CCPR/C/128/D/2893/2016 3.4 The authors recall the developments in the Committee’s jurisprudence regarding enforced disappearances and consider that the mere risk of loss of a person’s life in the context of enforced disappearance is enough to justify a finding of a direct violation of article 6 of the Covenant. In view of the facts surrounding the disappearance of Mourad Bendjael, they believe that the chances of finding him are growing slimmer by the day. The circumstances of his disappearance and the information obtained from the Algerian authorities suggest that he lost his life in detention. The authors therefore consider that the State party has failed in its obligations to protect Mourad Bendjael’s right to life and to take steps to find out what happened to him, in violation of article 2 (3) read in conjunction with article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 3.5 Recalling the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Mourad Bendjael, including the total lack of information on his detention, his state of health when his brother saw him at the Châteauneuf barracks and the absence of communication with his family and the outside world, the authors consider that Mourad Bendjael was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. They also recall that prolonged arbitrary detention increases the risk of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Furthermore, referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence, they emphasize that the anguish, uncertainty and distress caused by Mourad Bendjael’s disappearance constitute a form of inhuman or degrading treatment for his family. The authors also consider that Merouane Bendjael was the victim of inhuman and degrading treatment and torture and did not have access to an effective remedy. Consequently, the authors claim that the State party is responsible for a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to Mourad Bendjael and Merouane Bendjael, and of article 7 read in conjunction with article 2 (3) with regard to Mourad Bendjael and his family. 3.6 Bearing in mind the fact that Mourad Bendjael was held incommunicado without access to a lawyer and without being informed of the reasons for his arrest or the charges against him, that his detention was not entered in the police custody register and that there is no official record of his whereabouts or fate, the authors affirm that he was deprived of his right to liberty and security of person and that the investigations were not as effective as they should have been. They therefore consider that Mourad Bendjael was deprived of the guarantees set out in article 9 of the Covenant, and notably of access to an effective remedy, which amounts to a violation of this article read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) in his regard. 3.7 Merouane Bendjael recalls that he too was subjected to arbitrary detention: he was arrested on 6 May 1994 without a warrant and held in incommunicado detention for 35 days, during which time he was deprived of all contact with the outside world and of access to a lawyer. Two and a half years elapsed before he was brought before a judge. He was eventually acquitted on appeal, after having served his sentence in prison, but he received no compensation for this unlawful detention, in violation of the principle set out in article 9 (5) of the Covenant. Merouane Bendjael therefore had no access to an effective remedy, in violation of article 2 (3) read in conjunction with article 9 of the Covenant. 3.8 Recalling the provisions of article 10 of the Covenant, the authors argue that, in the absence of any investigation by the Algerian authorities, Mourad Bendjael was deprived of his liberty and was not treated with humanity and dignity, which constitutes a violation of article 10 of the Covenant in his regard. They consider that the same article was violated with regard to Merouane Bendjael, who was held in incommunicado detention, then in police custody, and was eventually sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment without there being any significant evidence against him. 3.9 Recalling the provisions of article 14 of the Covenant and paragraph 9 of the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007), Malika Bendjael states that all procedures initiated with the judicial authorities proved unsuccessful. Moreover, the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation and article 45 of Ordinance No. 06-01 are an impediment to any legal action against State agents, preventing Malika Bendjael from having her case heard. The State party therefore violated article 14 of the Covenant in her regard. 3.10 The authors also recall article 16 of the Covenant and the Committee’s established jurisprudence according to which the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time may constitute a denial of recognition as a person 6 GE.20-14556