CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012 remedy is required.11 In that respect, the Committee observes that the transitional justice bodies established by the Act on the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation are not judicial organs.12 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the investigation has been ineffective and unreasonably prolonged and that there are no obstacles to the examination of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 9.4 The Committee takes note of the State party’s observations that the author’s allegations are manifestly ill-founded. The Committee considers, however, that for the purposes of admissibility, the author has sufficiently substantiated her allegations with plausible arguments in support thereof. As all admissibility requirements have been met, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that on 21 May 1999 her husband was arrested by policemen in Sundhara, Kathmandu, and taken to police headquarters in Naxal, Kathmandu; that although he was incommunicado, she managed to see him within the police premises from a distance and for the last time on 10 June 1999; and that although she reported promptly the arrest and disappearance to the authorities and filed a writ of habeas corpus, no prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been carried out by the authorities. His fate and whereabouts remain unknown to date and no one has been summoned or convicted for those acts. In these circumstances, her husband is a victim of enforced disappearance. 10.3 The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the author’s allegations are based on mere suspicion and that within the habeas corpus proceedings she was unable to prove that her husband had been arrested and detained by the police or other State agents. The Committee reaffirms that the burden of proof cannot rest solely on the author of the communication, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to evidence, and that frequently the State party alone has access to the relevant information.13 It is implicit in article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol that the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all credible allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives, and to provide the Committee with the information available to it. In cases where the author has submitted allegations to the State party that are corroborated by credible evidence, and where further clarification depends on information that is solely in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider the author’s allegations substantiated, in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanations to the contrary presented by the State party. 10.4 The Committee recalls that while the Covenant does not explicitly use the term “enforced disappearance” in any of its articles, enforced disappearance constitutes a unique 11 12 13 10 See communication No. 1761/2008, Giri v. Nepal, Views adopted on 24 March 2011, para. 6.3. See communication No. 2038/2011, Tharu and others v. Nepal, Views adopted on 3 July 2015, para. 9.3. See communications No. 1422/2005, El Hassy v. the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 24 October 2007, para. 6.7, No. 1297/2004, Medjnoune v. Algeria, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 8.3, No. 1804/2008, Il Khwildy v. Libya, Views adopted on 1 November 2012, para. 7.2, and No. 2111/2011, Tripathi v. Nepal, Views adopted on 29 October 2014, para. 7.2.