CCPR/C/112/D/2083/2011 simple violation of article 10 of the Covenant as generally recognized by the Committee and that they constitute a violation of article 7.6 3.4 With reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 7 the author moreover considers that he is himself a victim of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant on account of the uncertainty surrounding the circumstances of his son’s disappearance and his fate, which is a source of deep and continual anxiety and suffering. The author asserts that the authorities’ denial of his son’s arrest, which he himself witnessed, together with their inaction and the impunity of those responsible and the obligation for the author to acknowledge his son’s death without the circumstances being clarified in the context of the implementation of Ordinance No. 06-01, also constitute violations of article 7 of the Covenant in respect of the author. 3.5 The author contends that the arrest and incommunicado detention of his son, which have still not been acknowledged by the State party, constitute arbitrary arrest and detention in breach of article 9 (paras. 1 to 5) of the Covenant: the disappeared person was arrested without a warrant; he was not notified of the reasons for his arrest or of the charges against him; he was not brought before a judicial authority and was not allowed to challenge the lawfulness of his arrest. In addition, he was not able to request reparation for his arbitrary arrest and detention and no reparation has been made for them to the members of his family. 3.6 According to the author, his son was also the victim of a violation of his right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person during his detention, in breach of article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. In this regard, the author recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence that enforced disappearance constitutes a violation of article 10 of the Covenant. 8 The author also refers to his son’s conditions of detention and concludes that the State party has violated the rights of his son as guaranteed by article 10. 3.7 The author considers that, because of his incommunicado detention, his son was not able to assert his fundamental rights, in breach of his right to recognition as a person before the law guaranteed under article 16 of the Covenant. The author refers to the Committee’s established jurisprudence, according to which intentionally removing a person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time may constitute a denial of his or her right to recognition as a person before the law if the victim was in the hands of the State authorities when last seen and if the efforts of his or her relatives to obtain access to potentially effective remedies, including legal remedies, have been systematically impeded. In such situations, disappeared persons are in practice deprived of the capacity to exercise their rights or to have recourse to any remedy as a direct consequence of the actions of the State, which must be interpreted as a refusal to recognize such victims as persons before the law.9 3.8 The author alleges that the circumstances in which his son was arrested at home, early in the morning, by the security forces without an arrest warrant, constitute an illegal 6 7 8 9 GE.14-22365 The author refers to communication No.188/1984, Portorreal v. Dominican Republic, Views adopted on 5 November 1987, para. 11, in which the Committee considered that the conditions of detention constituted a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Benaziza v. Algeria, para. 9.6; Boucherf v. Algeria, para. 9.7; Atamna v. Algeria, para. 7.7; Bousroual v. Algeria, para. 9.8; and Sarma v. Sri Lanka, para. 9.5. Communication No. 1469/2006, Sharma v. Nepal, Views adopted on 28 October 2008, para. 7.7. The author cites communication No. 1328/2004, Cheraitia v. Algeria, Views adopted on 10 July 2007; and Atmana v. Algeria. 5