CCPR/C/128/D/2893/2016 8.4 The Committee recalls that while the Covenant does not explicitly use the term “enforced disappearance” in any of its articles, enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts that represents a continuing violation of various rights recognized in the treaty, such as the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to liberty and security of person.30 8.5 The Committee notes that Mourad Bendjael was last seen by his brother Merouane Bendjael and by his friend A.B. at the end of May 1994 while in detention at the Châteauneuf barracks in Ben Aknoun. It takes note of the many contradictory pieces of information on the purported death of Mourad Bendjael, and of the summonses that were addressed to him, suggesting that the Algerian authorities still considered him alive at a date subsequent to his alleged death, as is reflected in the certificate of disappearance issued in his name. The Committee also notes that the State party has provided no information that might serve to determine Mourad Bendjael’s fate and has never even confirmed his detention. The Committee recalls that in cases of enforced disappearance, the deprivation of liberty, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate of the disappeared person, in effect removes that person from the protection of the law and places his or her life at serious and constant risk, for which the State is accountable.31 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has produced no evidence to indicate that it fulfilled its obligation to protect the life of Mourad Bendjael. The Committee therefore finds that the State party has failed in its duty to protect Mourad Bendjael’s life, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 8.6 Furthermore, 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 take steps to prohibit incommunicado detention. In the present case, it notes that after Mourad Bendjael’s brother Merouane saw him at the Châteauneuf barracks in May 1994, his family, including the authors, never again had access to even the slightest iota of information about his fate or his place of detention despite their repeated requests to the competent authorities of the State party. The Committee therefore considers that Mourad Bendjael, who disappeared on 4 May 1994 and was seen alive at the end of May 1994, was held incommunicado by the Algerian authorities for at least the intervening period of time. In the absence of any explanation from the State party, the Committee considers that the disappearance of Mourad Bendjael constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant in his regard.32 8.7 The Committee notes that Merouane Bendjael was himself also held incommunicado for 35 days. In the absence of any explanation from the State party in this regard, the Committee considers that this incommunicado detention constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to Merouane Bendjael. 8.8 In view of the above, the Committee will not consider separately the claims based on the violation of article 10 of the Covenant.33 8.9 The Committee also takes note of the anguish and distress caused to the authors and their family by Mourad Bendjael’s disappearance over 25 years ago. It considers that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to the authors. 34 30 31 32 33 34 GE.20-14556 Katwal v. Nepal (CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010), para. 11.3; Serna et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/104/D/2134/2012), para. 9.4; and El Boathi v. Algeria (CCPR/C/119/D/2259/2013), para. 7.4. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 58. Louddi v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2117/2011), para. 7.4; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.4; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.4. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 36, para. 58. Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.5; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.5; and El Alwani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/90/D/1295/2004), para. 6.5. Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.6. Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.6; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.6; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.6; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para. 7.5; and El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/91/D/1422/2005), para. 6.11. 11