CCPR/C/112/D/2083/2011 8.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not replied to the author’s claims concerning the merits of the case and recalls its jurisprudence, according to which the burden of proof should not lie solely with the author of a communication, especially given that the author and the State party do not always have the same degree of access to evidence and that often only the State party is in possession of the necessary information. 20 Consequently, and pursuant to article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, 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.21 In the absence of any explanations from the State party in this respect, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, provided they have been sufficiently substantiated. 8.4 The Committee notes that the author asserts that his son, Yahia Kroumi, was arrested by soldiers in his presence on 12 August 1994 at his home and has subsequently disappeared. It also notes that, according to the author, many persons arrested at the same time died during the first night of detention on account of the appalling conditions in which they were held. The author does not exclude the possibility that his son may have died that night. The Committee notes that the State party has produced no evidence refuting the author’s allegation. It 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. In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has produced no evidence to indicate that it has fulfilled its obligation to protect the life of Yahia Kroumi. It therefore concludes that the State party has failed in its duty to protect the life of Yahia Kroumi, in violation of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 22 8.5 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, which recommends that States parties should make provisions against incommunicado detention. It notes in the case in question that Yahia Kroumi was arrested by soldiers on 12 August 1994 and that his fate is still unknown. The Committee also takes note of the author’s allegations concerning the appalling conditions in which the disappeared person and the other persons arrested at the same time were detained and which caused the death of many persons during the first night of detention. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the State party, the Committee considers that the disappearance of Yahia Kroumi and the conditions in which the disappeared person was held during the first night constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to the author’s son.23 8.6 The Committee also takes note of the anguish and distress caused to the author by the disappearance of his son and by the uncertainty as to his fate. It considers that the facts 20 21 22 23 GE.14-22365 See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para. 7.4; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.3; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.3. See also International Court of Justice, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), judgment of 30 November 2010, para. 54. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; communication No. 1297/2004, Medjnoune v. Algeria, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 8.3; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.3. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.4; and Boudemai v. Algeria, para. 8.4. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.5; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.5; and communication No. 1295/2004, El Alwani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 11 July 2007, para. 6.5. 13