as he was forced to stay in the office. The author also points to the habeas corpus proceedings initiated by his wife during the same period, which further supports his allegations. The Committee also takes into consideration the fact that the State party did not contest the testimonial evidence provided by the author and did not mention any further investigation into the facts. The Committee considers that, in the absence of convincing explanations from the State party in respect of the author’s claims concerning torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that he suffered during the period from 28 November to 5 December 2002, due weight should be given to the author’s allegations. 7.4 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that the overall conditions of detention at the Hanumandhoka Police Range in Kathmandu from 28 November to 5 December 2002, which included no contact with the outside world, solitary confinement, interrogations under duress with the use of electric shocks and other severe measures and no food or water for several days, amounted to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 20 (1992), in which the Committee notes that prolonged solitary confinement of the detained or imprisoned person may amount to acts of torture. 35 The Committee also recognizes the degree of suffering involved in being held without contact with the outside world.36 Furthermore, the Committee recalls that deprivation of liberty followed by a refusal by the State party to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty in effect removes the person from the protection of the law and places his or her life at serious and constant risk, for which the State is accountable.37 In the absence of information from the State party concerning the treatment of the author in detention during this period, the Committee gives due weight to the author’s allegations that his conditions of detention amounted to torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 38 and concludes that his treatment while in detention constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. In view of the above, the Committee considers that it is not necessary to examine the claims under article 10 (1) with regard to the same facts. 7.5 The Committee observes that, after the author lodged a complaint regarding his torture and ill-treatment during the period from 28 November to 5 December 2002, no effective investigation was carried out by the authorities of the State party. The Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, the State party has failed to demonstrate that its authorities addressed the torture allegations brought by the author expeditiously and adequately. 39 The author has demonstrated that he repeatedly endeavoured to report his allegations to the authorities of the State party on several occasions by filing complaints to the National Human Rights Commission, the Chief District Officer of the District Administration Office and the Supreme Court. The Committee considers that, particularly in the absence of any convincing explanations from the State party as concerns the author’s claims, which are supported by the testimonies he submits, due weight should be given to the author’s allegations. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee therefore concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, in regard to the ill-treatment the author was subjected to in November–December 2002. 7.6 Regarding the torture he was subjected to in March 2006, the author also invokes a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. In order to make the remedy effective, as stipulated in article 2 (3) of the Covenant, the State party is under a duty to investigate alleged violations of human rights promptly, impartially and thoroughly, to prosecute the suspected perpetrators, to punish those held responsible for 35 36 37 38 39 12 General comment No. 20 (1992), para. 6. Dhakal et al. v. Nepal, para. 11.7. Abushaala et al. v. Libya (CCPR/C/107/D/1913/2009), para. 6.2; Nakarmi and Nakarmi v. Nepal, para. 11.6; and Dhakal et al. v. Nepal, para. 11.6. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 58. Maharjan v. Nepal, para. 8.7; and Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon (CCPR/C/83/D/1134/2002), para. 5.2. Khoroshenko v. Russian Federation, para. 9.5.