CCPR/C/112/D/2051/2011 detention for about eight months and, despite his family’s efforts, refused to provide them with information concerning his whereabouts and officially denied his detention in a military facility. Furthermore, it is not refuted that the authorities moved and hid the detainees, including Jit Man Basnet, in different areas of the barracks every time the NHRC and ICRC visited them. The Committee, therefore, finds that the enforced disappearance of Jit Man Basnet deprived him of the protection of the law during that period, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 8.8 The authors invoke article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, which requires States parties to ensure that individuals have accessible, effective and enforceable remedies for asserting the rights recognized in the Covenant. The Committee reiterates the importance it attaches to States parties establishing appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing alleged violations of rights under domestic law. It refers to its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligations imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, in which it states that failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. In the present case, the Committee observes that Jit Man Basnet did not have access to an effective remedy while in detention and after his release. During his detention, Top Bahadur Basnet also approached several authorities looking for his cousin, including the authorities of the Bhairavnath barracks, who threatened him and refused to provide him with information about the whereabouts and fate of his cousin. Despite the authors’ efforts and the NHRC’s recommendations for investigation of 19 January 2005, almost after 10 years of Jit Man Basnet’s arrest no thorough and effective investigation has been conducted by the State party in order to elucidate the circumstances surrounding his detention and to bring the perpetrators to justice. Further, the 50,000 rupees granted to Jit Man Basnet by the NHRC as compensation does not constitute an adequate remedy commensurate to the serious violations inflicted. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 2, paragraph 3, in conjunction with articles 7, 9, 10 (para. 1) and 16, with regard to Jit Man Basnet; and of article 2, paragraph 3, in conjunction with article 7, with respect to Top Bahadur Basnet. 9. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the information before it discloses violations by the State party of articles 7, 9, 10 (para. 1) and 16; and of article 2, paragraph 3, read in conjunction with articles 7, 9, 10 (para. 1) and 16 of the Covenant with regard to Jit Man Basnet; and of articles 7 and article 2 (para. 3) in conjunction with article 7, with respect to Top Bahadur Basnet. 10. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy, including by: (a) conducting a thorough and effective investigation into the facts surrounding the detention of Jit Man Basnet and the treatment suffered at the Bhairavnath barracks; and prosecuting, trying and punishing those responsible for the violations committed; (b) providing the authors with detailed information about the results of this investigation; (c) providing adequate compensation to the authors for the violations suffered; (d) ensuring that the necessary and adequate psychological rehabilitation and medical treatment is provided to the authors; and (e) providing appropriate measures of satisfaction. The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future. In that connection, the State party should ensure that its legislation allows the criminal prosecution of the facts that constituted a violation of the Covenant. No. 1495/2006, Madoui v. Algeria, Views adopted on 28 October 2008, para. 7.7; and No. 1905/2009, Khirani v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 March 2012, para. 7.8. 12