CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012 or any other official authorized by law to exercise judicial power, and that he could not take proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. In the absence of a response from the State party in that regard, the Committee considers that the detention of the author’s husband constitutes a violation of his rights under article 9 of the Covenant. 10.9 With regard to the alleged violation of article 16, the Committee notes the author’s allegations that her husband was arrested by policemen in her presence; that since then the State party has failed to provide her with relevant information concerning her husband’s fate and whereabouts; and that no effective investigation has been carried out to ascertain his whereabouts, maintaining him outside the protection of the law since then. The Committee is of the view that the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law constitutes a refusal of the right to recognition as a person before the law, in particular if the efforts of his or her relatives to obtain access to effective remedies have been systematically impeded.16 The Committee, therefore, finds that the enforced disappearance of Mr. Nepali deprives him of the protection of the law and of his right to recognition as a person before the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 10.10 The author invokes article 2 (3) of the Covenant, which imposes on States parties the obligation to ensure an effective remedy for all persons whose rights under the Covenant have been violated. The Committee attaches importance to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations. It refers to paragraph 15 of its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, which provides, inter alia, that failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. In the present case, the Committee observes that shortly after the detention of the author’s husband, she approached different police offices seeking information and later filed a writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court and complained to the National Human Rights Commission. Despite the author’s efforts, more than 17 years after the disappearance of her husband no thorough and effective investigation has been concluded by the State party in order to elucidate the circumstances surrounding his detention, enforced disappearance and alleged death, and no criminal investigation has even been started to bring the perpetrators to justice. The State party has failed to explain the effectiveness and adequacy of the investigations carried out by the authorities and the concrete steps taken to clarify the circumstances surrounding Mr. Nepali’s disappearance and possible death. It has also failed to locate his mortal remains and return them to his family. Therefore, the Committee considers that the State party has failed to conduct a prompt, thorough and effective investigation into the disappearance of Mr. Nepali. Additionally, the Nr 100,000 received by the author as interim relief does not constitute an adequate remedy commensurate with the serious violations inflicted. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 2 (3), in conjunction with articles 6 (1), 7, 9 and 16, with regard to Mr. Nepali, and article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7 of the Covenant, with respect to the author. 11. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4), of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of articles 6, 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant; and of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant with regard to Mr. Nepali. The facts also disclose violations of article 7, and article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7, with respect to the author. 12. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to (a) conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the 16 12 See Tharu and others v. Nepal, para. 10.9, and Serna and others v. Colombia, para. 9.5.