CCPR/C/112/D/2051/2011 8.4 The Committee notes the anguish and distress caused to Top Bahadur Basnet by the disappearance of his cousin Jit Man Basnet, from the time of his arrest until the first week of October 2004, when he managed to gain access to the Bhairavnath barracks and confirm that his cousin was alive. The Committee observes that, during that period, Top Bahadur Basnet took over the responsibility as head of the Basnet family and provided for his cousin’s four sisters and father, and that both authors have not only a formal family link, but a very close relationship since they grew up living in the same house as one family. It also observes that, soon after Jit Man Basnet disappeared, Top Bahadur Basnet submitted a request for investigation to the NHRC and addressed himself to several authorities and private institutions in order to establish his cousin’s whereabouts; and that he received contradicting information as to his cousin’s fate and whereabouts by the authorities, who officially denied the detention. In the particular circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that the facts before it also disclose a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to Top Bahadur Basnet.8 8.5 With regard to the alleged violation of article 9, the Committee notes the authors’ allegations that, on 4 February 2004, Jit Man Basnet was arrested without a warrant, held incommunicado at the RNA’s Bhairavnath barracks and never brought before a judge or any other official authorized by law to exercise judicial power; nor could he take proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. The State party has not refuted those allegations. Accordingly, in the absence of any pertinent explanations from the State party, the Committee considers that Jit Man Basnet’s detention constitutes a violation of his rights under article 9 of the Covenant. 8.6 Regarding the complaint under article 10, paragraph 1, the Committee reiterates that persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty and that they must be treated with humanity and respect for their dignity. 9 In the instant case, the Committee notes the authors’ claims that Jit Man Basnet was handcuffed behind his back and blindfolded for long periods, that he was kept in a tent with holes which was inadequate for winter weather, that there was only one toilet for more than 100 detainees and that food was of very poor quality and served in small quantities. In view of his incommunicado detention, the treatment inflicted on him and the harsh conditions of detention, the Committee finds that the author’s rights under article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant have been violated. 8.7 In respect of article 16, the Committee reiterates its established jurisprudence, according to which intentionally removing a person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time may constitute a refusal of recognition as a person before the law if the victim was in the hands of the State authorities when last seen and, at the same time, if the efforts of his or her relatives to obtain access to potentially effective remedies, including judicial remedies (see art. 2, para. 3, of the Covenant) have been systematically impeded.10 In the present case, the authorities subjected Jit Man Basnet to incommunicado 8 9 10 See communication No. 1640/2007, El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 7.5; No. 1295/2004, El Awani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 11 July 2006, para. 4; No. 107/1981, Quinteros v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 21 July 1983, para. 14; and No. 950/2000, Sarma v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 16 July 2003, para. 9.5. See general comment No. 21 (1992) on humane treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, para. 3; and communications No. 1779/2008, Mezine v. Algeria, Views adopted on 25 October 2011, para. 8.8; No. 1780/2008, Zarzi v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2011, para. 7.8; and No. 1134/2002, Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 17 March 2005, para. 5.2. See communications No. 1640/2007, El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (see note 8 above), para. 7.9; No. 1327/2004, Grioua v. Algeria , Views adopted on 10 July 2007, para. 7.8; 11