CCPR/C/112/D/2069/2011 Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims regarding the arrest and interrogation of her husband, his subsequent trial and his enforced disappearance. The Committee also notes that the State party has not provided observations regarding any of these claims. The Committee reaffirms that the burden of proof cannot rest solely on the author of the communication, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to the relevant information.5 It is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, that the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives and to provide the Committee with the information available to it. In cases where the author has submitted allegations to the State party that are corroborated by credible evidence and where further clarification depends on information that is solely in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider the author’s allegations substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanations to the contrary presented by the State party. 6.3 The Committee notes that, based on the uncontested information provided by the author, Mr. Shikhmuradov was arrested, tried and sentenced to life imprisonment, and since that time, has not been able to communicate with his wife or any other members of the family. It further notes that it also remains uncontested that Mr. Shikhmuradov’s whereabouts are unknown, and that his wife and his relatives do not have any information about his health or well-being, in spite of numerous attempts to contact different authorities. The author states that she is not even sure whether her husband is alive. The Committee notes that the State party has not refuted the author’s allegation that, for 12 years, there was no contact with her husband, and the authorities never provided her with any indication regarding her husband’s whereabouts. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that, in cases of enforced disappearance, deprivation of liberty followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate of the disappeared person removes the person from the protection of the law and places his or her life at a serious and constant risk for which the State is accountable.6 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has produced no evidence to show that it has met its obligation to protect the life of Mr. Shikhmuradov during the 12 years that have passed since his conviction. In the circumstances, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the State party failed in its duty to protect Mr. Shikhmuradov’s life, in violation of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.7 6.4 The Committee recognizes the degree of suffering involved in being held without contact with the outside world. It recalls its general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which recommends that States parties should make provision against incommunicado detention. It notes that, in the present case, it remains uncontested that Mr. Shikhmuradov has been kept incommunicado in an undisclosed location, with no access to family, a lawyer or anyone from the outside world. The Committee also takes note of the author’s claim in regard to 5 6 7 El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para. 6.7; communication No. 1297/2004, Medjnoune v. Algeria, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 8.3, and communication No. 1804/2008, Il Khwildy v. Libya, Views adopted on 1 November 2012, para. 7.2. Abushaala v. Libya, para. 6.2. Il Khwildy v. Libya, para. 7.12. 7