CCPR/C/112/D/2051/2011 investigation into his alleged illegal detention, disappearance and torture after his release; and that, although 10 years have elapsed since the alleged violations were committed, the investigation has not come to any conclusion yet. The Committee observes that the State party has contested the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies in a general fashion. However, it has not explained to the Committee which concrete remedies could adequately and effectively satisfy the claims made by each of the authors. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that, in cases of serious violations, a judicial remedy is required.7 In that respect, the Committee observes that the transitional justice bodies to be established are not judicial organs and considers that the investigation in relation to Jit Man Basnet’s case has been unreasonably prolonged. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that there are no obstacles to the examination of the communication under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of other obstacles to admissibility, the Committee considers the communication admissible and proceeds to the examination of the claims with respect to Jit Man Basnet under articles 7, 9, 10 and 16, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3; as well as Top Bahadur Basnet under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee takes note of the authors’ unrefuted allegations that Jit Man Basnet was arrested by persons wearing the Army’s uniform on 4 February 2004 and taken to the Bhairavnath Battalion barracks, where he was held incommunicado, with no access to his family, a lawyer or anyone else from the outside world until the first week of October 2004; and that during that time the authorities refused to inform his family that he was being kept at Bhairavnath barracks or elsewhere. Furthermore, the authorities did not collaborate with the investigation carried out by the NHRC to discover Jit Man Basnet’s fate and whereabouts. The Committee therefore considers that Jit Man Basnet’s deprivation of liberty, followed by the authorities’ refusal to acknowledge it and the concealment of his fate, constituted an enforced disappearance. 8.3 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, in which it recommends that States parties make provision against incommunicado detention. It notes that, in the present case, Jit Man Basnet was kept incommunicado between 4 February and the first week of October 2004, without contact with the outside world. It also takes note of the authors’ allegation that he was tortured, in particular during the first days of his detention, while being interrogated. The Committee observes that the State party has limited its response to maintaining that, on 18 October 2004, Jit Man Basnet was released from custody of the security forces unharmed. However, the State party has not provided any response to the authors’ allegation regarding the specific circumstances of his detention, nor has it refuted the allegations of torture and findings of the NHRC in this respect. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that keeping Jit Man Basnet in captivity without allowing any contact with his family and the outside world, and subjecting him to acts of torture amount to a violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 7 10 See communication No. 1761/2008, Giri v. Nepal, Views adopted on 24 March 2011, para. 6.3.