CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012 claims that although she was denied access to her husband, the manner in which the policeman on duty took the clothes to pass on to him indicated an implicit acknowledgement that he was indeed being held inside the police premises. After that date, she went to police headquarters almost every day but her requests to see her husband were always refused. 2.6 On 10 June 1999, the author and a friend, K.B., visited police headquarters again and handed over some more clean clothes for her husband. The policeman on duty gave her some dirty clothes belonging to her husband for washing. Afterwards, the author and her friend walked to a nearby hill, from which they could have a view of the inner compound of the building. The author claims that from this place, they saw her husband for approximately two minutes as he was taken to and from the toilet by a single policeman. He was handcuffed, but looked in fairly good physical condition. The author shouted out to get her husband’s attention, but she was too far away and he did not hear her. The author submits that this was the only time she saw him following his arrest. On 20 June 1999, Mr. Nepali’s relatives submitted a written appeal to the Parliament requesting that his whereabouts be made public and that he be immediately released from police custody. 2.7 On 12 July 1999, the Supreme Court quashed the writ of habeas corpus submitted by A.M., because it had not been established that Mr. Nepali was in fact in detention, as A.M. had failed to provide information to the Court concerning the location where he was being held. The Court pointed out that the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Nepal Police Headquarters and the District Administration Office in Kathmandu, stated that they had not arrested Mr. Nepali and that he was not in their custody. 2.8 The author claims that on 6 August 1999, the Prime Minister met members of the Families of Victims of State Disappearance Association, co-founded by her, and that in reply to a request for information, the Prime Minister said that their relatives who had disappeared, including Mr. Nepali, had already been killed. The author requested the assistance of Amnesty International, which on 13 August 1999 issued an urgent action appeal calling on the Nepalese authorities for information on the whereabouts of eight individuals arrested between November 1998 and May 1999, including her husband. 2.9 On 17 August 1999, the author lodged a writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court in favour of her husband. The Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Chief District Officer and the Nepal Police Headquarters informed the Court that they had not detained Mr. Nepali. The Sub-inspector of the District Police Office in Hannumandhoka stated that the author’s allegations as to the detention of her husband on 21 May 1999 by the police were false; that no police personnel were sent to arrest him; and that he had not been illegally detained, tortured or made to disappear by the police. 2.10 On 31 August 1999, a national daily newspaper Mahanagar Daily, published an article, which stated that Mr. Nepali and five other persons arrested as suspected Maoists had been kept in conditions of high security at the premises of the Western Regional Riot Control Armed Police Force in Pokhara, Kaski District, and that although the Prime Minister had stated that they had already been killed, certain sources indicated that they were still alive and had been tortured by the police. 2 The author maintains that she could not verify this information and that she was unable to go to Pokhara to search for her husband as she had to take care of her two young children. She further claims that this was the last time that she received any news concerning her husband’s fate and whereabouts. 2 The author provides a copy of the original article of the Mahanagar Daily and a translation into English. 3