CED/C/10/D/1/2013 the disappearance, they are prevented from availing themselves of the remedies which the laws of the State party place at their disposal10 in order to ensure that a court can reach a decision as to the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty, as occurred in this case. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that the acts to which Mr. Yrusta was subject over the period of more than seven days following his transfer to Santa Fe constitute an enforced disappearance, in violation of articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. 10.5 As for the authors’ claims under articles 17 and 18 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that, at the time of the events that gave rise to the present communication, Mr. Yrusta was serving a custodial sentence. In such a situation, the Committee emphasizes that States parties are in a special position to safeguard the rights of persons deprived of their liberty owing to the extent of the control that they exercise over such persons. 11 States parties are therefore under a special obligation to safeguard rights established in the Convention of persons deprived of their liberty and to take effective measures to ensure, inter alia, that the deprivation of liberty will not at any time become secret detention or an enforced disappearance. In this respect, the Committee notes that, according to the authors, Mr. Yrusta was transferred to Santa Fe, while under the impression that he was being transferred to Santiago del Estero Province, as he had requested, in order to be nearer to his family. The Committee notes that no agent of the State party provided any information whatsoever to the representatives or family members of Mr. Yrusta, or to himself, regarding his transfer. It further notes that Mr. Yrusta was held in isolation and was unable to communicate with anyone for more than seven days. The Committee recalls that, pursuant to article 17 of the Convention, “no one shall be held in secret detention” and that States parties are under an obligation to ensure that the relevant information concerning a person’s deprivation of liberty and his or her detention is available in detailed, accessible registers. Furthermore, pursuant to article 18 of the Convention, States parties shall “guarantee to any person with a legitimate interest […], such as relatives of the person deprived of liberty, their representative or their counsel, access to at least the following information: […] The whereabouts of the person deprived of liberty, including, in the event of a transfer to another place of deprivation of liberty, the destination and the authority responsible for the transfer”. 10.6 The Committee notes that Mr. Yrusta’s family members did not receive any information about his whereabouts and were not even told that he had been transferred to another prison. Although the right of family members to obtain information about a person’s arrest and place of detention may be restricted, such restriction is subject to very strict conditions as set out in article 20 (1) of the Convention, which, judging from the available information, do not apply in the present case. In this respect, the Committee notes that the State party has not made any allegation, nor has provided any explanation regarding the status of its national legislation on such restrictions. In view of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the fact that Mr. Yrusta and his family, including the authors, were deprived of information for a period of over seven days constitutes in and of itself a violation of articles 17 (1), 18 and 20 (1) of the Convention. 10.7 Similarly, the Committee recalls that, pursuant to article 20 (2) of the Convention: “Without prejudice to consideration of the lawfulness of the deprivation of a person’s liberty, States Parties shall guarantee to the persons referred to in article 18, paragraph 1, the right to a prompt and effective judicial remedy as a means of obtaining without delay the information referred to in article 18, paragraph 1. This right to a remedy may not be suspended or restricted in any circumstances.” In the light of the information contained in the case file and in the absence of observations from the State party in this respect, the 10 11 GE.16-05682 See article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. See Committee against Torture, communication No. 456/2011, Guerrero Larez v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, decision adopted on 15 May 2015, paragraph 6.4. 15