CED/C/10/D/1/2013 9.2 On 11 November, the authors asked the Committee for information on the procedural status of their communication and emphasized that nothing had changed since the time that they had submitted their latest comments. Committee’s consideration of the merits D. 10.1 The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. Since the State party has not submitted any observations on the merits of the communication, due weight must be given to the authors’ claims insofar as they have been substantiated. 10.2 Before proceeding to examine the authors’ claims as they relate to the articles of the Convention which they have invoked, the Committee must determine whether the acts to which Mr. Yrusta was subject constitute an enforced disappearance within the meaning of article 2 of the Convention. The Committee takes note of the authors’ claims that Mr. Yrusta was disappeared when he was being transferred from Córdoba to Santa Fe because neither he nor his family knew where he was being transferred and, for over seven days, his family members had no access to information concerning his whereabouts despite their repeated requests for information from the prison authorities. The Committee also notes that the prison registers to which the family members and the representative of Mr. Yrusta had access did not identify Mr. Yrusta correctly but instead gave three different names for him, which prevented the location of Mr. Yrusta during the different phases of his detention from being determi ned. Nor do the registers contain information regarding the authority who ordered his transfer, the reasons for it, the day or time of his transfer or the place to which he was transferred. The Committee observes that the State party has not provided any explanations on this point to the authors or the Committee. 10.3 The Committee recalls that, according to article 2 of the Convention, an enforced disappearance commences upon the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty. Therefore, an enforced disappearance may be initiated by an illegal detention or by an initially legal arrest or detention,8 as in the present case on the occasion of a transfer. The Committee further recalls that, in order to constitute an enforced disappearance, the deprivation of liberty must be followed by a refusal to acknowledge such deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law, regardless of the duration of the said deprivation of liberty or concealment.9 10.4 In the present case, the Committee considers that the prison authorities’ failure to respond to Mr. Yrusta’s family members’ requests for information as to his whereabouts and the lack of information about what happened during the period of more than days for which Mr. Yrusta’s whereabouts remained unknown constitute a concealment of his fate or whereabouts. The Committee considers that the lack of information or the refusal to acknowledge a deprivation of liberty constitute a form of concealment for the effects of article 2 of the Convention. In addition, throughout that time period, Mr. Yrusta was unable to communicate with anyone or to receive visits, and neither he nor his family had access to a court that would reach a decision without delay as to the lawfulness of Mr. Yrusta’s situation when he was transferred from the prison where he had been held. The Committee considers that the placement of a person outside the protection of the law is the consequence of the concealment of the arrested or detained person’s whereabouts. In such instances, detained persons are placed outside the protection of the law when, as a result of 8 9 14 See the general comment of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on the definition of enforced disappearances (A/HRC/7/2, para. 26), para. 7. Ibid., paras. 8 and 9. GE.16-05682