CCPR/C/112/D/2051/2011 a result of the loopholes in the existing legislation concerning enforced disappearance and torture, perpetrators of those crimes are almost impossible to prosecute and sanction. The complaint 3.1 The authors argue that Jit Man Basnet was victim of enforced disappearance and that the State party violated his rights under articles 7, 9, 10 and 16, alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3. As for Top Bahadur Basnet, his rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant were violated. 3.2 Jit Man Basnet was subjected to enforced disappearance, as he was arbitrarily deprived of his liberty by State party’s officials, held incommunicado at the Bhairavnath barracks between 4 February and 18 October 2004 and hence placed outside the protection of the law. His enforced disappearance and incommunicado detention amount per se to a treatment contrary to article 7. In addition, while in detention, he was also subjected to torture and other forms of physical and psychological ill-treatment. The authors request the Committee to consider those violations within the general context of systematic human rights violations existing in the State party against those suspected of being Maoists,4 in particular in the Bhairavnath barracks.5 3.3 The authorities arrested Jit Man Basnet, without providing the legal grounds. His detention was not entered in any official record or registered and his relatives and defence counsel were not allowed to see him. He was 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. Those facts amount to violations of article 9. 3.4 Jit Man Basnet’s incommunicado detention and enforced disappearance, as well as the conditions to which he was subjected, constitute by themselves violations of article 10 of the Covenant. 3.5 Jit Man Basnet’s incommunicado detention for over nine months placed him outside the protection of the law. In that regard, the authors point out that each time NHRC representatives or ICRC delegates visited the Bhairavnath barracks, he was moved and hidden in different areas of the barracks in order to prevent him from obtaining any form of protection or access to a possible remedy. Consequently, the State party is responsible for a violation of his rights under article 16. 3.6 The State party failed to carry out an ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation concerning Jit Man Basnet’s arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, torture and severe ill-treatment, and those responsible have not been sanctioned. The existing legal framework is not effective and it materially leaves victims and their relatives without remedy, further fostering impunity. The use of habeas corpus is in practice illusory in cases of enforced disappearance. Habeas corpus decisions issued by the courts against the security forces are said not to be complied with. In addition, the success of the habeas corpus procedure is dependent upon the admission of the security forces that the person sought is in their custody. Only then can the military authorities even be asked to explain why a person should remain in detention. A central difficulty in such 4 5 6 The authors refer to the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, report on his visit to Nepal (see note 1 above), paras. 26 and 3; and Committee against Torture, concluding observations on Nepal (CAT/C/NPL/CO/2) of 13 April 2007, paras. 13 and 24. The authors refer to the OHCHR report of investigation into arbitrary detention, torture and disappearance at Maharajgunj RNA barracks (see note 2 above), paras. 27–44.